Caltrans External Exit Tabs & 240 Inch Tall Overhead Signs

[jakeroot]

I wasn't sure what to think of it because I haven't seen much examples of left exit external tabs so I decided to do some research...

Here are some photos of left exit external tabs at the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange

Looking at those photos especially the I-95/I-276 split, I think those signs got a lot of things right. I do think the Exit 442 tab is oversized, but the "LEFT" text is still aligned with the "EXIT" text which makes it better than the internal left exit tabs I have seen. But the sign right below could have been better. The yellow exit rectangle shape should have taken up the whole width of the sign, and the CA 1 sign has the same problem too.

So... baby steps I guess?

I don't recall California having adopted the federal MUTCD, so I don't think full-width exit/only plaques would be appropriate. California's inset exit only plaques look a little better in my opinion anyways, I like having a single color for the sign border.

When you are referring to the other internal left exit tabs, could you provide an example? Do you mean the square ones, where it says "LEFT" and then "EXIT" below that, and the exit number below that? Or a wider one where it says "LEFT EXIT xxx" all in one line? I think the latter example, where everything is one line, is still my preference. The MUTCD-style left exit tabs look stupid, they're like the same height as some guide signs.

[Techknow]

I don't recall California having adopted the federal MUTCD, so I don't think full-width exit/only plaques would be appropriate. California's inset exit only plaques look a little better in my opinion anyways, I like having a single color for the sign border.

Yeah that's a good point that Caltrans deviates from the federal MUTCD, although they last updated their MUTCD 18 months ago. I haven't look at it yet but I like to see how it describes exit tab implementations.

When you are referring to the other internal left exit tabs, could you provide an example? Do you mean the square ones, where it says "LEFT" and then "EXIT" below that, and the exit number below that? Or a wider one where it says "LEFT EXIT xxx" all in one line? I think the latter example, where everything is one line, is still my preference. The MUTCD-style left exit tabs look stupid, they're like the same height as some guide signs.

When I said "I haven't seen much examples of left exit external tabs" I meant the left exit external tabs on I-80 in San Francisco. Those and this one on CA 1 are the only external exit tabs I ever seen in California and they are the square-like ones that use two lines of text. The I-95 photos I linked also show tabs of that variety.

Having said that I have been to other states and D.C. in my life and yes there are external exit tabs there... but I wasn't obsessed about exit tabs like I am now.

[jakeroot]

When you are referring to the other internal left exit tabs, could you provide an example? Do you mean the square ones, where it says "LEFT" and then "EXIT" below that, and the exit number below that? Or a wider one where it says "LEFT EXIT xxx" all in one line? I think the latter example, where everything is one line, is still my preference. The MUTCD-style left exit tabs look stupid, they're like the same height as some guide signs.

When I said "I haven't seen much examples of left exit external tabs" I meant the left exit external tabs on I-80 in San Francisco. Those and this one on CA 1 are the only external exit tabs I ever seen in California and they are the square-like ones that use two lines of text. The I-95 photos I linked also show tabs of that variety.

Having said that I have been to other states and D.C. in my life and yes there are external exit tabs there... but I wasn't obsessed about exit tabs like I am now.

I thought you were referring to other internal left exit tabs that you've seen, unless this was a mistake:

... but the "LEFT" text is still aligned with the "EXIT" text which makes it better than the internal left exit tabs I have seen.

[Rothman]

I thought every state had to adopt the MUTCD, but have been free to add their own huge supplements to it.

[kphoger]

I thought every state had to adopt the MUTCD, but have been free to add their own huge supplements to it.

Then we should trade California for that part of Canada where everyone lives.  Then we could get rid of the unacceptably long 80/90 concurrency.  I don't know how you guys can even sleep at night.  This solution is obvious.  I think this is needed.

[Max Rockatansky]

I thought every state had to adopt the MUTCD, but have been free to add their own huge supplements to it.

Then we should trade California for that part of Canada where everyone lives.  Then we could get rid of the unacceptably long 80/90 concurrency.  I don't know how you guys can even sleep at night.  This solution is obvious.  I think this is needed.

I can only sleep after I drink heavily.  Having knowledge about what needs to be done to break up the I-80/I-90 concurrency and not acting weighs on the soul after awhile.

[jakeroot]

I thought every state had to adopt the MUTCD, but have been free to add their own huge supplements to it.

I don't think there has ever been a requirement that a state adopt any MUTCD (federal or state), but for obvious reasons, it's in their best interest to do so.

There are states, like Washington, or Arizona, that have adopted the federal MUTCD but have their own supplement (either in-line modifications, like Alaska, or a literal extra document(s) like in Washington State). But there are other states, like California, that literally have their own MUTCD ("California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices") that is, by and large, substantially similar to the federal MUTCD, but is fundamentally different in numerous ways. Not so different that drivers are confused when they travel in California compared to other parts of the US, but different enough that we, and the engineers who put it together, will notice and, in some cases, appreciate.

[roadfro]

I thought every state had to adopt the MUTCD, but have been free to add their own huge supplements to it.

I don't think there has ever been a requirement that a state adopt any MUTCD (federal or state), but for obvious reasons, it's in their best interest to do so.

There are states, like Washington, or Arizona, that have adopted the federal MUTCD but have their own supplement (either in-line modifications, like Alaska, or a literal extra document(s) like in Washington State). But there are other states, like California, that literally have their own MUTCD ("California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices") that is, by and large, substantially similar to the federal MUTCD, but is fundamentally different in numerous ways. Not so different that drivers are confused when they travel in California compared to other parts of the US, but different enough that we, and the engineers who put it together, will notice and, in some cases, appreciate.

There is a requirement for states to adopt the national MUTCD or a state supplement, at least according to this page on their website:

MUTCDs & Traffic Control Devices Information by State

The 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Edition was published on December 16, 2009. The adopted changes were effective on January 15, 2010. 23 CFR provides the States with a 2-year period from the effective date to adopt the MUTCD. Therefore, by January 15, 2012 States were required to have adopted the National Manual or have a State MUTCD/supplement that is in substantial conformance with the National Manual. The role of our 52 FHWA Division Offices (50 States plus Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.) is to review any State MUTCD or supplement to determine if it is in substantial conformance with the National MUTCD. [23CFR 655.603(b)]

I didn't go reading through the Code of Federal Regulations to confirm, but I've understood that the adoption/substantial conformance requirement is tied to distribution of federal highway funding. So I guess it's not a strict requirement, but states risk losing funding if they don't.

[jakeroot]

I didn't go reading through the Code of Federal Regulations to confirm, but I've understood that the adoption/substantial conformance requirement is tied to distribution of federal highway funding. So I guess it's not a strict requirement, but states risk losing funding if they don't.

That's more or less what I was getting at when I said "...for obvious reasons, it's in their best interest to do so". If a state chooses to go it their own, well, they are totally free to do that. But they shouldn't expect a cent from federal coffers.

I think a bigger issue might actually be states putting themselves in an actionable position by doing things their own way. If Texas decided to adopt Vienna regulatory signage, they certainly could...nothing is physically stopping them. But if an accident were to occur, the state could be found liable for failing to install FHWA-approved signage, which they are required to do. Court cases like that are ultimately what could force a state's hand in the end.

[therocket]

I just saw these new exit tabs on CA-91 in Buena Park (CA-39 interchange).

[Rothman]

I didn't go reading through the Code of Federal Regulations to confirm, but I've understood that the adoption/substantial conformance requirement is tied to distribution of federal highway funding. So I guess it's not a strict requirement, but states risk losing funding if they don't.

That's more or less what I was getting at when I said "...for obvious reasons, it's in their best interest to do so". If a state chooses to go it their own, well, they are totally free to do that. But they shouldn't expect a cent from federal coffers.

I think a bigger issue might actually be states putting themselves in an actionable position by doing things their own way. If Texas decided to adopt Vienna regulatory signage, they certainly could...nothing is physically stopping them. But if an accident were to occur, the state could be found liable for failing to install FHWA-approved signage, which they are required to do. Court cases like that are ultimately what could force a state's hand in the end.

Sure, but it doesn't sound like this has been an issue for California.

[Scott5114]

Most of California's deviations from the federal manual are to guide signage and route markers. It'd be pretty hard to make a case that someone got in a wreck because of an internal exit tab or a cutout US route marker.

[jakeroot]

Indeed. And I was referring specifically to cases where states were installing signage and/or markings that were not approved by the FHWA; California has received approval for everything that they do, so they should be shielded from any legal action.

[myosh_tino]

So these signs went up on southbound CA-85 in south San Jose a few weeks ago.  I believe this is the first installation of the new versatile truss in Santa Clara County.



Interesting to note the HOV-to-HOV connector ramp is signed with an exit number even though during Caltrans' initial roll out of exit numbering in California, these types of ramps were not supposed to numbered.

[SeriesE]

So these signs went up on southbound CA-85 in south San Jose a few weeks ago.  I believe this is the first installation of the new versatile truss in Santa Clara County.



Interesting to note the HOV-to-HOV connector ramp is signed with an exit number even though during Caltrans' initial roll out of exit numbering in California, these types of ramps were not supposed to numbered.

I wonder if anyone can estimate the size of the exit tab from this picture

[Scott5114]

- sign for right exit
- on right side of the gantry
- with arrow pointing right

Clearly the arrow needs to go on the left edge of the sign. Great going, Caltrans.

I wonder if anyone can estimate the size of the exit tab from this picture

They look to be identical to the federal 2012 spec for exit tabs to me. If so that would make them 132" × 30".

[myosh_tino]

- sign for right exit
- on right side of the gantry
- with arrow pointing right

Clearly the arrow needs to go on the left edge of the sign. Great going, Caltrans.

I think that arrow is supposed to be centered over the far right lane.

I wonder if anyone can estimate the size of the exit tab from this picture

They look to be identical to the federal 2012 spec for exit tabs to me. If so that would make them 132" × 30".

I agree 100%.

[Techknow]

So these signs went up on southbound CA-85 in south San Jose a few weeks ago.  I believe this is the first installation of the new versatile truss in Santa Clara County.



Interesting to note the HOV-to-HOV connector ramp is signed with an exit number even though during Caltrans' initial roll out of exit numbering in California, these types of ramps were not supposed to numbered.

Oh wow... I was on CA 85 last week but exited on CA 17 to Santa Cruz (where I got my left exit external tab photo!).

I don't have a photo of this location before the signs got replaced, but I do have a photo of the BGS past it (after exit 1C) so I be curious to see how it has changed (besides any new exit tabs, whether or not the whole BGS has US 101 which I thought was redundant): https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11212.msg2667421#msg2667421

If it were not for the confirmation that the exit tabs are FHWA-spec signs, I would have said they look too big compared to Caltrans' internal exit tabs (or maybe the internal exit tabs are too small for the last 20 years?)

The Exit 1A sign seems to have the same text placement as the exit 2B sign on I-80 which makes sense to me b/c both are in Caltrans District 4

Your HOV sign observation is interesting too b/c in my old photo the HOV sign isn't numbered so it's possible Caltrans is setting another new precedent for themselves?

[Scott5114]

I think that arrow is supposed to be centered over the far right lane.

That's not how exit direction signs are supposed to work...

[myosh_tino]

I think that arrow is supposed to be centered over the far right lane.

That's not how exit direction signs are supposed to work...

I thought there was something in the MUTCD where arrows on overhead signs were supposed to be positioned above the center of the lane but I guess I'm mistaken.

As for an alternative reason why this was done, the old sign had the arrow in the same position (lower left corner).
GMSV of old signs... https://goo.gl/maps/NBWXYVX5z4KVumwG9

[roadfro]

I think that arrow is supposed to be centered over the far right lane.

That's not how exit direction signs are supposed to work...

They're using MUTCD-spec exit tabs, so they had to get a little "Caltrans-y" with the signs somehow...!

Agreed that the arrow is likely centered over the lane in this context, which Caltrans is want to do fairly frequently even when a standard exit direction sign and arrow would suffice.


The HOV exit sign leaves a lot to be desired. They're still using the full height diamond symbol instead of a smaller diamond and "HOV EXIT" banner above. Also, they didn't really need to display the HOV rules in that banner, which needlessly crowds that sign.

Also interesting that they left the "North" off of the exit 1B sign, when it was there before.


If Caltrans now has a sign gantry that can be flexible with sign heights and wind loading, they shouldn't be afraid to use slightly larger signs so that sign legends can be designed without being cramped. Everything on this assembly seems cramped except the exit tabs (which have too much space given the low number).

[roadfro]

I think that arrow is supposed to be centered over the far right lane.

That's not how exit direction signs are supposed to work...

I thought there was something in the MUTCD where arrows on overhead signs were supposed to be positioned above the center of the lane but I guess I'm mistaken.

Not sure that there's anything in the current MUTCD, except on multi-lane exits. I think something like that may have been proposed for the MUTCD, based on what I remember of some discussion here. (I never actually reviewed the whole proposed manual to submit comments, as I had planned.)

[Scott5114]

The new MUTCD proposed requiring arrow placement to the right of the legend on overhead signs and below it on ground-mounted signs. No official reasoning was given, but it was theorized that it may have been to prevent confusing an exit direction arrow for a lane-assignment arrow on overhead signs, and prevent brush from obscuring the arrow on ground-mounted signs.

J.N. Winkler and I (as well as I think Richard Moeur if I remember right) left comments objecting to the change. Mine is rooted in a belief that arrow-below-legend layouts aesthetically suck, but I believe all three of us actually commented to the effect that this would mostly serve to limit engineers' flexibility in choosing a sign layout suitable for a given situation.

[Occidental Tourist]

So here's the first time I've ever encountered left exit tabs indicating a break in the double-white lines for a carpool lane:

[Scott5114]

It's like watching an elderly family member who just learned how to use Microsoft Word proudly showing off her first ever church bulletin, clip art and all. Grandma finally figured out how to use the exit tab function of SignCAD and now she wants to use it on everything...