J N Winkler posted this in another thread:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-1W2204/
Giving a look at some of the documents now to see any interesting things come up.
from http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-1W2204/plans_and_specs/plans/07-1w2204_plans-pgs%20001-100.pdf -
- Several examples for resigning along the 210 where the new signs do NOT have exit numbers!
- Page 37: Interesting to see "210 West" replace "210 Pasadena." Also note the typo of "Irindale Avenue" rather than "Irwindale Avenue" in several of the example shots, though on the actual specific plan sheets, this is corrected
- I've seen this discussed in other threads, but interesting to note exit signage in which the control city has been removed (due to multiple exits serving that same suburb, or multiple suburbs are accessible from that exit), i.e. Citrus Avenue/Covina, Grand Avenue/Glendora.
- Retention of Route 91 and 107 signs off of 405 - though, from my trip in November along Artesia Boulevard, there are enough 91 trailblazers west of 405 for that to be navigationally useful.
- Hello again, Route 42!
- The Harbor Freeway name text remains at 405/110, obviously as part of the signing-in-place approach.
- Will freeway-to-freeway interchanges generally lack exit numbers? In the Bay Area they almost always have them; in Sacramento it is hit-or-miss (80/50 and 50 east at 99/Business 80 did not receive exit numbers in a 2009 sign replacement project)
- Page 94: The spacing between the 10 and 71 shields is a bit unusual
The layouts of some of the new signs left me scratching my head wondering what in the hell were they thinking?!? I know we have our quirks out here in California but some of these signs are flat out ugly.
Time permitting, I'm going to try to draw some of the more uglier signs, IMO, and offer a redesign using the same sized sign panel.
To kick things off, here is the oddly laid out CA-57 exit sign referenced by TheStranger on page 94...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fct-d7_211d.png&hash=55b7e06298554cf195ec44d7a61b73574b62f1af)
What laced drugs did the designers take to come up with that? Hopefully other Districts won't follow.
I find it more interesting that they seem to be getting rid of the full-height diamond tabs on HOV signs and replacing the word 'carpool' with 'HOV X+'.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 13, 2014, 03:25:08 AM
What laced drugs did the designers take to come up with that? Hopefully other Districts won't follow.
I'm with you on that! :clap:
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 13, 2014, 03:25:08 AM
I find it more interesting that they seem to be getting rid of the full-height diamond tabs on HOV signs and replacing the word 'carpool' with 'HOV X+'.
Caltrans adopted the new HOV signs which include the smaller diamond and the changing of "CARPOOL" to "HOV X+" in the 2012 California MUTCD to bring them more inline with national standards. It's one of the rare occurrences of Caltrans falling in line with the rest of the nation.
Quite frankly, I prefer the full-height diamond because it stands out due to its larger size.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 13, 2014, 04:45:59 AM
Caltrans adopted the new HOV signs which include the smaller diamond and the changing of "CARPOOL" to "HOV X+" in the 2012 California MUTCD to bring them more inline with national standards. It's one of the rare occurrences of Caltrans falling in line with the rest of the nation.
Quite frankly, I prefer the full-height diamond because it stands out due to its larger size.
Have they been implemented on the field yet prior to these designs?
Retaining the Route 19 shield on the 210 I see. Even though it doesn't start til south of the 105. Yes, THAT far away.
speaking of HOV standards, I'd really like it if Caltrans clarified the "HOV or toll" lane policy. (see: I-15 express lanes between Escondido and 163)
by law, it is an OR, but the way it the signs are fashioned, it is ambiguous as to whether or not it is OR or AND.
it took me several runs through, with the requisite number of people in the car, before I realized I could be using the express lanes even if I didn't have a transponder.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 13, 2014, 04:49:22 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 13, 2014, 04:45:59 AM
Caltrans adopted the new HOV signs which include the smaller diamond and the changing of "CARPOOL" to "HOV X+" in the 2012 California MUTCD to bring them more inline with national standards. It's one of the rare occurrences of Caltrans falling in line with the rest of the nation.
Quite frankly, I prefer the full-height diamond because it stands out due to its larger size.
Have they been implemented on the field yet prior to these designs?
AFAIK, these are the first signs sporting the new design. I'm 100% sure they have not been implemented in northern California.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 12, 2014, 07:57:28 PMJ N Winkler posted this in another thread:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-1W2204/
Just to thank you for opening this thread--I hadn't realized how much fodder for interesting discussion this contract offers.
Quote- Several examples for resigning along the 210 where the new signs do NOT have exit numbers!
Which ones? The only signs I see for service interchanges on this route which do not have either bitten-out or separately mounted exit tabs are advance guide signs for Myrtle Ave., Santa Anita Ave., Madre St., Buena Vista St., Mount Olive Dr., Irwindale Ave., Vernon Ave., Sunflower Ave., Fruit St., Foothill Blvd., and Towne Ave. With the lone exception of Towne Ave., all of these presumably comply with Caltrans exit numbering requirements on the basis that the corresponding exit direction signs do have tabs and Caltrans requires that the exit number be explicitly signed only once in the action signing sequence. I do not see an exit tab for the Towne Ave. exit direction sign; is it possible there is already one in place that is not being replaced and is not shown in the plans as an inplace sign?
Quote- I've seen this discussed in other threads, but interesting to note exit signage in which the control city has been removed (due to multiple exits serving that same suburb, or multiple suburbs are accessible from that exit), i.e. Citrus Avenue/Covina, Grand Avenue/Glendora.
This complies with the federal
MUTCD, which has long incorporated a guidance statement to the effect that city and street names should not be mixed on advance guide and exit direction signs. (I haven't checked to see if this statement has been transposed into the California MUTCD.)
Quote- Hello again, Route 42!
StreetView imagery (from January 2011) (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=I-405+and+Century+Blvd.,+Los+Angeles,+CA&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=405+E+Century+Blvd,+Los+Angeles,+California+90002&ll=33.920122,-118.36929&spn=0.003431,0.004823&t=k&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=33.920026,-118.369312&panoid=WHD14IHoB5tcjTR8HQFN7w&cbp=12,11.21,,0,5.81) shows the SR 42 shield still in place. My guess is that it has not been removed even though Faigin's site says SR 42 was relinquished in 2000. (As an aside, Caltrans is hardly the only slacker about revising interchange guide signs to reflect relinquished routes. I-235 in Wichita has an interchange sequence sign with a shield for K-2, which was pruned back to Norwich--30 miles west--almost fifteen years ago, and I am waiting to see if this will be carbon-copied in an impending I-235 sign replacement.)
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 13, 2014, 12:38:41 AMDo you think these replacements have something to do with MUTCD compliance with regards to retroreflectivity? Also, why is District 7 is so against putting control cities on guide signs? A number of the new signs omit a control city that was on the old signs.
I am sure retroreflectivity requirements are driving this sign replacement. As to some of the puzzling infelicities in sign design, same-footprint replacement of existing signs in combination with elimination of city destinations would explain why many of the signs are too large for their messages. It doesn't explain other things like the apparently random use of two-digit Interstate shields for three-digit routes, the interchange sequence sign on sheet 112 with street names that are not left-aligned, and the generally odd approach to vertical centering on many signs.
The odd spacing of the sign on sheet 94 ("To SR 71 I-10 use South SR 71 1 mile") is a more or less exact reproduction of the original (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Western+Ave,+Los+Angeles,+CA&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Western+Ave,+Glendale,+California+91201&ll=34.119874,-117.794032&spn=0.002438,0.004823&t=m&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=34.119871,-117.793696&panoid=XMVaPZqXl1l1lHLJI9dmTg&cbp=12,271.16,,0,13.62).
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 13, 2014, 12:40:14 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 13, 2014, 12:38:41 AMDo you think these replacements have something to do with MUTCD compliance with regards to retroreflectivity? Also, why is District 7 is so against putting control cities on guide signs? A number of the new signs omit a control city that was on the old signs.
I am sure retroreflectivity requirements are driving this sign replacement. As to some of the puzzling infelicities in sign design, same-footprint replacement of existing signs in combination with elimination of city destinations would explain why many of the signs are too large for their messages.
Which makes their omission even more puzzling. If the old sign panel had a control city, why was it not carried over to the new signs?
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 13, 2014, 12:40:14 PM
It doesn't explain other things like the apparently random use of two-digit Interstate shields for three-digit routes, the interchange sequence sign on sheet 112 with street names that are not left-aligned, and the generally odd approach to vertical centering on many signs.
The use of 2-digit Interstate shields for 3-digit routes has also crept into the S.F. Bay Area, most notably at the CA-92/I-880 interchange in Hayward. Many of the I-880 shields used on signs are the 36x36 2-digit shield. As for the non-left-aligned interchange sequence sign (which I missed) all I can say is... :wow: :banghead:
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 13, 2014, 12:40:14 PM
The odd spacing of the sign on sheet 94 ("To SR 71 I-10 use South SR 71 1 mile") is a more or less exact reproduction of the original (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Western+Ave,+Los+Angeles,+CA&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Western+Ave,+Glendale,+California+91201&ll=34.119874,-117.794032&spn=0.002438,0.004823&t=m&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=34.119871,-117.793696&panoid=XMVaPZqXl1l1lHLJI9dmTg&cbp=12,271.16,,0,13.62).
Yeah, I noticed that while trying to figure out where that sign is located. Either way, it's ugly and should never have existed.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 13, 2014, 09:37:54 AM
speaking of HOV standards, I'd really like it if Caltrans clarified the "HOV or toll" lane policy. (see: I-15 express lanes between Escondido and 163)
by law, it is an OR, but the way it the signs are fashioned, it is ambiguous as to whether or not it is OR or AND.
it took me several runs through, with the requisite number of people in the car, before I realized I could be using the express lanes even if I didn't have a transponder.
The 2009 MUTCD introduced sign standards for priced managed lanes. California did not adopt the 2009 MUTCD until 2012, and the I-15 project was substantially completed at that time. Future priced managed lane projects in California will follow the MUTCD, which calls for the term "Express Lane" and also will display the conditions for using the lane.
If the facility is "HOV or toll" the sign will display the occupancy requirement, the word "OR", and the FasTrak logo (examples are I-680 and SR-237 in the Bay Area).
If everyone needs to have a tag (example is I-10 and I-110 in LA), the signs will say "FasTrak ONLY". Even though carpoolers may get toll-free passage or a discount, the tag is still required. Supplemental signing will indicate if carpools get toll free passage and under what conditions. This type of supplemental signing is found on the I-495 express lanes in Virginia and the new express lanes on the I-635 freeway in Dallas.
In the case of the two express lanes in LA, you must have a switchable tag to get the discount. The signing doesn't convey this and as a result there are issues with people carpooling in the lanes and using regular FasTrak tags who don't get the discount. Caltrans will be working with Metro to address this issue. This may also require a re-branding of the switchable FasTrak tag to something like "FasTrak Flex". This is being looked at by the California Toll Operators Committee.
Signs on I-15 will be updated to the MUTCD standard when the existing signs reach the end of their service life or if the operational strategy changes and carpools will have to get a tag.
Quote from: jrouse on February 13, 2014, 01:06:48 PM
If the facility is "HOV or toll" the sign will display the occupancy requirement, the word "OR", and the FasTrak logo (examples are I-680 and SR-237 in the Bay Area).
I can, if needed, go and take photographs on I-15 where the word OR is missing. must be a district-by-district variation in compliance.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 13, 2014, 12:58:46 PM
The use of 2-digit Interstate shields for 3-digit routes has also crept into the S.F. Bay Area, most notably at the CA-92/I-880 interchange in Hayward. Many of the I-880 shields used on signs are the 36x36 2-digit shield.
are these standard shape, or the weird triangle shape?
I have no objection to 2-digit width shields for 3-digit routes. that's the original '57 spec.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NE/NE19614801i1.jpg)
even the California "use shorter, wider digits" variant is palatable.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19614052i1.jpg)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 13, 2014, 01:40:39 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 13, 2014, 12:58:46 PM
The use of 2-digit Interstate shields for 3-digit routes has also crept into the S.F. Bay Area, most notably at the CA-92/I-880 interchange in Hayward. Many of the I-880 shields used on signs are the 36x36 2-digit shield.
are these standard shape, or the weird triangle shape?
According to the signing plans, they are the standard shape. If you're referring to the angular 2-digit independent-mount interstate shields, I don't recall ever seeing them on guide signs in California.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 13, 2014, 01:49:53 PM
According to the signing plans, they are the standard shape. If you're referring to the angular 2-digit independent-mount interstate shields, I don't recall ever seeing them on guide signs in California.
they do exist, but it's more a trivia question than anything else. usually they're replacements for shields that have fallen off the green sign or otherwise needed to be rearranged. there are some triangle I-210 shields on the north segment of I-710 where the green signs were previously blank for years.
The way they plan to mount the exit number panels on that portion of the 210 beats what was done in Sylmar on the 210 from Yarnell to at least Hubbard. The exit tabs are mounted on the post BELOW the sign. It really makes no sense and looks hideous.
Of the CA exit number tab schemes I prefer the striped version that is popular in the SF bay area. It looks "cleaner", doesn't intrude into the message part of the sign.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 13, 2014, 01:37:22 PM
Quote from: jrouse on February 13, 2014, 01:06:48 PM
If the facility is "HOV or toll" the sign will display the occupancy requirement, the word "OR", and the FasTrak logo (examples are I-680 and SR-237 in the Bay Area).
I can, if needed, go and take photographs on I-15 where the word OR is missing. must be a district-by-district variation in compliance.
The I-15 signs are not MUTCD compliant, so there would be no "OR" in there. The signs were installed before California adopted the 2009 MUTCD.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 13, 2014, 12:58:46 PMWhich makes their omission [city names on signs that had a street name] even more puzzling. If the old sign panel had a control city, why was it not carried over to the new signs?
That has been deprecated by the federal
MUTCD for at least 14 years--Caltrans is just catching up. The operative phrase (always a Guidance statement) is "A city name and a street name on the same sign should be avoided," § 2E.09 in the Millennium and 2003 editions of the
MUTCD, moved to § 2E.10 in the 2009 edition. This provision has been carried through without change in the California MUTCD (or
MUTCD supplement, as applicable) since the 1996 Traffic Manual was substantially replaced by a supplement issued in 2003.
Quote from: sdmichael on February 13, 2014, 02:34:03 PMThe way they plan to mount the exit number panels on that portion of the 210 beats what was done in Sylmar on the 210 from Yarnell to at least Hubbard. The exit tabs are mounted on the post BELOW the sign. It really makes no sense and looks hideous.
I'm not sure about that--some but not all of the SR 210 signs are getting bitten-out tabs but quite a few are getting separate tabs. If box trusses are used on the 210, then each tab can be mounted next to the main sign panel on the box (an approach I have seen used elsewhere), but if they are Pratt trusses, then the separate tabs may very well end up on the posts below the main sign.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 13, 2014, 04:12:59 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 13, 2014, 12:58:46 PMWhich makes their omission [city names on signs that had a street name] even more puzzling. If the old sign panel had a control city, why was it not carried over to the new signs?
That has been deprecated by the federal MUTCD for at least 14 years--Caltrans is just catching up. The operative phrase (always a Guidance statement) is "A city name and a street name on the same sign should be avoided," § 2E.09 in the Millennium and 2003 editions of the MUTCD, moved to § 2E.10 in the 2009 edition. This provision has been carried through without change in the California MUTCD (or MUTCD supplement, as applicable) since the 1996 Traffic Manual was substantially replaced by a supplement issued in 2003.
Sorry, my bad. I should have been a bit clearer. I was referring to the lack of control cities on exit signs for other freeways and on pull-through signs. The I-210 pull through on the same gantry as the oddly laid out CA-57 exit sign that I drew earlier currently has a control city ("Pasadena" IIRC) but the replacement does not.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 13, 2014, 04:18:02 PM
If box trusses are used on the 210, then each tab can be mounted next to the main sign panel on the box (an approach I have seen used elsewhere), but if they are Pratt trusses, then the separate tabs may very well end up on the posts below the main sign.
If by box-truss you mean this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images085/ca-085_nb_exit_011_01.jpg)
... those have been removed from Caltrans' Standard Plans document. The only sign structures that are "approved" are the monotube (a.k.a. tubular) (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images680/i-680_nb_exit_046b_01.jpg) and the standard truss (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images085/ca-085_nb_exit_024b_02.jpg)
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 13, 2014, 04:39:28 PMSorry, my bad. I should have been a bit clearer. I was referring to the lack of control cities on exit signs for other freeways and on pull-through signs. The I-210 pull through on the same gantry as the oddly laid out CA-57 exit sign that I drew earlier currently has a control city ("Pasadena" IIRC) but the replacement does not.
Thanks--I'm with you now. Pasadena is not the only control city that has been junked on 210 pull-throughs. San Fernando and San Bernardino are going away too, as are Los Angeles on a US 101 sign and Santa Monica, Long Beach, and Sacramento on I-405 pull-throughs. In most of these cases, though, the removed control city is being replaced by a cardinal direction that was previously not on the sign. The pull-through you mention near the SR 57 interchange, several of the I-210 San Fernando pull-throughs, and three I-405 southbound Long Beach pull-throughs are isolated exceptions where the existing sign already has a cardinal direction word.
Inclusion of control cities on pull-throughs is inevitably somewhat arbitrary. Caltrans' general approach here seems to reflect a view that drivers see the freeway network in the Los Angeles area as a grid (which it is, to a certain extent) and come to the area from outside without a clear idea of where the various communities are in the basin. These drivers are not helped by signs which name cities without directions, as many of the existing signs do. Substituting cardinal direction words for destinations is, by and large, neutral in terms of message loading. Keeping cardinal directions but dumping the control cities (on signs that have both) reduces message loading.
QuoteIf by box-truss you mean this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images085/ca-085_nb_exit_011_01.jpg)
... those have been removed from Caltrans' Standard Plans document. The only sign structures that are "approved" are the monotube (a.k.a. tubular) (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images680/i-680_nb_exit_046b_01.jpg) and the standard truss (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images085/ca-085_nb_exit_024b_02.jpg)
Yes, that is an example of what I mean by a box truss. I am personally not aware of any new examples erected on Caltrans infrastructure since the mid-1980's (SR 24 freeway in Oakland is the most recently built example with box trusses I can think of), but since this is by and large not a structural signing contract (I think the US 101 gantry is the only one being erected under this contract), I think existing trusses and mounting hardware (e.g. removable sign panel frames) will be reused.
I don't remember if I-210 has box trusses, but I think the newer sections east are too new to have them. Casual inspection in Google StreetView doesn't turn up anything except Pratt trusses.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 13, 2014, 05:49:06 PM
Yes, that is an example of what I mean by a box truss. I am personally not aware of any new examples erected on Caltrans infrastructure since the mid-1980's (SR 24 freeway in Oakland is the most recently built example with box trusses I can think of), but since this is by and large not a structural signing contract (I think the US 101 gantry is the only one being erected under this contract), I think existing trusses and mounting hardware (e.g. removable sign panel frames) will be reused.
AFAIK, the 1994 portion of CA-85 between CA-87 and Stevens Creek Blvd was the last stretch of freeway to use the box truss. I have not seen any newer installations.
I checked the Caltrans Office Engineer website and the box-beam truss was removed in 2006.
What intrigues me about the removal of pullthrough control cities:
in Orange County (entirely different CalTrans district), not only have control cities been retained in new signs, but in some cases, have received extra legend (Route 55 north with the unusual single-line slash text separation)!
As promised, here are a few more drawings of the new signs in the signing plan and my redesigns. The only constraint I put on myself was I could not enlarge the sign panel...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fct-d7_104f.png&hash=2e20bdf6f42b9530287de292b1399de5ab5c99d8)
Oddity: removal of the control city "San Fernando" which was on the old sign
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fct-d7_128b.png&hash=dfa767132532a938893c6c663e80e94048d4e508)
Oddity: the exit tab will be put on the truss' post instead of in the sign according to the plans
Note: This one was the toughest to redesign because all I had to work with was a 312" x 80" sign panel.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fct-d7_159b.png&hash=40fe222df5d916a8248afdb4511ad2a72255e20e)
Oddity: placement of the cardinal direction and no control city. In CT's defense, the new sign is a carbon-copy of the old one.
Quote from: sdmichael on February 13, 2014, 02:34:03 PM
The way they plan to mount the exit number panels on that portion of the 210 beats what was done in Sylmar on the 210 from Yarnell to at least Hubbard. The exit tabs are mounted on the post BELOW the sign. It really makes no sense and looks hideous.
From the looks of it, certain signs included with this signing plan will also get exit tabs mounted below the sign on the post of the truss. They seems to be all along I-210.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 14, 2014, 03:29:19 AM
As promised, here are a few more drawings of the new signs in the signing plan and my redesigns. The only constraint I put on myself was I could not enlarge the sign panel...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fct-d7_104f.png&hash=2e20bdf6f42b9530287de292b1399de5ab5c99d8)
Oddity: removal of the control city "San Fernando" which was on the old sign
Oddity #2: Use of the longer-shaft arrows, which isn't all too common for multi-lane exits in California...
The lack of control cities in the proposed pullthroughs has me wondering:
Is the district's eventual plan...for every route within the county to stop using pullthrough destinations, and at exits, freeway-to-freeway destinations?
I did see an interesting halfway step to this on two examples of newer signs along 710 north:
- at 405, the first advance signage for the exit lists control cities (San Diego/Santa Monica), but at least two after only point to 405 North/South.
- at 91, first advance sign lists Redondo Beach/Riverside; at the first ramp (eastbound) east 91 is marked for Riverside, west 91 has no destination. At the ramp for 91 west, the Redondo Beach control city reappears.
Also, an older (early 90s?) halfway example: along 5 north where 101 takes over the Santa Ana, a "NORTH" legend plate was added over "101 Los Angeles". (In the re-signing plan, 101 will not have a text destination there)
In my view, the old signs did not have too much information. I generally find the following 4 pieces of information helpful: Highway number, Highway name, Cardinal Direction, Control City. I don't want to be overloaded with information, so the signs should be judicious by not having multiple highway numbers or multiple control cities.
For single ramped exit to a street: <19> Rosemead Blvd. Rosemead
For single ramped exit that leads to two ramps: <19> Rosemead Blvd. and then: <19> NORTH* Rosemead Blvd. Rosemead + <19> SOUTH* Rosemead Blvd. South El Monte [The + denotes two separate signs]
For double ramped exits like some parclos and cloverleafs to a street: <27> NORTH* Topanga Canyon Blvd. Warner Center + <27> SOUTH* Topanga Canyon Blvd. Topanga
For pull-through signs on the freeway: <210> WEST* Foothill Freeway San Fernando
For freeway to freeway exits:
For single ramped exit: <105> WEST* Glenn Anderson Fwy. LA Airport
For single ramped exit that leads to two ramps: <110> Harbor Fwy. and then: <110> NORTH* Harbor Fwy. Los Angeles + <110> SOUTH* Harbor Fwy. San Pedro
For double ramped exits (cloverleaf, stack, most fwy to fwy interchanges) : <110> NORTH* Harbor Fwy. Los Angeles + <110> SOUTH* Harbor Fwy. San Pedro
For all * the cardinal direction should be on top of the shield.
I don't understand how removing all of these control cities makes it helpful to anyone. If you don't know the small suburbs rely on the cardinal directions. Cardinal directions should supplement control cities, they should not replace control cities.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 13, 2014, 02:50:33 AM
The layouts of some of the new signs left me scratching my head wondering what in the hell were they thinking?!? I know we have our quirks out here in California but some of these signs are flat out ugly.
Time permitting, I'm going to try to draw some of the more uglier signs, IMO, and offer a redesign using the same sized sign panel.
To kick things off, here is the oddly laid out CA-57 exit sign referenced by TheStranger on page 94...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fct-d7_211d.png&hash=55b7e06298554cf195ec44d7a61b73574b62f1af)
I like it. The only thing I would change is I'd replace Diamond Bar with Pomona, since it is larger and more familiar. But I would also be sure that further down the road, we'd see a sign like <71> SOUTH Pomona Corona, to guide people to Downtown Pomona
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 14, 2014, 03:29:19 AM
As promised, here are a few more drawings of the new signs in the signing plan and my redesigns. The only constraint I put on myself was I could not enlarge the sign panel...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fct-d7_104f.png&hash=2e20bdf6f42b9530287de292b1399de5ab5c99d8)
Oddity: removal of the control city "San Fernando" which was on the old sign
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fct-d7_128b.png&hash=dfa767132532a938893c6c663e80e94048d4e508)
Oddity: the exit tab will be put on the truss' post instead of in the sign according to the plans
Note: This one was the toughest to redesign because all I had to work with was a 312" x 80" sign panel.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fct-d7_159b.png&hash=40fe222df5d916a8248afdb4511ad2a72255e20e)
Oddity: placement of the cardinal direction and no control city. In CT's defense, the new sign is a carbon-copy of the old one.
Quote from: sdmichael on February 13, 2014, 02:34:03 PM
The way they plan to mount the exit number panels on that portion of the 210 beats what was done in Sylmar on the 210 from Yarnell to at least Hubbard. The exit tabs are mounted on the post BELOW the sign. It really makes no sense and looks hideous.
From the looks of it, certain signs included with this signing plan will also get exit tabs mounted below the sign on the post of the truss. They seems to be all along I-210.
Yes, very good. Norwalk is a perfect control city for I-605.
I would use Norwalk for southbound I-605 from Huntington Drive (north end of freeway) to Telegraph road (just before the I-5). From that point, the southbound control should be Seal Beach. For nothbound I-605, I'd use Norwalk from I-405 to CA-91 and then switch to Duarte.
Per page s33, somebody at District 7 has decided that we are going to refer to Imperial Highway as both "Imperial HWY" and "Imperial FWY". All caps on the HWY and FWY, too.
District 12 similarly has some signs on the 5 they added a few years ago referring to "Ortega HWY".
Thanks, Caltrans.
Quote from: mrsman on February 16, 2014, 07:18:30 AMIn my view, the old signs did not have too much information. I generally find the following 4 pieces of information helpful: Highway number, Highway name, Cardinal Direction, Control City. I don't want to be overloaded with information, so the signs should be judicious by not having multiple highway numbers or multiple control cities.
[snip]
I don't understand how removing all of these control cities makes it helpful to anyone. If you don't know the small suburbs rely on the cardinal directions. Cardinal directions should supplement control cities, they should not replace control cities.
The message loading constraint is real.
One way of measuring message loading is to count units. One unit of message load can consist of the following:
* Place name
* Street name
* Route number
* Cardinal direction
* Exit number
* Command
* Distance expression
* Lane assignment arrow
* Word "JUNCTION," "TO," etc.
* "EXIT ONLY" expression
The general rule of thumb is 20 units maximum (desirable to have no more than 18). Three signs per gantry is the desirable maximum, four is acceptable, while five is considered undesirable.
Take the westbound gantry on Sheet 24 as a typical example:
* "WEST SR 134 Ventura LEFT 4 LANES"--Four message units
* "TO SR 210 Del Mar Bl California Bl [two down arrows]"--Six message units
* "SR 210 WEST 1 1/2 MILE [two down arrows] ONLY"--Six message units
* "Fair Oaks Ave -- NORTH Marengo Ave 1/4 MILE"--Four message units
This is the new gantry, which sits right at the 20-unit maximum. The original gantry with "San Fernando" is 21 units.
The units method of measuring message loading originates in a paper by R.W. McNees and C.J. Messer, "Reading Time and Accuracy of Response to Simulated Urban Freeway Guide Signs," in
Transportation Research Record 844 (1982). TxDOT's
Freeway Signing Handbook (http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/fsh/fsh.pdf) has probably the fullest explanation that doesn't require subscription access to TRB publications, but the method itself is hardly unique to Texas.
A fair few of the signs (especially near system interchanges) butt up against the message unit limits even though they already omit a freeway name--the example above (which could easily refer to SR 134 as "Ventura Freeway") is a case in point.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 16, 2014, 03:16:05 PM
Take the westbound gantry on Sheet 24 as a typical example:
* "WEST SR 134 Ventura LEFT 4 LANES"--Four message units
* "TO SR 210 Del Mar Bl California Bl [two down arrows]"--Six message units
* "SR 210 WEST 1 1/2 MILE [two down arrows] ONLY"--Six message units
* "Fair Oaks Ave -- NORTH Marengo Ave 1/4 MILE"--Four message units
This is the new gantry, which sits right at the 20-unit maximum. The original gantry with "San Fernando" is 21 units.
The units method of measuring message loading originates in a paper by R.W. McNees and C.J. Messer, "Reading Time and Accuracy of Response to Simulated Urban Freeway Guide Signs," in Transportation Research Record 844 (1982). TxDOT's Freeway Signing Handbook (http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/fsh/fsh.pdf) has probably the fullest explanation that doesn't require subscription access to TRB publications, but the method itself is hardly unique to Texas.
A fair few of the signs (especially near system interchanges) butt up against the message unit limits even though they already omit a freeway name--the example above (which could easily refer to SR 134 as "Ventura Freeway") is a case in point.
In this particular case, I would leave San Fernando and remove WEST. Because of the orientation of I-210 at that point, anyone who is staying on I-210 is heading to points north (San Fernando/Santa Clarita/Sacramento), not west, and those heading west (Burbank, Ventura) would go on CA-134. Removing one of the WESTs might reduce confusion.
With regards to message loading...here's a comparison point for an equally recent signing project, the addition of retroreflective pullthroughs and signs in Orange County:
http://goo.gl/maps/FJufC
* [carpool diamond] CARPOOLS ONLY I-5 NORTH Santa Ana NEXT LEFT - 6 message units
* SR 55 NORTH Anaheim / Riverside [3 down arrows] - 4 message units
* SOUTH San Diego [1 exit only down arrow] I-5 NORTH Santa Ana [2 down arrows] - 7 message units?
* EXIT 10A McFadden Ave - 2 message units
19 or so message units for this recent sign.
---
the 710 north at 91 assembly that I referred to a bit earlier in the thread:
http://goo.gl/maps/gpjhB
* I-710 NORTH Pasadena [three down arrows] - 4 message units
* EXIT 8B WEST [one exit-only down arrow] SR 91 Freeway EAST Riverside [two exit-only arrows] EXIT 8A - 9 message units
15 message units total?
---
The more-recent signage for the Four-Level, in this case, from 101 south, installed in the mid-2000s:
http://goo.gl/maps/jFSIQ
* US 101 SOUTH TO I-10 EAST I-5 SOUTH SR 60 EAST LEFT 3 LANES - 10 message units! (replaced the older I-5 South/I-10 East type signage on the pullthrough)
* SR 110 NORTH Pasadena NO TRUCKS [1 down arrow] EXIT 3B - 6 message units
* I-110 SOUTH EXIT 3B San Pedro [two down arrows] ONLY - 7 message units
* yellow sign with curved right arrow, 35 MPH suggested speed - 2 message units
25 message units total!
Quote from: TheStranger on February 15, 2014, 01:04:55 PM
The lack of control cities in the proposed pullthroughs has me wondering:
Is the district's eventual plan...for every route within the county to stop using pullthrough destinations, and at exits, freeway-to-freeway destinations?
I can say that here in District 11 (San Diego), the control city is generally not used except on the Interstates. This is why SR 52, 54, 56, etc. don't generally have control cities on the pull through signs. (Although there was one that had SR 52 west San Diego added on n/b SR 125.) SR 94 now has pull through signs with "Martin Luther King Jr Fwy" rather than any control point (at least on its freeway segment).
I do wonder if the District 11 approach on control cities is just for District 11 or if it is shared elsewhere such as District 7.
Regards,
Andy
Another thought that comes to mind:
Is it ever useful for "Freeway" (without a name) to be marked in text legend, when that message unit could have been used instead for a control city?
This of course is most notable for 605, though 91 as well has this.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 16, 2014, 04:26:59 PM
Another thought that comes to mind:
Is it ever useful for "Freeway" (without a name) to be marked in text legend, when that message unit could have been used instead for a control city?
This of course is most notable for 605, though 91 as well has this.
Possibly for state highways, as there might be some confusion about whether an upcoming state route is a surface road or a limited access highway. For interstates, there would seem to be zero benefit, and it seems entirely redundant.
And as you point out, almost every freeway intersecting the 605 includes the "freeway". The 210 and 105, as well.
More annoying is when Caltrans -- mostly District 7 -- puts "Fwy" in front of the shield. As in "Fwy [Interstate 10] EAST".
Quote from: TheStranger on February 16, 2014, 04:26:59 PM
Another thought that comes to mind:
Is it ever useful for "Freeway" (without a name) to be marked in text legend, when that message unit could have been used instead for a control city?
This of course is most notable for 605, though 91 as well has this.
As the California state highway moves away from arterial and non-freeway roads, I suspect it will mean less. I believe Caltrans is trying its best to move state highways that are not freeway/expressway out of the state highway system based on individual efforts to download such routes to local cities/counties, but I have not found any specific directive to that effect. Back in the mid-1990s, when I first examined the list of state highways in California, I did not see many instances where the state Streets and Highways Code noted areas where the state route was shifted to local jurisdiction and cities were directed to post trailblazer signage for the routes. Nowadays, the state code has multiple examples, such as those found in the Los Angeles area (SR 2, SR 19, SR 39, and many others).
Regards,
Andy
I'm from Northern California, but my memories of Southern California had pertinent memories of how odd I-605 had no control cities.
Some thoughts based on my recent travels near LA:
- For the 405 shield in this example (from 710 north), is repeating the shield twice with each cardinal direction particularly more clear than simply putting one shield with specific arrows for SOUTH and NORTH?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601879574/in/set-72157641136678175
- At 710/105 and 710/91, a left-exit tab is used to denote a ramp to the left of another ramp.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601469115/in/set-72157641136678175
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601460795/in/set-72157641136678175
This isn't universal practice within District 7 though, as seen at US 101 north at the Four-Level:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601350805/in/set-72157641136678175
Even on 710 itself, right tab/right tab for successive right-exit ramps can also be found:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601907534/in/set-72157641136678175
- The dashes between the road name and cardinal direction on this next-exits sign are an older style that, aside from this replace-in-kind situation, seems to not have caught on:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601482285/in/set-72157641136678175
- I always enjoy seeing freeway names being used on modern retroreflective signs:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601394883/in/set-72157641136678175
- One noticeable booboo on the US 101 segment of the Santa Ana Freeway:
This exit, Fourth Street, has been signed for nearly 40 years as Exit 1A off of 101:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601602993/in/set-72157641136678175
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601936734/in/set-72157641136678175
Inexplicably, between those two signs, is a brand new one marking it as Exit 135A presumably measured from I-5, even though at this point the freeway is already US 101 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601604903/in/set-72157641136678175
- Along the Ventura Freeway, an advance sign marks the Tujunga Avenue exit off of US 101 south as a connector to Route 170 north:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12602012414/in/set-72157641136678175
Once the exit is reached, there is no "TO Route 170", in contrast to some of the newer signs at the San Bernardino Split, and also in contrast to common practice for TO legend in NorCal:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12602018074/in/set-72157641136678175
Quote from: emory on February 13, 2014, 06:59:51 AM
Retaining the Route 19 shield on the 210 I see. Even though it doesn't start til south of the 105. Yes, THAT far away.
It seems like as long as SR 164 remains on the books (and according to http://www.cahighways.org/161-168.html#164, it still exists between I-210 and Foothill as a state highway - a very short segment!), it is reasonable to sign the state route number. But why SR 164 continues to be signed as SR 19 considering the gap between extant sections of SR 164 and SR 19 is perplexing, except to allow the SR 19 "corridor" to continue to be signed. I have not found anything that explains conclusively why 19 and 164 are under the same route number, especially since the southernmost segment of 164 is unlikely to be constructed anytime soon.
The Streets and Highways Code even directs SR 164 to be signed on former segments that have been turned over (example is the section of Rosemead through Temple City):
Quote(b) The relinquished former portions of Route 164 within the County of Los Angeles and the City of Temple City are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 164, the County of Los Angeles and the City of Temple City shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 164.
But this remains signed as SR 19. And still no good answer to your comment about 19 being signed on I-210 so far away from its remaining designated segments near I-105.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: andy3175 on February 17, 2014, 09:37:47 PM
Quote from: emory on February 13, 2014, 06:59:51 AM
Retaining the Route 19 shield on the 210 I see. Even though it doesn't start til south of the 105. Yes, THAT far away.
It seems like as long as SR 164 remains on the books (and according to http://www.cahighways.org/161-168.html#164, it still exists between I-210 and Foothill as a state highway - a very short segment!), it is reasonable to sign the state route number. But why SR 164 continues to be signed as SR 19 considering the gap between extant sections of SR 164 and SR 19 is perplexing, except to allow the SR 19 "corridor" to continue to be signed. I have not found anything that explains conclusively why 19 and 164 are under the same route number, especially since the southernmost segment of 164 is unlikely to be constructed anytime soon.
My simple guess:
19 has existed as the signed route on Rosemead since 1934; 164 has always been a paper designation that really will only ever be signed if that connector to 605 is ever built (which is unlikely).
Really no need to have a 164 designation at all with 19 having never left that route at any point in its history (minus the relinquished portion) - like the segment of "480" that was always 101 along Lombard Street in SF, 164 at present is an entirely unnecessary route.
(A counterexample to the 480-revert-to-101 and 19-remains-along-164 concept though is 242 along former Route 24 in Concord, which has existed since 1964 as a paper route, but only since 1988-1989 as a signed route separate from 24.)
Quote from: TheStranger on February 17, 2014, 09:35:53 PM
- One noticeable booboo on the US 101 segment of the Santa Ana Freeway:
This exit, Fourth Street, has been signed for nearly 40 years as Exit 1A off of 101:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601602993/in/set-72157641136678175
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601936734/in/set-72157641136678175
Inexplicably, between those two signs, is a brand new one marking it as Exit 135A presumably measured from I-5, even though at this point the freeway is already US 101 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601604903/in/set-72157641136678175
I agree with your logic, and so does Calnexus. Once US 101 exits from I-5, any departing ramp should follow US 101's exit numbering pattern, and Calnexus confirms this to be the case with the 4th Street exit. However, I have had general questions about the rationale behind exit numbering around the East Los Angeles Interchange some time ago. The person I asked (a resident expert) stated that the rationale for the logic behind some exit numbers is because Caltrans begins its zero milepost at the center of the interchange. The offramp to 4th Street, however, is well north of the centerpoint of the East Los Angeles Interchange, so Exit 1A is the most appropriate number for that offramp. I don't know if the centerpoint is just a Caltrans District 7 thing or all over the state.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: TheStranger on February 17, 2014, 09:49:34 PM
My simple guess:
19 has existed as the signed route on Rosemead since 1934; 164 has always been a paper designation that really will only ever be signed if that connector to 605 is ever built (which is unlikely).
That is probably the case: Rosemead was signed as 19 prior to the 1964 renumbering, so it was just as easy to keep it the same after the renumbering. My thinking is that now that 19 and 164 have been so significantly trimmed back, I wonder why keep signing either route, except for navigational purposes. So perhaps 19 will remain around for awhile longer ... and this begs the question why 19 was made the actual route number for the entire signed route.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: andy3175 on February 17, 2014, 09:52:31 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 17, 2014, 09:35:53 PM
- One noticeable booboo on the US 101 segment of the Santa Ana Freeway:
This exit, Fourth Street, has been signed for nearly 40 years as Exit 1A off of 101:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601602993/in/set-72157641136678175
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601936734/in/set-72157641136678175
Inexplicably, between those two signs, is a brand new one marking it as Exit 135A presumably measured from I-5, even though at this point the freeway is already US 101 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601604903/in/set-72157641136678175
I agree with your logic, and so does Calnexus. Once US 101 exits from I-5, any departing ramp should follow US 101's exit numbering pattern, and Calnexus confirms this to be the case with the 4th Street exit. However, I have had general questions about the rationale behind exit numbering around the East Los Angeles Interchange some time ago. The person I asked (a resident expert) stated that the rationale for the logic behind some exit numbers is because Caltrans begins its zero milepost at the center of the interchange. The offramp to 4th Street, however, is well north of the centerpoint of the East Los Angeles Interchange, so Exit 1A is the most appropriate number for that offramp. I don't know if the centerpoint is just a Caltrans District 7 thing or all over the state.
Regards,
Andy
Considering there is also a Fourth Street exit from I-5, which would indeed be Exit 135A, perhaps someone just read the map wrong and got this sign on the wrong freeway?
I kinda understand the logic about the centerpoint of the interchange, but I still think it's odd that the Euclid Street exit from southbound US-101 is Exit 133 of I-5, even though you cannot take that exit from I-5.
Quote from: DTComposer on February 17, 2014, 10:16:13 PM
I kinda understand the logic about the centerpoint of the interchange, but I still think it's odd that the Euclid Street exit from southbound US-101 is Exit 133 of I-5, even though you cannot take that exit from I-5.
Similar example exists, albeit not signed yet, from Route 99 in Sacramento: the T Street onramp, which is treated as Exit 6C from Business 80 from what I have seen on CalNexus even though it can only be accessed from 99 north (and really should be Exit 298C).
Quote from: DTComposer on February 17, 2014, 10:16:13 PM
I kinda understand the logic about the centerpoint of the interchange, but I still think it's odd that the Euclid Street exit from southbound US-101 is Exit 133 of I-5, even though you cannot take that exit from I-5.
I think if an offramp is accessible from the signed route, then the exit number should relate to that signed route, not to another route that "takes over" the signed route at a point downstream. So yes, Euclid Street should get a US 101 exit number in my opinion.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: TheStranger on February 17, 2014, 10:20:22 PM
Similar example exists, albeit not signed yet, from Route 99 in Sacramento: the T Street onramp, which is treated as Exit 6C from Business 80 from what I have seen on CalNexus even though it can only be accessed from 99 north (and really should be Exit 298C).
Yes ... although this one is "funky" due to the question of whether it is Exit 6C of Business 80 or Exit 6C of SR 51 (given that SR 99 had already departed the freeway by that point). If SR 51 had its own exit numbering scheme, presumably this would be Exit 1A. But since SR 51 is folded into Business 80, I'm not sure what exit number to assign except maybe one from SR 99 (if for no other reason than to continue the same exit numbering sequence until the Business 80 mainline traffic merges in from the right).
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 16, 2014, 03:16:05 PM
Quote from: mrsman on February 16, 2014, 07:18:30 AMIn my view, the old signs did not have too much information. I generally find the following 4 pieces of information helpful: Highway number, Highway name, Cardinal Direction, Control City. I don't want to be overloaded with information, so the signs should be judicious by not having multiple highway numbers or multiple control cities.
[snip]
I don't understand how removing all of these control cities makes it helpful to anyone. If you don't know the small suburbs rely on the cardinal directions. Cardinal directions should supplement control cities, they should not replace control cities.
The message loading constraint is real.
One way of measuring message loading is to count units. One unit of message load can consist of the following:
* Place name
* Street name
* Route number
* Cardinal direction
* Exit number
* Command
* Distance expression
* Lane assignment arrow
* Word "JUNCTION," "TO," etc.
* "EXIT ONLY" expression
The general rule of thumb is 20 units maximum (desirable to have no more than 18). Three signs per gantry is the desirable maximum, four is acceptable, while five is considered undesirable.
Take the westbound gantry on Sheet 24 as a typical example:
* "WEST SR 134 Ventura LEFT 4 LANES"--Four message units
* "TO SR 210 Del Mar Bl California Bl [two down arrows]"--Six message units
* "SR 210 WEST 1 1/2 MILE [two down arrows] ONLY"--Six message units
* "Fair Oaks Ave -- NORTH Marengo Ave 1/4 MILE"--Four message units
This is the new gantry, which sits right at the 20-unit maximum. The original gantry with "San Fernando" is 21 units.
The units method of measuring message loading originates in a paper by R.W. McNees and C.J. Messer, "Reading Time and Accuracy of Response to Simulated Urban Freeway Guide Signs," in Transportation Research Record 844 (1982). TxDOT's Freeway Signing Handbook (http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/fsh/fsh.pdf) has probably the fullest explanation that doesn't require subscription access to TRB publications, but the method itself is hardly unique to Texas.
A fair few of the signs (especially near system interchanges) butt up against the message unit limits even though they already omit a freeway name--the example above (which could easily refer to SR 134 as "Ventura Freeway") is a case in point.
I guess as a former Californian, I have a nostalgic attachment to the freeway names. These will certainly be removed to meet these message constraints as you say. The radio traffic announcers will be the only ones left who will talk about the Santa Ana Freeway and the Long Beach Freeway.
[This is kind of like my father who as an original New Yorker talked about the IRT and the BMT, but most younger people have no idea what that is and refer to the subways as the number 1 line or the A train.]
But to remove the control cities? Control cities exist across the nation. Is the addition of exit numbers a replacement for control cities?
I say that they need to remove the exit numbers from freeway to freeway interchanges if they need to meet these standards and put the control cities back.
Quote from: andy3175 on February 17, 2014, 10:44:45 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 17, 2014, 10:20:22 PM
Similar example exists, albeit not signed yet, from Route 99 in Sacramento: the T Street onramp, which is treated as Exit 6C from Business 80 from what I have seen on CalNexus even though it can only be accessed from 99 north (and really should be Exit 298C).
Yes ... although this one is "funky" due to the question of whether it is Exit 6C of Business 80 or Exit 6C of SR 51 (given that SR 99 had already departed the freeway by that point). If SR 51 had its own exit numbering scheme, presumably this would be Exit 1A. But since SR 51 is folded into Business 80, I'm not sure what exit number to assign except maybe one from SR 99 (if for no other reason than to continue the same exit numbering sequence until the Business 80 mainline traffic merges in from the right).
Regards,
Andy
A couple of thoughts:
- It's interesting how absolutely inconsistent - within districts - exit numbering policy is for freeway-to-freeway interchanges! With Sacramento specifically (all newer updates) 80/50 lacks exit numbers going eastbound and so does 50 eastbound at 99/Business 80; I can understand it for the latter (triple concurrency splitting) but not so much for the former (50 and Business 80 both starting at that point). So IMO, 99/Business 80 split would work with signing the mainline pullthrough as an exit (much like 101/80 in SF) and having Broadway and T Street as sub-ramps of that, all exit 298A/B/C.
- In LA, I don't recall the new signing plans for the East Los Angeles Interchange involving any new exit numbers for the northbound Santa Ana Freeway - even though the removal of destinations in theory opens up the gantry to more available message units. (i.e. Pages 77, 79). Is this because each of the freeways that split off from there (Golden State, Santa Monica, and the 101 segment of the Santa Ana) all have their own sets of numbered exits that might confuse those looking for any one of those three routes?
---
Interesting to see in page 100 of the PDF, a planned all-caps LAX AIRPORT legend (when this has been mixed case in all existing installations). Any reason for this?
Page 83 - odd all-caps BLVD for the Rosemead Blvd sign.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 14, 2014, 03:29:19 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fct-d7_128b.png&hash=dfa767132532a938893c6c663e80e94048d4e508)
Oddity: the exit tab will be put on the truss' post instead of in the sign according to the plans
Note: This one was the toughest to redesign because all I had to work with was a 312" x 80" sign panel.
I have a couple of redesigns for the Rosemead exit. Figure 2 is more aesthetics, since it generalizes CA-19 to the exit rather than specifically assigns it to Rosemead.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiTAPJy3.png&hash=57aab7f3db34ffcd4ee19c7aa67a1bd46b012fc3)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fs49a8r0.png&hash=b838363fe8aee53f6c478257da7ce8eb4dd77fa3)
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 18, 2014, 07:21:13 AM
Figure 2 is more aesthetics, since it generalizes CA-19 to the exit rather than specifically assigns it to Rosemead.
In the case of this exit though, 19 does not (and has never) run along Michilinda, so that might explain the legend distinction. (Similar style exists for the 27/Topanga Canyon and the 2/Santa Monica Boulevard exits off of 101)
Somehow I can picture Caltrans not really caring. Other signs can point to CA-19 on the off-ramp.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 18, 2014, 07:02:13 PM
Somehow I can picture Caltrans not really caring. Other signs can point to CA-19 on the off-ramp.
Some examples where the route shield is centered, even when only one street name at the interchange corresponds to the route:
US 50 east at Route 16 in Sacramento (Howe Avenue is 16, Power Inn begins where 16 turns to run on Folsom)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4754304406/in/set-72157624279252253
I-5 north at I-710 in Commerce (Atlantic Boulevard is the predecessor route, pre-1964 Route 15)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601394883/in/set-72157641136678175
US 101 at Route 2/Santa Monica Boulevard in Los Angeles, which shares the exit with Western Avenue:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12064172756/in/set-72157639925852474
I-80 east at Route 113 south in Dixon; Currey Road runs north of the interchange (old US 40) while 113 runs along 1st Street
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4807755438/in/set-72157624519667042
I-80 east at Route 13 in Berkeley (Ashby is the state route, Shellmound is a local street)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4807114761/in/set-72157624519667042
Ambiguous: I-280 at Route 82 in San Francisco; shield is centered but Mission Street does become part of the route a mile away.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4840363650/in/set-72157624531453370
Examples where the route shield is aligned with the specific road in question:
I-110 south at I-405, where 190th Street and I-405 have separate legend lines:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12063464943/in/set-72157639925852474
US 101 south at Route 27/Topanga Canyon Boulevard, where the 27 shield only appears (awkwardly) adjacent to Topanga Canyon text:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12063386545/in/set-72157639925852474
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12063388535/in/set-72157639925852474
US 101 south at the route terminus (East LA Interchange) connecting to Route 60 - Route 60 shield and Pomona take one line, Soto Street below:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10399613044/in/set-72157636676683316
I-80 east at I-680 in Cordelia
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4807126693/in/set-72157624519667042
I-80 at Route 37
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4807748690/in/set-72157624519667042
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4807125865/in/set-72157624519667042
Well guys, my head is spinning looking at all the California inconsistency on these pages. Ya' really have to wonder if all Caltrans engineers are smoking weed.
To address a couple of points mentioned in these pages: If message loading is such a serious concern why do they put the word Freeway next to Interstate shields? It's a total waste considering that Interstate Highways are freeways in all cases, aren't they? Furthermore, why do they list the route number twice on the same line on either side of the destination. I've never seen either of these practices done anywhere else, and again if they are so concerned with message loading, why do they do these things?
Re: cardinal directions vs. destinations, etc. I guess Caltrans hasn't noticed that the national standard prescribed in the MUTCD is to show route number, cardinal direction and destination on all exit signs. And that the message must be consistent for all the signs for an exit. There should be no controversy about this.
I'm amazed that California signing is so oddly designed. Even my native New York State DOT (which I often ridicule for various reasons) pretty much follows the Manual as far as sign legend is concerned. And that includes the New York City Metroplex which has a freeway density not unlike urban parts of California.
Don't get me wrong. I love driving freeways in California, but Caltrans practices really leave me scratching my head. LOL
Quote from: SignBridge on February 19, 2014, 10:15:36 PM
Furthermore, why do they list the route number twice on the same line on either side of the destination.
There is a specific historical reason why this exists:
Many years ago, co-signed routes would have signage such as the following:
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=CA19580053
When the older (usually US) route was decommissioned as a result of 1964 renumberings, that shield would often be covered up with another shield of the existing route.
Why didn't they just green-over the phased out route numbers?
Also, what route was originally co-signed with I-10 on the Santa Monica Fwy? On my first trip out there in 1984 I remember pull-though signs westbound reading 10-west/Santa Monica/10-west.
Okay excuse number two.
Our freeways are so wide that you can only see half of the sign.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 20, 2014, 10:49:13 PM
Also, what route was originally co-signed with I-10 on the Santa Monica Fwy? On my first trip out there in 1984 I remember pull-though signs westbound reading 10-west/Santa Monica/10-west.
Probably pre-1964 SR 26.
SR-26 was not cosigned with I-10. The Santa Monica Freeway was ALWAYS just I-10. I have seen early instances of double shields (1963) on I-5 at I-405.
Oh, so the duplicate shields really were deliberate in some cases. Again, I've never seen it anywhere besides California. And with all that earlier talk about message loading.........
Quote from: SignBridge on February 21, 2014, 05:02:23 PM
Oh, so the duplicate shields really were deliberate in some cases. Again, I've never seen it anywhere besides California. And with all that earlier talk about message loading.........
It's whatever is the Flavor of the Month at your local Caltrans district office.
Here (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/46905990) are some of the last new button copy signs to go up. They went up about 15 years ago. They had double shields (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/46905990).
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on February 21, 2014, 05:33:48 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 21, 2014, 05:02:23 PM
Oh, so the duplicate shields really were deliberate in some cases. Again, I've never seen it anywhere besides California. And with all that earlier talk about message loading.........
It's whatever is the Flavor of the Month at your local Caltrans district office.
Here (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/46905990) are some of the last new button copy signs to go up. They went up about 15 years ago. They had double shields (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/46905990).
Looking at that, it amazes me how much redundancy exists here, with 20 message units (the max recommended these days) in use here:
- Extra NORTH 405 shield/direction
- on sign #2, extra 110 NORTH shield/direction
- the very existence of sign #3 (extra 110 north)
Take all that out (i.e. add a TRUCKS OK designation for the rightmost NORTH 110 lane) and you're down to 14 message units - all this before say removing a single bit of text legend! (Take out "Harbor Freeway" and it's now just 13 message units; remove Santa Monica and that goes to a mere 12.)
Everyone, this has been a great discussion. The inconsistencies and contradictions are definitely frustrating.
I've been told by Caltrans D7 staff that the future exclusion of freeway names and control cities on freeway signs is a statewide mandate that they must comply with. I am extremely saddened to see them go, not only are they absolutely useful to the motoring public, but its a historical part of the original freeway system in California. Regardless, the plans should still be consistent, why show Harbor Freeway but not Long Beach Freeway. My assumption would be that they are just replacing signs 1 for 1 without thinking in some areas (405 plans) and deliberately removing existing messages on other areas (210 plans) because they have different route managers who don't seem to coordinate with each other. Nor do the project managers seem to spend time to review the entire set.
I will try to send some of these comments to the traffic engineers I am in contact with at D7 and see if i get a response; especially the route 42 shields.
I think the double shields are another example of 1 to 1 replacement as most of the original freeway signs had them. See this photo of NB 710 (then SR 15 and then later SR 7).
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f321/YoungBP/I-151964.jpg
I also noticed the lack of a WEST sign at the NB 405 Artesia off ramp. The off ramp ends with 2 right turn only lanes. The SB 405 exit is properly signed as 91 EAST.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.872055,-118.341519&spn=0.005621,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.872136,-118.341579&panoid=PjuZnizZGGOtVxFkKlNb9w&cbp=12,330.54,,0,0.38
https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.873391,-118.341486&spn=0.005621,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.873289,-118.341491&panoid=4AtUV5jbKdMncdNGSz6NYQ&cbp=12,186.93,,0,-1
https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.872767,-118.342398&spn=0.005621,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.872829,-118.342442&panoid=Skm5rzvpHaCo4YEHaVp52w&cbp=12,155.32,,0,-1.8
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 23, 2014, 09:48:48 AM
Everyone, this has been a great discussion. The inconsistencies and contradictions are definitely frustrating.
I've been told by Caltrans D7 staff that the future exclusion of freeway names and control cities on freeway signs is a statewide mandate that they must comply with. I am extremely saddened to see them go, not only are they absolutely useful to the motoring public, but its a historical part of the original freeway system in California. Regardless, the plans should still be consistent, why show Harbor Freeway but not Long Beach Freeway. My assumption would be that they are just replacing signs 1 for 1 without thinking in some areas (405 plans) and deliberately removing existing messages on other areas (210 plans) because they have different route managers who don't seem to coordinate with each other. Nor do the project managers seem to spend time to review the entire set.
First off, thanks for your input. Always great to see CalTrans folks on here (and DOT folks on the website in general).
Though I completely understand MUTCD rules elsewhere/modern practice, I do think targeted but spare usage of the freeway names (i.e. at major interchanges) can be useful.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 23, 2014, 09:48:48 AM
I think the double shields are another example of 1 to 1 replacement as most of the original freeway signs had them. See this photo of NB 710 (then SR 15 and then later SR 7).
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f321/YoungBP/I-151964.jpg
Did the double-shield signing practice begin around the time bordered signs and modern font choices (compare to any of the 1955-1957 thinner-font signs California was using at the time) were established? While we do know of obvious examples of double-shield being installed after-the-fact to cover up removed concurrencies, the Long Beach Freeway has never had more than one route along its length.
Also interesting to see that even back then, Pasadena was the control city (with the South Pasadena gap unfinished then, as is the case at present). Any idea what the Santa Fe Avenue/Alameda Street greenout is covering up?
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 23, 2014, 09:48:48 AM
I also noticed the lack of a WEST sign at the NB 405 Artesia off ramp. The off ramp ends with 2 right turn only lanes. The SB 405 exit is properly signed as 91 EAST.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.872055,-118.341519&spn=0.005621,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.872136,-118.341579&panoid=PjuZnizZGGOtVxFkKlNb9w&cbp=12,330.54,,0,0.38
https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.873391,-118.341486&spn=0.005621,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.873289,-118.341491&panoid=4AtUV5jbKdMncdNGSz6NYQ&cbp=12,186.93,,0,-1
https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.872767,-118.342398&spn=0.005621,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.872829,-118.342442&panoid=Skm5rzvpHaCo4YEHaVp52w&cbp=12,155.32,,0,-1.8
I wonder if the interchange used to offer full access to both westbound and eastbound Route 91:
http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=4.55373506935522E-06&lat=33.873518174453&lon=-118.341750959943&year=1972
The Santa Fe/Alameda signage is covering over I-405 signage most likely. If you note, there are blank signs in the background, for I-405.
Andy, did I read your post correctly? You said there is a statewide mandate to exclude both freeway names and control cities on future signing? I can understand not displaying freeway names. They're actually complying with the MUTCD. But not displaying control cities? That's very hard to believe. Are you talking about just on pull-through signs only or entrance/exit signs too?
Quote from: SignBridge on February 23, 2014, 08:22:21 PM
But not displaying control cities? That's very hard to believe. Are you talking about just on pull-through signs only or entrance/exit signs too?
Based on the District 7 PDF posted at the start of the thread...both.
I know (as noted earlier in this discussion) there's been a move towards removing control city legend from exit signage, to reduce message loading. That by itself isn't so bad, but removing pullthrough control cities - which admittedly other states have done over the years too - to me is taking it to an extreme.
New signage on I-405 at the 22 shows not only control cities, but a NEW control city (Irvine). I suspect the practice to reduce would be for EXITS not mainline signage.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 21, 2014, 05:53:02 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on February 21, 2014, 05:33:48 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 21, 2014, 05:02:23 PM
Oh, so the duplicate shields really were deliberate in some cases. Again, I've never seen it anywhere besides California. And with all that earlier talk about message loading.........
It's whatever is the Flavor of the Month at your local Caltrans district office.
Here (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/46905990) are some of the last new button copy signs to go up. They went up about 15 years ago. They had double shields (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/46905990).
Looking at that, it amazes me how much redundancy exists here, with 20 message units (the max recommended these days) in use here:
- Extra NORTH 405 shield/direction
- on sign #2, extra 110 NORTH shield/direction
- the very existence of sign #3 (extra 110 north)
Take all that out (i.e. add a TRUCKS OK designation for the rightmost NORTH 110 lane) and you're down to 14 message units - all this before say removing a single bit of text legend! (Take out "Harbor Freeway" and it's now just 13 message units; remove Santa Monica and that goes to a mere 12.)
For what it's worth, that 110 North trucks right lane sign is for a separate ramp that feeds to the right lane of N/B 110. The other 110 north ramp feeds to the left side of N/B 110.
Quote from: sdmichael on February 23, 2014, 10:05:15 PM
New signage on I-405 at the 22 shows not only control cities, but a NEW control city (Irvine). I suspect the practice to reduce would be for EXITS not mainline signage.
This would make the most sense to me. I too have noticed less control cities on exit signs, but pull-through signs seem to retain them. AndyMax, was there a distinction made on where control cities would be eliminated, or did they propose to eliminate them in both scenarios?
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: MarkF on February 23, 2014, 11:07:08 PM
For what it's worth, that 110 North trucks right lane sign is for a separate ramp that feeds to the right lane of N/B 110. The other 110 north ramp feeds to the left side of N/B 110.
Alright, that makes a bit more sense in that context. Still, could the two 110 North parts of the sign be combined into one, with "TRUCKS OK" for the rightmost ramp? (I am assuming though that it is one of those truck ramps - like 99/5, 14/5, and 405/5 - where regular passenger cars are allowed as well)
Quote from: SignBridge on February 21, 2014, 05:02:23 PM
Oh, so the duplicate shields really were deliberate in some cases. Again, I've never seen it anywhere besides California. And with all that earlier talk about message loading.........
Michigan does double shields from time to time.
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.982048,-83.335354&spn=0.009204,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.981884,-83.335477&panoid=oJ2gxEo3TPFZ3Cb35qa5pg&cbp=12,26.95,,1,-5.94
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.381055,-83.275487&spn=0.009209,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.381239,-83.275517&panoid=Ypmp3iDr-ysvwv8XU3HlVQ&cbp=12,350.05,,1,-6.4
Quote from: Brandon on February 24, 2014, 11:49:29 AM
Michigan does double shields from time to time.
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.381055,-83.275487&spn=0.009209,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.381239,-83.275517&panoid=Ypmp3iDr-ysvwv8XU3HlVQ&cbp=12,350.05,,1,-6.4
This second link also shows a practice that is sometimes used in California (notably in Orange County): multiple control cities on the same line of text legend.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 19, 2014, 10:15:36 PMRe: cardinal directions vs. destinations, etc. I guess Caltrans hasn't noticed that the national standard prescribed in the MUTCD is to show route number, cardinal direction and destination on all exit signs. And that the message must be consistent for all the signs for an exit. There should be no controversy about this.
Where this signs job is concerned, this particular issue comes into play primarily in the case of system (freeway-to-freeway) interchanges. The relevant
MUTCD provision is § 2E.13, which includes a guidance statement stipulating that control cities should be used in this context. But in
MUTCD terms, a control city is an entity that is specified in the AASHTO control cities list. This means the guidance statement does not apply to freeways for which AASHTO does not specify a control city. The best available free guide to control cities is still Paul Wolf's control cities page (http://home.roadrunner.com/~pwolf/controlcities.html), and it lists no control cities for I-210 or I-405.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 23, 2014, 09:48:48 AMI've been told by Caltrans D7 staff that the future exclusion of freeway names and control cities on freeway signs is a statewide mandate that they must comply with.
Do you have a citation for this? I haven't been able to find chapter and verse even after a quick skim of Chapter 2E in the current California MUTCD and the Caltrans Traffic Operations TOPD download page.
Quote from: sdmichael on February 23, 2014, 10:05:15 PMNew signage on I-405 at the 22 shows not only control cities, but a NEW control city (Irvine). I suspect the practice to reduce would be for EXITS not mainline signage.
Strictly speaking, control cities guide traffic that is about to enter a freeway and provide forward orientation for traffic already on the freeway. Mixing of place names and street names on the advance guide and exit direction signs for service interchanges (i.e., ones which connect the freeway to surface streets) is addressed by a separate provision, located at § 2E.10 in the current California MUTCD. The federal
MUTCD has deprecated street and place names on the same sign since the 1971 edition at least. This provision has been adopted without change in California since the 2004 supplement largely replaced the last edition of the Caltrans Traffic Manual, and might have been effective in California from a much earlier date--I haven't yet tried to go back in the California-specific documentation. Eliminating place names on these signs thus brings signing on the relevant sections of I-405 and I-210/SR 210 into conformity with a rule that, on the federal level at least, is almost 45 years old.
In regard to the I-405/SR 22/I-605 signs, these have been installed as part of an ongoing OCTA-funded upgrade to the interchange. The general approach has been not only to provide control cities on a consistent basis, but also to eliminate freeway names that were present on the existing signing. So, for example, signs which referenced I-405 North/San Diego Freeway/Santa Monica just say I-405 North/Santa Monica. This reduces message loading due to text legend, so although there will have been some clawback owing to added lanes and expanded HOV facilities (the work includes a bidirectional HOV connector), I suspect message loading overall has trended downward.
Finally, in regards to the repeated-shield question, this is not exactly unique to Caltrans--Minnesota DOT also does it on urban freeways in the Twin Cities. I am not aware that any studies have tested whether repetition of the message brings benefits that offset the added message loading.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 24, 2014, 12:52:22 PM
The best available free guide to control cities is still Paul Wolf's control cities page (http://home.roadrunner.com/~pwolf/controlcities.html), and it lists no control cities for I-210 or I-405.
I wonder though...there's a very limited set of 3dis covered by that list (and none in California); do most states simply handle 3di control cities without any submission to AASHTO for approval?
Quote from: TheStranger on February 24, 2014, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 24, 2014, 12:52:22 PM
The best available free guide to control cities is still Paul Wolf's control cities page (http://home.roadrunner.com/~pwolf/controlcities.html), and it lists no control cities for I-210 or I-405.
I wonder though...there's a very limited set of 3dis covered by that list (and none in California); do most states simply handle 3di control cities without any submission to AASHTO for approval?
It's way off in some cases as well. "LaSalle-Peru" for I-24 WB?
Quote from: sdmichael on February 23, 2014, 10:05:15 PM
New signage on I-405 at the 22 shows not only control cities, but a NEW control city (Irvine). I suspect the practice to reduce would be for EXITS not mainline signage.
This project is an excellent example of two districts handling signage in different and inconsistent ways.
For example, on the District 7 side, the recent replacement signs on the 405 south approaching the 22/605 interchange use the ubiquitous "605 Freeway" language on BGS and advance signs. On the District 12 side, where the interchange construction coincidentally means new signs are being put up south of the 605/22 interchange at the same time District 7 replaced their signs north of the interchange, the 605 is simply referred to as "605 NORTH". Further, District 12's construction contractor is using first letter raised cardinal directions, while the new signs for District 12 keep the traditional one-height cardinal directions.
We're starting to sound like a bunch of lawyers arguing the fine points of law in a courtroom. LOL
Now, with due respect to our comrade Mr. Winkler, who obviously knows the freeway signing business quite well, I suggest that any highway authority's non-posting of destinations due to their absence in AASHTO's listing is nonsense. In fact, that same MUTCD Section 2E-13 that he referred to talks about major destinations OR control cities in its first paragraph. And I would take that to mean that posted destinations don't always necessarily have to be a designated control city.
In fact, in many other parts of the country including the Washington D.C. and New York City metropolitan areas, which have many 3-digit interstate highways, destinations are almost always used. Those destinations include cities, and regions. And even bridges and tunnels (which is a whole 'nother controversial subject). So who's kidding who in California?
Quote from: SignBridge on February 24, 2014, 08:10:38 PMWe're starting to sound like a bunch of lawyers arguing the fine points of law in a courtroom.
It gets like that at times!
QuoteNow, with due respect to our comrade Mr. Winkler, who obviously knows the freeway signing business quite well, I suggest that any highway authority's non-posting of destinations due to their absence in AASHTO's listing is nonsense. In fact, that same MUTCD Section 2E-13 that he referred to talks about major destinations OR control cities in its first paragraph. And I would take that to mean that posted destinations don't always necessarily have to be a designated control city.
This is true. My argument is essentially that since the AASHTO control cities list does not include control cities for I-210 or I-405 (or, indeed, the vast majority of three-digit Interstates), Caltrans is off the hook (from a
MUTCD standpoint) since the "should" statement does not apply. Now, if Caltrans has its own control city list (some state DOTs do--Arizona is one example that comes to mind), then it could be that omitting control cities puts Caltrans in breach of its own standards. But I don't think Caltrans actually has such a list.
QuoteIn fact, in many other parts of the country including the Washington D.C. and New York City metropolitan areas, which have many 3-digit interstate highways, destinations are almost always used. Those destinations include cities, and regions. And even bridges and tunnels (which is a whole 'nother controversial subject). So who's kidding who in California?
There are other metropolitan areas where pull-through signs on three-digit Interstates don't have control cities. Wichita (where I live) is one example of such, as is Topeka and the parts of metro Kansas City that are in Kansas.
Well J.N., I guess Kansas and California are a longer way from New York and Washington than I thought . LOL
Let's also discuss the question of street and city names on the same sign. J.N. you correctly point out that the FHWA has advised against this practice since at least 1971. (No kidding, I did see it in the 1971 Manual, first edition I ever read.) And for 40 years I have never understood their position on that issue. BTW it's guidance, not a standard. The exact quote in the 2009 Manual is: A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided. Not "shall".
BTW, New York DOT apparently agrees that's it's a dumb recommendation. For 40 years Region-10 on Long Island has been using street names with one or two destinations (both in mixed-case lettering) on their BGS's with no problems that I know of.
Does anyone here know the specific reason for avoiding both together?
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 24, 2014, 08:25:18 PM
Now, if Caltrans has its own control city list (some state DOTs do--Arizona is one example that comes to mind), then it could be that omitting control cities puts Caltrans in breach of its own standards. But I don't think Caltrans actually has such a list.
According to the 2012 California MUTCD, each district is supposed to develop a list of control cities within their district and share that information with adjoining districts.
QuoteGuidance:
05 Each Department of Transportation District should determine its list of control cities in cooperation with adjacent districts and states to achieve continuity of signing for through traffic on State highways. Any given route should have the same control cities (in both directions of travel).
This guidance statement, found at the end of Sec 2E.13, was added by Caltrans. It does not exist in any form in the national MUTCD.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 25, 2014, 12:08:36 PM
This guidance statement, found at the end of Sec 2E.13, was added by Caltrans. It does not exist in any form in the national MUTCD.
Has that guidance statement been in previous CalTrans updates to the MUTCD?
This let-the-districts-choose approach explains why I-5 north in San Diego County is signed for "Los Angeles" while the same road/direction in southern Orange County is signed for "Santa Ana."
QuoteI don't remember if I-210 has box trusses, but I think the newer sections east are too new to have them. Casual inspection in Google StreetView doesn't turn up anything except Pratt trusses.
I think the stretch of I-210 between the 134 in Pasadena and the 118 Freeway (in other words through La Crescenta, La Canada and so forth) has box trusses on the above-grade stretches.
Fixed quoting. --roadfro
Quote from: TheStranger on February 25, 2014, 12:49:34 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 25, 2014, 12:08:36 PM
This guidance statement, found at the end of Sec 2E.13, was added by Caltrans. It does not exist in any form in the national MUTCD.
Has that guidance statement been in previous CalTrans updates to the MUTCD?
This let-the-districts-choose approach explains why I-5 north in San Diego County is signed for "Los Angeles" while the same road/direction in southern Orange County is signed for "Santa Ana."
It has. The same guidance statement was added in the 2003 California MUTCD.
Doing a little digging, that guidance statement was lifted, word-for-word, from Section 4-04.11 of the last edition of the Caltrans Traffic Manual...
Quote4-04.11 Control City Signing
Signing should be consistent, to distant major destinations (control cities) for long trip orientation. Each district should determine its list of control cities in cooperation with adjacent districts and states to achieve continuity of signing for through traffic. Any given route should have the same control cities (in both directions of travel). The "control city" should remain the same on all successive signs throughout the length of the route until that destination is reached.
What I find interesting is the last sentence, which was NOT carried over to the California MUTCD. Prior to 2003, the control city was not supposed to change until that destination is reached. Had that statement been carried over the MUTCD, District 12 would have had little choice but to sign I-5 for Los Angeles instead of Santa Ana unless they convinced District 11 to also use Santa Ana as the control city for I-5 north.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 23, 2014, 08:22:21 PM
Are you talking about just on pull-through signs only or entrance/exit signs too?
Specific examples of pull-throughs and freeway junctions that are seeing control cities removed, from the PDFs:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-1W2204/plans_and_specs/plans/07-1w2204_plans-pgs%20101-169.pdf
Page 3 and 5: "405 North"
Page 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16: "405 South"
Page 12: Note the retention of Manhattan Beach as a destination for Rosecrans Avenue.
---
From the original PDF posted at the start of the thread...
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-1W2204/plans_and_specs/plans/07-1w2204_plans-pgs%20001-100.pdf
Page 23 and 77 and 78: along I-10 west, replacement of "US 101 Los Angeles" exit sign with a plain "US 101" with no control city, and addition of pullthrough I-10/I-5 sign with no control city
Page 24, 25, 78, 79: replacement of I-210 San Fernando with I-210 WEST, while retaining control city for Route 134/Ventura
Page 35 and 88: replacement of I-210 San Bernardino with I-210 EAST
Page 37, 38, 46, 89, 90, 94: replacement of I-210 Pasadena with I-210 WEST
Page 53, 54, 98-100: replacement of I-405 Santa Monica with I-405 NORTH (note the retention of LAX Airport legend, as well as the control cities for 105)
Page 55: removal of control cities for 405-to-105 ramp
Page 57: replacement of I-405 Santa Monica with I-405 NORTH (but Inglewood and Route 42 retained for Manchester Avenue exit sign)
Page 58: replacement of Route 90 Marina Del Rey with Route 90 WEST
Page 59 and 60: replacement of I-405 Santa Monica/Sacramento with I-405 NORTH and replacement of Route 90 Marina Del Rey with Route 90 WEST; replacement of I-405 SOUTH Long Beach with I-405 SOUTH (but control cities for 110 retained)
Page 66: replacement of I-405 SOUTH Long Beach with I-405 SOUTH
Thanks TheStranger. I spoke to Jennifer N. today. She signed most of these plans as the engineer of record. I am putting a similar list together to send to her and supervisor. I'll let the group know of any response.
iPhone
Could it be that the reduction in legend is just an attempt to cut costs? Doesn't everything usually have to do with money? 30 years ago when a major highway in my area was resigned (in Long Island's last button-copy project) some legends were very minimalist (similar to what Caltrans is now doing) and one major split was insufficiently signed. I always figured that NYS DOT had under-budgeted the job, and had to skimp wherever they could to stay within budget.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 25, 2014, 08:31:30 PM
Thanks TheStranger. I spoke to Jennifer N. today. She signed most of these plans as the engineer of record. I am putting a similar list together to send to her and supervisor. I'll let the group know of any response.
iPhone
Thanks again for your input. I've actually really enjoyed this whole thread as it highlights a lot of what makes California unique compared to other states (district autonomy and freeway name usage in particular).
My own stylistic preferences would include freeway name retention, control city retention (or addition in the case of 605), and shield efficiency, but obviously consistency in the field based on MUTCD guidelines and existing practices is ultimately the goal of this discussion.
QuoteCould it be that the reduction in legend is just an attempt to cut costs?
On first guess, given that overall gantry message loading is what these signage plans attempt to address, I want to guess that the addition of exit number tabs has spurred on some of the legend removal. But that would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis...
Bringing up the example of I-10 west at I-5 (pages 77 and 78 of the originally linked PDF), the new sign of I-10 WEST arrow/I-5 SOUTH arrow/US 101 arrow replacing US 101 Los Angeles EXIT ONLY arrow...there is a message loading increase in that area, but somewhat more clarity as to what is mainline Interstate 10 (trying to remain consistent with other installations in the area identifying all three routes), at the expense of a listed destination.
Is it specifically stated somewhere in those plans that reduction of message loading is Caltrans' objective in this round of resigning? If that's true, maybe as the above poster said, they are trying to reduce the message units due to the addition of exit numbers. Or again, maybe to keep the costs the same even with exit numbers. I think that's more likely. Things usually revolve around money, not from trying to do the right thing.
I don't understand how weight can be an issue. These newer signs are MUCH lighter than the original ones and the text is screened into the sign, not an overlay like the originals. After replacement, the structures will ultimately see a lesser load.
iPhone
Yeah, what Andy said! The old signs were made of porcelain right? And the new ones are made of what, aluminum?
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 25, 2014, 10:13:25 PM
I don't understand how weight can be an issue. These newer signs are MUCH lighter than the original ones and the text is screened into the sign, not an overlay like the originals. After replacement, the structures will ultimately see a lesser load.
Sign weight is not the issue. Size is the issue, and it's because of wind loading. That's the driving force behind gantry design. Caltrans' height restriction is silly, because you can have a tall but narrow sign with less area than a very wide one.
But they are replacing the size 1 to 1 with the existing signs.
iPhone
Quote from: SignBridge on February 25, 2014, 10:04:47 PMIs it specifically stated somewhere in those plans that reduction of message loading is Caltrans' objective in this round of resigning? If that's true, maybe as the above poster said, they are trying to reduce the message units due to the addition of exit numbers. Or again, maybe to keep the costs the same even with exit numbers. I think that's more likely. Things usually revolve around money, not from trying to do the right thing.
The plans don't say any such thing--in general, construction plans sets don't contain statements of design intent. We surmise that the designers seek to reduce message loading after comparing the existing legends to their proposed replacement and seeing that, in most cases, message loading is either reduced or kept the same after addition of exit numbers.
In regard to AndyMax25's point about same-footprint replacement, the apparent intent is typically to allow reuse of existing mounting hardware. Many Caltrans overhead signs are of the formed-panel type, so the formed panels can be replaced while the removable sign panel frame (RSPF) that holds them together is re-used. (I don't know whether the RSPF has to be removed from the gantry in order for the individual panels to be replaced, or if they can be slotted into place in the field.) Obviously this is possible only if the replacement sign has the same exterior dimensions as the original.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 25, 2014, 10:22:44 PMYeah, what Andy said! The old signs were made of porcelain right? And the new ones are made of what, aluminum?
It depends on the age. Caltrans stopped using porcelain enamel on steel around 1970, and thereafter used aluminum. The two types can be differentiated by the type of button copy they have. Porcelain signs have reflectors applied to the sign surface with epoxy, while aluminum signs tend to have framed copy (the sheet of metal that is cut into the shape of a letter, crimped on the edges, and perforated to accommodate reflective buttons that are snapped into place is called a "frame").
I doubt the difference in weight is all that great. Aluminum is lighter than steel, but might be used at a heavier gauge for added sturdiness. The savings in weight from buttons and button frames is not great and might be outweighed by the weight of reflectorized film, which is not all that light. As Alps suggests, the driving consideration behind same-footprint replacement is probably to maintain the same wind loading, as this reduces design effort.
In regard to freeway names, I don't feel this is a winnable battle. Aside from message loading considerations, previous attempts to institute systematic signing of freeway names in the early 1960's (to accommodate what professionals then called the "local stranger," i.e. a person living in the LA basin and remaining in it but travelling well outside his or her local area) foundered on freeway names derived from one terminus: it was considered confusing to the motorist to sign, e.g., "San Diego Freeway" northbound headed to Santa Monica, i.e.
away from San Diego. And message loading is one important reason the US highways in California were truncated in 1964. A commonly quoted result of this change (in, e.g., US House committee testimony on freeway signing in 1967) was allowing the number of shields on a single gantry to drop from ten to four just by omitting overlapping US routes.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 24, 2014, 08:41:14 PMLet's also discuss the question of street and city names on the same sign. J.N. you correctly point out that the FHWA has advised against this practice since at least 1971. (No kidding, I did see it in the 1971 Manual, first edition I ever read.) And for 40 years I have never understood their position on that issue. BTW it's guidance, not a standard. The exact quote in the 2009 Manual is: A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided. Not "shall".
BTW, New York DOT apparently agrees that's it's a dumb recommendation. For 40 years Region-10 on Long Island has been using street names with one or two destinations (both in mixed-case lettering) on their BGS's with no problems that I know of.
Does anyone here know the specific reason for avoiding both together?
As it happens, NYSDOT has a currently advertised contract to replace signs on several freeway routes in Long Island (D262550 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_DIGITAL_DOCS.show?p_arg_names=p_d_id&p_arg_values=D262550)). It is a proposal-only job and the signface layout sheets alone run to over 400 pages. And, yes, many of the signs feature mixed street and place names, and I suspect at least some of them are replacements in kind, though it is hard to tell in the absence of sign layout sheets.
I have posted a question about this particular
MUTCD provision on the
MUTCD discussion board. I don't know if it will receive a sensible reply. My theory, however, is that the requirement has to do with establishing a clear delimitation between urban and rural signing and allowing sign spreading to be implemented without exposing the motorist to additional destinations at the last minute. Sign spreading involves the use of interchange sequence signs, which almost invariably list crossroads (not places) as destinations, to give motorists advance notice of an upcoming exit while keeping the number of advance guide signs provided for a given exit to the minimum. Since interchange sequence signs do not list places, any placename that appears on the advance guide or exit direction sign for the actual exit has the potential to nudge a motorist into a late decision to exit, which can be problematic especially on congested urban freeways where it is more difficult to maneuver to an exit ramp.
I guess my question, since Long Island is apparently local to you, is how extensively interchange sequence signs are used on the freeways there that feature mixed street and place names.
All,
I have submitted the attached document to some Caltrans D7 staff. I will let you know if I get any response. Let's cross our fingers.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf)
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 26, 2014, 02:50:13 PM
All,
I have submitted the attached document to some Caltrans D7 staff. I will let you know if I get any response. Let's cross our fingers.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf)
I see you included my redesign of the I-210 west sign in your correspondence. If someone at Caltrans inquires about that sign and includes a job offer to design signs, please let me know, ok? :)
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 26, 2014, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 26, 2014, 02:50:13 PM
All,
I have submitted the attached document to some Caltrans D7 staff. I will let you know if I get any response. Let's cross our fingers.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf)
I see you included my redesign of the I-210 west sign in your correspondence. If someone at Caltrans inquires about that sign and includes a job offer to design signs, please let me know, ok? :)
Myosh,
Ha ha! Thank you for posting those, I definitely helps to illustrate the point. Although I modified the 57 one a it a bit. I figured they wouldn't go for having Diamond Bar on there.
Which software do you use to create theses signs?
J.N. Thanks for your very informative reply to the points I brought up. You make an interesting case re: place names not being used with street names in urban areas due to the complication of interchange sequence signs. I hadn't thought of that.
In answer to your question, interchange sequence signs are used only occasionally in the New York City area. They appear in a few places but are not normally included in the sign system here. In fact, as a teenager growing up here years ago, I never knew such signs existed until I watched a movie filmed on the San Diego Fwy. where I saw them for the first time. (chuckle!) And I was quite impressed with the idea.
AndyMax, I have just read your submission to Caltrans. Hopefully your being a P.E./T.E. from the L.A. area will cause them to take your excellent suggestions seriously or at least send you an intelligent professional reply. Please keep us posted. Thanx!
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 26, 2014, 05:44:07 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 26, 2014, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 26, 2014, 02:50:13 PM
All,
I have submitted the attached document to some Caltrans D7 staff. I will let you know if I get any response. Let's cross our fingers.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf)
I see you included my redesign of the I-210 west sign in your correspondence. If someone at Caltrans inquires about that sign and includes a job offer to design signs, please let me know, ok? :)
Myosh,
Ha ha! Thank you for posting those, I definitely helps to illustrate the point. Although I modified the 57 one a it a bit. I figured they wouldn't go for having Diamond Bar on there.
Which software do you use to create theses signs?
To make a long story short, I have a sign-making library containing almost 400 elements (sign blanks, shields, arrows, sign trusses, etc) that, save for a few out-of-state route shields, were all self-created using specs I find online with 95% of the stuff in my library coming from specs I downloaded from the Caltrans website. I use Visio to create full-scale drawings and then import them into Photoshop where I add color and some text. I then resize everything to a more manageable scale. The final products are all created in Photoshop and then exported to either PNG or JPG.
Are freeway names shown on the entrance ramp signs there? If yes, wouldn't that be sufficient to tell drivers which "named" freeway that they are entering?
Interesting discussion. As a Caltrans engineer who is familiar with signing practices and policies, I would like to add the following comments:
Regarding the removal of freeway names: this is not a new requirement. It was also in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/control-devices/pdf/TMChapter4.pdf. See Index 4-04.9, which states, "The use of route numbers and cardinal directions is preferred in signing to freeways. At freeway to freeway interchanges, overhead signing by freeway name may be included in primary directional signs only when the freeway name is well recognized and space permits. At other than freeway to freeway interchanges, G77 and G78 signs including both the freeway name and appropriate route shield may be used to direct to the named freeway." This language is found in Section 2M.10 of the California MUTCD (in my opinion it should be in Section 2D.53).
Regarding the removal of community names on freeway signing: again, this is not a new requirement. Index 4-04.12 of the Traffic Manual included the statements, "Highway exits will be identified on signs by route markers and street names. Community names should not be included on street name exit signs." This language is now included in Section 2E.30 of the California MUTCD.
I do think it's really cool that somebody took the time to provide the comments to the District on the errors on the plans. Hopefully it will result in either an update being issued to the bid package, or they can be handled through the change order process.
Quote from: jrouse on February 27, 2014, 10:59:34 AM
Interesting discussion. As a Caltrans engineer who is familiar with signing practices and policies, I would like to add the following comments:
Regarding the removal of freeway names: this is not a new requirement. It was also in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/control-devices/pdf/TMChapter4.pdf. See Index 4-04.9, which states, "The use of route numbers and cardinal directions is preferred in signing to freeways. At freeway to freeway interchanges, overhead signing by freeway name may be included in primary directional signs only when the freeway name is well recognized and space permits. At other than freeway to freeway interchanges, G77 and G78 signs including both the freeway name and appropriate route shield may be used to direct to the named freeway." This language is found in Section 2M.10 of the California MUTCD (in my opinion it should be in Section 2D.53).
I find this bolded part pretty interesting - more because it (understandably) doesn't give a particular standard for "well recognized." I'm thinking specifically the case of Route 94 as the Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway (and to a milder extent Business 80 in Sacramento as the Capital City Freeway), in which the name-based signage was added en masse in the 1990s, years after the practice had been deprecated elsewhere.
The MacArthur Freeway named signage in the area (of which the signs at 24/580 date back to the 1960s/1970s) around the MacArthur Maze in Oakland seems to be the only existing Bay Area example of this practice beyond the one Bayshore Freeway sign in SF (and a few Nimitz Freeway signs here and there).
Quote from: jrouse on February 27, 2014, 10:59:34 AM
Regarding the removal of community names on freeway signing: again, this is not a new requirement. Index 4-04.12 of the Traffic Manual included the statements, "Highway exits will be identified on signs by route markers and street names. Community names should not be included on street name exit signs." This language is now included in Section 2E.30 of the California MUTCD.
Does the sentence I've bolded here...basically state that control city removal is highly recommended for _street_ (i.e. non-freeway/highway) exits? (Which would put it in line with newer national MUTCD standards)
Obviously if so, that wouldn't necessarily apply to through-route control cities and adjacent freeway control cities.
My memo to D7 was specific to the Control City names at freeway to freeway interchanges (ie 405 South Long Beach). I agree with D7 that putting community names underneath the street names at exits is not needed anymore. Although along southbound 57, there are 2 Chapman Ave exits within 5 miles of each other. The only way to differentiate the two (before exit numbers started again in CA) was by the community name, Fullerton for the northern exit and Orange for the southern exit.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.871128,-117.880039&spn=0.028684,0.03768&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=33.871201,-117.880064&panoid=VCMrM_JmFM9FGb0CURWHoQ&cbp=12,355.32,,0,-4.84
https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.791453,-117.87991&spn=0.014427,0.01884&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.791122,-117.87998&panoid=bTsOChpdaGkfVFeGm3IbXg&cbp=12,188.22,,0,4.63
Regarding the freeway names, I hate to see them disappear from the signage. D7 staff is always telling me that they are removing the freeway names because of MUTCD Section 2M.10 due to lack of space. I get it, no need to make a sign bigger just to keep the freeway names. However, there are numerous places where there is plenty of space and now the sign is mostly a big green sail. See this example below from SB 405 at I-10. Also, Santa Monica is a world class destination, who doesn't recognize Santa Monica!? And what happened to East and West??? They replaced the original sign almost 1 to 1 except removing the freeway name. It's clear that they need a quality control person over there.
Original sign in background: http://www.flickr.com/photos/51186333@N00/42579268/in/photolist-4Lekj-7jt3Ye-99GhPc-8m3gyR-8MUf8n-8U8apc-8kAJds-8kALJs-8vztbg-8nxmwb-8kZSC4-7im7RN-7im7E5-27ywJk-aLK6ev-8FEbhU-975mKZ-dyGAwC-9451BG-65WYwb-Pqdev-2SsYFW-iXgByA-6RKP7b-bC8LLD-7jxJZN-7jtRtV-7jtR4B-9iFdsg-dt9Zta-8MXGf7-8MXTem-8MUDsx-8MXWnh-8MUMkp-4pNQyq-8MUz8r-8MXDFG-8MXCQU-8MXRNY-8MUCSP-8MUFCi-8MUxRT-8MXJsA-8MUCFH-8MXCe1-8MXQYW-8MUzmi-8MXN8G-8MUK7i-8MXJG3 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51186333@N00/42579268/in/photolist-4Lekj-7jt3Ye-99GhPc-8m3gyR-8MUf8n-8U8apc-8kAJds-8kALJs-8vztbg-8nxmwb-8kZSC4-7im7RN-7im7E5-27ywJk-aLK6ev-8FEbhU-975mKZ-dyGAwC-9451BG-65WYwb-Pqdev-2SsYFW-iXgByA-6RKP7b-bC8LLD-7jxJZN-7jtRtV-7jtR4B-9iFdsg-dt9Zta-8MXGf7-8MXTem-8MUDsx-8MXWnh-8MUMkp-4pNQyq-8MUz8r-8MXDFG-8MXCQU-8MXRNY-8MUCSP-8MUFCi-8MUxRT-8MXJsA-8MUCFH-8MXCe1-8MXQYW-8MUzmi-8MXN8G-8MUK7i-8MXJG3)
New Sign: https://www.aaroads.com/california/images405/i-405_sb_exit_053_05.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images405/i-405_sb_exit_053_05.jpg)
Here the old sign used to show the freeway name but not on the new one. The name would fit identically above Santa Monica Blvd. Oh well.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=x3115ia8maAMhM&tbnid=0ug0D7FdiHzexM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fraymondyue%2F5605244003%2F&ei=Mm8PU4a0OJLBoASvtYDwAQ&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNGvQ4Tg0icjSP3CtPQe_yVeaGghmA&ust=1393606790515563 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=x3115ia8maAMhM&tbnid=0ug0D7FdiHzexM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fraymondyue%2F5605244003%2F&ei=Mm8PU4a0OJLBoASvtYDwAQ&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNGvQ4Tg0icjSP3CtPQe_yVeaGghmA&ust=1393606790515563)
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 27, 2014, 12:14:21 PM
Here the old sign used to show the freeway name but not on the new one. The name would fit identically above Santa Monica Blvd. Oh well.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=x3115ia8maAMhM&tbnid=0ug0D7FdiHzexM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fraymondyue%2F5605244003%2F&ei=Mm8PU4a0OJLBoASvtYDwAQ&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNGvQ4Tg0icjSP3CtPQe_yVeaGghmA&ust=1393606790515563 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=x3115ia8maAMhM&tbnid=0ug0D7FdiHzexM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fraymondyue%2F5605244003%2F&ei=Mm8PU4a0OJLBoASvtYDwAQ&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNGvQ4Tg0icjSP3CtPQe_yVeaGghmA&ust=1393606790515563)
Isn't 'I-10 Freeway' redundant, since all Interstates are (
supposed to be) freeways? Also, RaymondYu photo detected. :ded:
Quote from: Zeffy on February 27, 2014, 12:32:27 PM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 27, 2014, 12:14:21 PM
Here the old sign used to show the freeway name but not on the new one. The name would fit identically above Santa Monica Blvd. Oh well.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=x3115ia8maAMhM&tbnid=0ug0D7FdiHzexM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fraymondyue%2F5605244003%2F&ei=Mm8PU4a0OJLBoASvtYDwAQ&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNGvQ4Tg0icjSP3CtPQe_yVeaGghmA&ust=1393606790515563 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=x3115ia8maAMhM&tbnid=0ug0D7FdiHzexM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fraymondyue%2F5605244003%2F&ei=Mm8PU4a0OJLBoASvtYDwAQ&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNGvQ4Tg0icjSP3CtPQe_yVeaGghmA&ust=1393606790515563)
Isn't 'I-10 Freeway' redundant, since all Interstates are (supposed to be) freeways? Also, RaymondYu photo detected. :ded:
That, and I think having Santa Monica Fwy immediately above Santa Monica Blvd might cause confusion for unaware drivers.
Yeah well, years ago there used to be an interchange sequence sign on I-405 northbound just north of the Mulholland Dr. overpass that listed Ventura Blvd. with Ventura Fwy. directly under it. Caltrans didn't have a problem doing that, 40 years ago at least.
With apologies to J. Rouse I have to say again, the inconsistency of California freeway signing is mind boggling. Like that sign photo above on the 405-south at the Santa Monica Fwy. not showing east/west. Give us a break! And BTW, how much sense does it make to have a sign pointing to Los Angeles when you're already in the City of Los Angeles??? Maybe it could show Downtown L.A. as the destination?
I know Calif. had their own Manual for many years (as did New York) but the Federal Manual clearly specifies route shield, cardinal direction, and control city at fwy-to-fwy interchanges.
Quote from: jrouse on February 27, 2014, 10:59:34 AM
Interesting discussion. As a Caltrans engineer who is familiar with signing practices and policies, I would like to add the following comments:
Regarding the removal of freeway names: this is not a new requirement. It was also in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/control-devices/pdf/TMChapter4.pdf. See Index 4-04.9, which states, "The use of route numbers and cardinal directions is preferred in signing to freeways. At freeway to freeway interchanges, overhead signing by freeway name may be included in primary directional signs only when the freeway name is well recognized and space permits. At other than freeway to freeway interchanges, G77 and G78 signs including both the freeway name and appropriate route shield may be used to direct to the named freeway." This language is found in Section 2M.10 of the California MUTCD (in my opinion it should be in Section 2D.53).
Regarding the removal of community names on freeway signing: again, this is not a new requirement. Index 4-04.12 of the Traffic Manual included the statements, "Highway exits will be identified on signs by route markers and street names. Community names should not be included on street name exit signs." This language is now included in Section 2E.30 of the California MUTCD.
I do think it's really cool that somebody took the time to provide the comments to the District on the errors on the plans. Hopefully it will result in either an update being issued to the bid package, or they can be handled through the change order process.
Joe! - I loved your old webpage. I used to peruse it quite a bit back in law school when the internet was fairly new and I was a young roadgeek.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on February 27, 2014, 09:08:28 PM
Joe! - I loved your old webpage. I used to peruse it quite a bit back in law school when the internet was fairly new and I was a young roadgeek.
To be honest until I saw your post I'd completely forgotten about my attempt at a webpage.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 27, 2014, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: jrouse on February 27, 2014, 10:59:34 AM
Regarding the removal of community names on freeway signing: again, this is not a new requirement. Index 4-04.12 of the Traffic Manual included the statements, "Highway exits will be identified on signs by route markers and street names. Community names should not be included on street name exit signs." This language is now included in Section 2E.30 of the California MUTCD.
Does the sentence I've bolded here...basically state that control city removal is highly recommended for _street_ (i.e. non-freeway/highway) exits? (Which would put it in line with newer national MUTCD standards)
Obviously if so, that wouldn't necessarily apply to through-route control cities and adjacent freeway control cities.
You are correct.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 26, 2014, 06:03:44 PM
AndyMax, I have just read your submission to Caltrans. Hopefully your being a P.E./T.E. from the L.A. area will cause them to take your excellent suggestions seriously or at least send you an intelligent professional reply. Please keep us posted. Thanx!
I agree. It would be shameful to get rid of control cities all over the place. I also like the fact that you showed them that the new signs actually are inconsistent with current guidelines, let alone traditional signing practices.
Quote from: Alps on February 25, 2014, 11:39:59 PM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 25, 2014, 10:13:25 PM
I don't understand how weight can be an issue. These newer signs are MUCH lighter than the original ones and the text is screened into the sign, not an overlay like the originals. After replacement, the structures will ultimately see a lesser load.
Sign weight is not the issue. Size is the issue, and it's because of wind loading. That's the driving force behind gantry design. Caltrans' height restriction is silly, because you can have a tall but narrow sign with less area than a very wide one.
I'm not an engineer by any means, but I have never understood Caltrans's "wind load" excuse. I live in Florida, and we get some pretty strong winds during out summer afternoon thunderstorms. And then there are hurricanes. During Hurricane Charley in 2004 we had 100 mph sustained winds in Orlando and there were very few, if any, BGS's damaged or destroyed in the area. And we have some pretty big BGS's around here.
Surely, California rarely, if ever, experiences hurricane force winds.
I don't think the issue is wind load. We've learned a lot on this board in the last couple of weeks. I believe J.N. Winkler hit the nail on the head in his post of 2/26/14. He explained that in addition to continuing using the existing "sign bridges" or gantries, that the new signs must fit into the old sign mounting frames that Caltrans also apparently re-uses. I guess re-cycling all that equipment saves them thousands of dollars every year.
However, this is an unfortunate legacy regarding Caltrans' equipment. If true, it effectively limits replacement signs to the exact same size and dimensions as the old signs. Years ago, it must never have occurred to Caltrans that some day, they might want to change some legends. And that's why so many BGS's in California look like the legends were crammed onto them so awkwardly. It's a real shame.
One wonders why they don't change to a different type of mounting used by many other states that permits replacing signs with new ones of different size and dimensions. I guess once you have a system in place in a huge operation like California, it must be difficult to change.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 03, 2014, 08:48:29 PM
I don't think the issue is wind load. We've learned a lot on this board in the last couple of weeks. I believe J.N. Winkler hit the nail on the head in his post of 2/26/14. He explained that in addition to continuing using the existing "sign bridges" or gantries, that the new signs must fit into the old sign mounting frames that Caltrans also apparently re-uses. I guess re-cycling all that equipment saves them thousands of dollars every year.
However, this is an unfortunate legacy regarding Caltrans' equipment. If true, it effectively limits replacement signs to the exact same size and dimensions as the old signs. Years ago, it must never have occurred to Caltrans that some day, they might want to change some legends. And that's why so many BGS's in California look like the legends were crammed onto them so awkwardly. It's a real shame.
One wonders why they don't change to a different type of mounting used by many other states that permits replacing signs with new ones of different size and dimensions. I guess once you have a system in place in a huge operation like California, it must be difficult to change.
You've pretty well nailed it. I would like to provide some clarification and additional background, though.
When AASHTO changed the wind load standards for sign structures in 2001, Caltrans had to completely redesign its sign structure standards. This was done in the 2004 standard plans. It is, however, expensive to install a new sign structure, and so in cases like this District 7 project, a lot of the existing infrastructure gets re-used. And as you noted, replacement sign panels on the existing infrastructure need to be the exact size, or smaller. I believe this is also due to concerns about wind loading. It's surface area that counts, not necessarily dimensions. Not all districts use the sign mounting frames; obviously if a frame is used, then the new panel has to be the same dimensions as the old panel. Bottom line - if you want a bigger panel, you need a new sign structure to accommodate it.
Caltrans sign structures are designed to accommodate panels up to 120 inches in height; panel lengths can vary, up to 40 feet for a cantilever structure. Those dimensions did not change with the redesign to accommodate the new wind load standards. That redesign involved new post sizes and changes to the foundations, and I suspect, but cannot confirm, that it was also the reason for the elimination of the box beam closed truss sign structures. Look at the 2002 Standard Plans versus the 2004 Standard Plans for a comparison, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/construction_standards.html
That 120-inch depth requirement is really the controlling limitation. I think the MUTCD requirements for control city/cardinal direction that have been discussed extensively this thread could still be accommodated with the current panel size limitations. I can't explain why those requirements aren't being met.
In some cases, the panel dimensions shown in the Standard Highway Signs book exceed the maximum depth for our structures. The arrow per lane signs and the R3-48 series of pricing signs for express lanes are two examples that I am personally aware of.
You all know that California has always marched to a different drummer. And even within the state, there's inconsistency. The districts have a lot of say about how things are done, and there's not a lot of push or control from HQ to standardize, and that leads to the variation you see. Personally, that bothers me, and as a HQ guy, I try to push for statewide consistency as much as possible in the programs that I oversee (HOV lanes and HOT lanes). There are some places where they are rigorous about following the MUTCD, and then there are other places where the staff apparently don't seem to know or care. I'm not going to name those places; those of you who live and travel in this state know where they are.
Even with the adoption of the MUTCD, we've still kept to our own way of doing things, but now some things are going to have to change. Our signing unit at HQ has been having dialogue with the structures division about the limitations of our sign structures versus what the dimensions shown in the MUTCD and Standard Highway Signs book. It will require a complete redesign of our sign structure standards which will take time and cost money, both of which are in short supply around here.
Quote from: jrouse on March 04, 2014, 10:59:22 AM
Caltrans sign structures are designed to accommodate panels up to 120 inches in height; panel lengths can vary, up to 40 feet for a cantilever structure. Those dimensions did not change with the redesign to accommodate the new wind load standards. That redesign involved new post sizes and changes to the foundations, and I suspect, but cannot confirm, that it was also the reason for the elimination of the box beam closed truss sign structures.
So that explains why newer truss-type sign bridges have a noticeably larger post and a round foundation versus the older square foundation.
Quote from: jrouse on March 04, 2014, 10:59:22 AM
There are some places where they are rigorous about following the MUTCD, and then there are other places where the staff apparently don't seem to know or care. I'm not going to name those places; those of you who live and travel in this state know where they are.
Hmmm... the only district that seems to be trying to follow the national MUTCD is District 6 (Fresno) with it's larger exit gore signs and arrow-per-lane signage (while keeping the 120" height limitation). District 4 (S.F. Bay Area) seems to have no problems replacing older trusses with newer ones and while new signs here look fairly decent, the use of "down arrows" that point up-and-right on exit direction signs is a bit troubling.
Thank you jrouse for your comments. It helps to know what's going on in the inside.
So now I understand that Caltrans is limited in the size of the signs due to the constraints that you mentioned.
Yet, at the same time, the purpose of good signage is guiding the driving public so they can find where they need to go. And I feel that the new signage standards get rid of too much useful information.
I received this message from Caltrans yesterday:
"Thank you for your observation and I appreciate your comments on Caltrans project.
We will look into each individual location and get back to you shortly"
I will continue to keep you all updated.
iPhone
Thanks SignBridge and jrouse for the clarification and info. Now I understand why Caltrans uses the exact same size for the new signs. "Wind load" often gets the blame, but re-using the existing structures makes a lot more sense.
How long does a sign gantry typically last? In California there are tons of gantries that are more than 40, 50, perhaps even 60 years old. At some point won't they have to replaced due to age?
I'd like to thank jrouse also for his candid summary of Caltrans practices as well as his confirming my theory on California signing in general. Also AndyMax25 for keeping us posted on Caltrans' replies and JN Winkler for his knowledge and input on these issues. And everyone else on this board for their interest and observations. This has turned into a really interesting and productive thread.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on February 24, 2014, 05:36:53 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on February 23, 2014, 10:05:15 PM
New signage on I-405 at the 22 shows not only control cities, but a NEW control city (Irvine). I suspect the practice to reduce would be for EXITS not mainline signage.
This project is an excellent example of two districts handling signage in different and inconsistent ways.
For example, on the District 7 side, the recent replacement signs on the 405 south approaching the 22/605 interchange use the ubiquitous "605 Freeway" language on BGS and advance signs. On the District 12 side, where the interchange construction coincidentally means new signs are being put up south of the 605/22 interchange at the same time District 7 replaced their signs north of the interchange, the 605 is simply referred to as "605 NORTH". Further, District 12's construction contractor is using first letter raised cardinal directions, while the new signs for District 12 keep the traditional one-height cardinal directions.
Here's the sign bridge with the Irvine control city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2FP1160054---405-22-605-construction-2014-04-05_zps8b84379b.jpg&hash=2db472c244312425fc1aa148df3d450f51011964)
I love the use of two control cities. They should also have Santa Ana as an additional control for the 22. But some of the other information on the sign bridge does lead to information overload.
I think it's a fair assumption that most traffic at this point wants either the 405 or 22 and only a small number want the local exits. So the information about GG Blvd, Valley View, and Bolsa Chica should be on supplemental LGSs and not on the main sign bridge.
Quote from: MarkF on April 06, 2014, 03:17:48 AM
Here's the sign bridge with the Irvine control city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2FP1160054---405-22-605-construction-2014-04-05_zps8b84379b.jpg&hash=2db472c244312425fc1aa148df3d450f51011964)
Are the cardinal directions in Series D? The lettering looks quite narrow and does not look like Series E or E-modified at all.
Just a quick update on 07-1W2204, the contract that kicked off this discussion: bids were opened last March 6 and the contract was awarded for $1.9 million on March 24. Prior to bid opening, only one addendum was issued, with date (February 26) coinciding with AndyMax25's letter. The addendum dealt with temporary pollution control and did not address any of the concerns raised in this thread.
I received an email acknowledging the comments and that they would be considered (the email was posted earlier). The project manager even offered to meet me in person, which I accepted. But I have not heard from them since. With the contract awarded, I will try to contact them this week to see of there will be an addendum or a design change.
iPhone
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 06, 2014, 02:51:56 PM
Quote from: MarkF on April 06, 2014, 03:17:48 AM
Here's the sign bridge with the Irvine control city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2FP1160054---405-22-605-construction-2014-04-05_zps8b84379b.jpg&hash=2db472c244312425fc1aa148df3d450f51011964)
Are the cardinal directions in Series D? The lettering looks quite narrow and does not look like Series E or E-modified at all.
Exit 5,Exit 21? Please explain.
I drive under that sign bridge fairly often. it's gotta be a candidate for "worst of road signs". just completely confusing with the distracting grayout (!), the two inconsistent exit numbers, the random "Bolsa Chica Rd", the excessive "TRUCKS OK" (no, it would not kill the trucks to have to stay right for 300 more feet), and of course Irvine.
for anyone that supports Irvine as a control city or really anything other than a target for artillery practice... have you ever been to Irvine!?
Quote from: pctech on April 07, 2014, 08:25:05 AM
Exit 5,Exit 21? Please explain.
My guess is that the Exit 5 referenced is that of Route 22 east. This type of vague exit number reference can be found elsewhere too, as seen in this example in Sacramento on westbound 80:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4770809760/in/set-72157624279252253
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 06, 2014, 03:38:17 PM
Just a quick update on 07-1W2204, the contract that kicked off this discussion: bids were opened last March 6 and the contract was awarded for $1.9 million on March 24. Prior to bid opening, only one addendum was issued, with date (February 26) coinciding with AndyMax25's letter. The addendum dealt with temporary pollution control and did not address any of the concerns raised in this thread.
I just had this correspondence with Caltrans today:
Me: I've noticed that the bid was awarded on March 24. Will there be any adjustments to the sign designs via addendum or change order?
Caltrans: We have informed the Resident Engineer to expect changes on the Installation Orders (IO) which will be issued very soon. Since this project allowed only panel replacements, we are confined with the existing sizes and changing the messages would have no impact on the project. Therefore, we will correct the panels on the IO's.Me: Do you anticipate that all of the comments will be incorporated? The comments did not necessitate the need to change any of the sign sizes. Caltrans: Yes, we are evaluating all the comments and will incorporate all the changes that are possible.I guess we will just have to wait and see what they look like once they are installed. Does anyone know if these Installation Orders are posted on the internet?
AndyMax25--many thanks for following up on this.
Your Caltrans contact is talking about Sign Installation Orders (SIOs). A SIO is prepared on a standard Caltrans form and includes a pattern-accurate sketch of the sign together with details (arranged in tabular format) of sheeting, substrate type, mounting, etc. Caltrans has a filled-out sample here:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/pdf/Sample_IO.pdf
In theory, a SIO is filled out by Caltrans whenever a sign is to be installed, whether by contractors or Caltrans maintenance forces. It is used in an internal accounting process ("DAS-OBM" in the form number means "Department of Administrative Services, Office of Business Management"), but since it has route and postmile for the sign to be installed, it can be used for sign logging purposes. District 7 has been experimenting for several years with a SIO database which essentially contains scans of every SIO it has issued over the past decade or so. It is not online, however, and I know of no easy way to get hold of SIOs, though your contact might be willing to pass you a copy of the SIO package for this contract as a courtesy once it is finalized.
Quote from: MarkF on April 06, 2014, 03:17:48 AM
Here's the sign bridge with the Irvine control city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2FP1160054---405-22-605-construction-2014-04-05_zps8b84379b.jpg&hash=2db472c244312425fc1aa148df3d450f51011964)
Curiosity got the best of me last night so I went looking for and was able to find the sign plans for this project on the Caltrans website (project number 12-071621). With the sign plan in hand I went to work duplicating the signs and here's what I came up with...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F405-22_SignPlan_800.png&hash=5074a436895bcc58e4f588e07a1322773fd91077)
This is easily the largest drawing I've done. The entire sign truss is over 134 feet wide. Interestingly, the original plans call for only San Diego being listed as a control city for I-405 and the Series D cardinal directions are what appears on the plans. The above image was reduced from 1832 pixels to 800 pixels wide. To see the original-sized drawing go to http://markyville.com/aaroads/405-22_SignPlan.png
so, who's the asshole that added Irvine?
Being in D12, it is probably the same group/person that added Santa Ana to the Los Angeles signs. Even State 57 at its southern terminus - in Santa Ana - still gives Santa Ana instead of San Diego.
History and references regarding the changes of control city names along 405 and 5 freeways:
http://m.ocregister.com/articles/irvine-216680-signs-city.html. Dated October 27, 2009
http://m.ocregister.com/articles/santa-188399-city-freeway.html
Dated Dec 13, 2006
iPhone
Adding "Anaheim /" to the northbound CA 55 control city (was just Riverside) was the most misleading. Yes, CA 55 ends in Anaheim, but to most people Anaheim is the Disneyland area. Wonder if many going to Disneyland get mislead to exiting NB 5 at 55. At least 405 goes through and terminates in Irvine.
Quote from: MarkF on April 09, 2014, 12:46:12 AM
Adding "Anaheim /" to the northbound CA 55 control city (was just Riverside) was the most misleading. Yes, CA 55 ends in Anaheim, but to most people Anaheim is the Disneyland area. Wonder if many going to Disneyland get mislead to exiting NB 5 at 55. At least 405 goes through and terminates in Irvine.
Except for the residential Anaheim Hills area,
every other part of Anaheim is better reached by staying on I-5 north instead of getting on CA-55, including any destination of note: Disney, the Convention Center, Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, downtown, etc. - these are all directly reached by staying on I-5.
Shouldn't the double yellow "only" arrows on the second sign from the right be centered over the lanes? It looks like it's compressed to save space on the right hand signs. California drivers would be used these "lots of information" freeway signs, but it would likely be confusing to out of area drivers.
Quote from: pctech on April 09, 2014, 10:03:21 AM
Shouldn't the double yellow "only" arrows on the second sign from the right be centered over the lanes? It looks like it's compressed to save space on the right hand signs. California drivers would be used these "lots of information" freeway signs, but it would likely be confusing to out of area drivers.
While it may look like that in the photo, construction is still ongoing. Looking at the signing plan, the arrows are spaced 11.5 feet apart which is close enough. I don't think the arrows being off by 3 inches will cause any problems.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on April 09, 2014, 12:34:26 AM
History and references regarding the changes of control city names along 405 and 5 freeways:
http://m.ocregister.com/articles/irvine-216680-signs-city.html. Dated October 27, 2009
http://m.ocregister.com/articles/santa-188399-city-freeway.html
Dated Dec 13, 2006
I generally like the idea of isolated uses of a second control city if it provides clarity for the user without cluttering up the signage. Of course, it requires sound judgment to make such a determination.
For 55 north, Anaheim is awful because it leads people from the I-5 away from central Anaheim. A better control would be Yorba Linda. I never liked Riverside because even though the 55 leads to the 91, Riverside is kind of far and really more east than north. If I was in Newport Beach, heading up the 55 would lead to Northern Orange County, nor Riverside.
For I-5 north, I'd be OK if they put both Santa Ana and Los Angeles on the BGS. But I dislike that they replaced Los Angeles for Santa Ana, particularly as Los Angeles is used as the control throughout San Diego County.
So far, I'm OK with Irvine/San Diego for the 405. Irvine is an important employment destination and they didn't replace San Diego. My issues with the sign is clutter due to the mention of all the surface streets on the same structure. The surface streets should be mentioned on separate signs before the interchange and not clog up the rest of the information.
I agree that there is info overload on that sign display. I'm not familiar enough with that area to comment on the destinations shown. But I agree the info for the secondary exits should have been shown on supplemental signs.
And re: the inconsistent exit numbers, this kind of confusion is probably one reason Caltrans never wanted to get involved in exit numbers in the first place.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 11, 2014, 08:05:32 PM
And re: the inconsistent exit numbers, this kind of confusion is probably one reason Caltrans never wanted to get involved in exit numbers in the first place.
I think a simple solution would be to identify which route goes with which exit number when a concurrency splits off like this, or when a new route begins. (i.e. instead of it being simply "Exit 5" it'd be marked as "Route 22 - Exit 5" somehow). Can see that creating a message loading issue though.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 26, 2014, 02:50:13 PM
All,
I have submitted the attached document to some Caltrans D7 staff. I will let you know if I get any response. Let's cross our fingers.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf)
All,
Earlier today, I met with a Senior Transportation Engineer and 2 Transportation Engineers with Caltrans D7 Division of Operations - Traffic Design office regarding this project. First of all, I was completely surprised that they invited me for a face-to-face meeting, let alone consider the comments. We went sheet by sheet, comment by comment and they incorporated 95% of the comments. The Senior Transportation Engineer explained that his team was "misled" by the Division of Design within D7 to believe that the control city names should not be included on the overhead signs. They were all very thankful for the time to review the plans and acknowledged that this has saved them a lot of time, money, and possibly even some bad press.
They addressed all of the comments plus some other minor changes of their own. A couple of other things to note from the meeting:
1. Along the West 210 segment, since San Fernando is not an approved control city, all signs will say Sacramento.
2. We discussed at length sign 211(d) on page 46/169. I explained that normally the primary route is on top and other messages or secondary routes are usually below. I also explained the history of the area and how the old sign was patched together BEFORE 57 was extended from 10 to 210. They mentioned that since the sign designates 1 mile ahead, the "USE" line was more clear. They will check in again with Division of Design and get back to me.
3. Although I did not include this in my comments, on page 50/169, they are showing the route numbers at the left edge of the sign rather than the right side after the street name. I did not discuss this with them as they indicated that they received direction from the Division of Design to implement this change as a new standard. I did not tell then that now the plans are more inconsistent. I personally like the old style of Freeway/Street name, then the route number, then direction.
4. I asked them about exit number placement and they will get back to me about adding a few more where space is clearly available. They verbally agreed to add Exit 46 onto sign 250(b) on page 56.
The meeting minutes, action items, summary of changes, and the revised plans are all saved here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1vrwwygsynkxwln/Contract_07%E2%80%901W2204_Caltrans_Response.pdf
Thank you all for your time, for bringing up this project on this forum, and for all of your input. It felt like huge breakthrough. Let me know if anyone has questions that I can pass along to the Caltrans Engineers.
I thought 3-digit Interstates didn't need approval for control cities. They go where they go.
Great job Andy! I'm really amazed that they were so interested in your input and agreed to make changes. Someone in their midst at Caltrans must have screwed up big time.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on May 15, 2014, 07:05:36 PM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 26, 2014, 02:50:13 PM
All,
I have submitted the attached document to some Caltrans D7 staff. I will let you know if I get any response. Let's cross our fingers.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf)
All,
Earlier today, I met with a Senior Transportation Engineer and 2 Transportation Engineers with Caltrans D7 Division of Operations - Traffic Design office regarding this project. First of all, I was completely surprised that they invited me for a face-to-face meeting, let alone consider the comments. We went sheet by sheet, comment by comment and they incorporated 95% of the comments. The Senior Transportation Engineer explained that his team was "misled" by the Division of Design within D7 to believe that the control city names should not be included on the overhead signs. They were all very thankful for the time to review the plans and acknowledged that this has saved them a lot of time, money, and possibly even some bad press.
They addressed all of the comments plus some other minor changes of their own. A couple of other things to note from the meeting:
1. Along the West 210 segment, since San Fernando is not an approved control city, all signs will say Sacramento.
I prefer San Fernando, but since every other highway that heads towards I-5 (including I-405 which ends very close to San Fernando) uses Sacramento, there is not much lost in using Sacramento for I-210 west as well.
[
Quote from: mrsman on May 18, 2014, 01:39:16 PM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on May 15, 2014, 07:05:36 PM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 26, 2014, 02:50:13 PM
All,
I have submitted the attached document to some Caltrans D7 staff. I will let you know if I get any response. Let's cross our fingers.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf)
All,
Earlier today, I met with a Senior Transportation Engineer and 2 Transportation Engineers with Caltrans D7 Division of Operations - Traffic Design office regarding this project. First of all, I was completely surprised that they invited me for a face-to-face meeting, let alone consider the comments. We went sheet by sheet, comment by comment and they incorporated 95% of the comments. The Senior Transportation Engineer explained that his team was "misled" by the Division of Design within D7 to believe that the control city names should not be included on the overhead signs. They were all very thankful for the time to review the plans and acknowledged that this has saved them a lot of time, money, and possibly even some bad press.
They addressed all of the comments plus some other minor changes of their own. A couple of other things to note from the meeting:
1. Along the West 210 segment, since San Fernando is not an approved control city, all signs will say Sacramento.
I prefer San Fernando, but since every other highway that heads towards I-5 (including I-405 which ends very close to San Fernando) uses Sacramento, there is not much lost in using Sacramento for I-210 west as well.
Then Shouldn't 210 East be signed for Palm Springs, or Indio considering it's Parent 10 East is signed for those. Redlands can stay but Palm Springs or Indio should be added.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on May 15, 2014, 07:05:36 PM
All,
Earlier today, I met with a Senior Transportation Engineer and 2 Transportation Engineers with Caltrans D7 Division of Operations - Traffic Design office regarding this project. First of all, I was completely surprised that they invited me for a face-to-face meeting, let alone consider the comments. We went sheet by sheet, comment by comment and they incorporated 95% of the comments. The Senior Transportation Engineer explained that his team was "misled" by the Division of Design within D7 to believe that the control city names should not be included on the overhead signs. They were all very thankful for the time to review the plans and acknowledged that this has saved them a lot of time, money, and possibly even some bad press.
They addressed all of the comments plus some other minor changes of their own. A couple of other things to note from the meeting:
1. Along the West 210 segment, since San Fernando is not an approved control city, all signs will say Sacramento.
2. We discussed at length sign 211(d) on page 46/169. I explained that normally the primary route is on top and other messages or secondary routes are usually below. I also explained the history of the area and how the old sign was patched together BEFORE 57 was extended from 10 to 210. They mentioned that since the sign designates 1 mile ahead, the "USE" line was more clear. They will check in again with Division of Design and get back to me.
3. Although I did not include this in my comments, on page 50/169, they are showing the route numbers at the left edge of the sign rather than the right side after the street name. I did not discuss this with them as they indicated that they received direction from the Division of Design to implement this change as a new standard. I did not tell then that now the plans are more inconsistent. I personally like the old style of Freeway/Street name, then the route number, then direction.
4. I asked them about exit number placement and they will get back to me about adding a few more where space is clearly available. They verbally agreed to add Exit 46 onto sign 250(b) on page 56.
The meeting minutes, action items, summary of changes, and the revised plans are all saved here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1vrwwygsynkxwln/Contract_07%E2%80%901W2204_Caltrans_Response.pdf
Thank you all for your time, for bringing up this project on this forum, and for all of your input. It felt like huge breakthrough. Let me know if anyone has questions that I can pass along to the Caltrans Engineers.
Excellent work AndyMax! :clap: :clap: :clap:
Anyways, I had a chance to go over the revisions Caltrans made to those signs and while I like what I see, I still don't care for the layout of the 57/10/71 sign (211b). Here's another alternate layout of that sign that puts all shields on the same line and removed the Diamond Bar control city...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fct-d7_211d_rev2.png&hash=97875dda24510694cf06cc95746c858cb74a545f)
Here's an approximation of the Caltrans revision...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fct-d7_211d_revCT.png&hash=f310e02ced1b61e98906e524dd6abdba27036b07)
Myosh, I like your redesign. I think it has the best readability. However, I think Caltrans wants the I-10 shield to be the first thing people read on the sign; they want the Interstate highway to predominate.
Quote from: jrouse on May 19, 2014, 10:34:08 PM
Nice work. Can you PM me the names of the people you talked to? I would like to see if I can get them to correct some of the HOV lane signing, because it's incorrect in a few places as well.
Ditto. Great job!
And good luck, Joe.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on May 15, 2014, 07:05:36 PM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on February 26, 2014, 02:50:13 PM
All,
I have submitted the attached document to some Caltrans D7 staff. I will let you know if I get any response. Let's cross our fingers.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf)
All,
Earlier today, I met with a Senior Transportation Engineer and 2 Transportation Engineers with Caltrans D7 Division of Operations - Traffic Design office regarding this project. First of all, I was completely surprised that they invited me for a face-to-face meeting, let alone consider the comments. We went sheet by sheet, comment by comment and they incorporated 95% of the comments. The Senior Transportation Engineer explained that his team was "misled" by the Division of Design within D7 to believe that the control city names should not be included on the overhead signs. They were all very thankful for the time to review the plans and acknowledged that this has saved them a lot of time, money, and possibly even some bad press.
They addressed all of the comments plus some other minor changes of their own. A couple of other things to note from the meeting:
1. Along the West 210 segment, since San Fernando is not an approved control city, all signs will say Sacramento.
2. We discussed at length sign 211(d) on page 46/169. I explained that normally the primary route is on top and other messages or secondary routes are usually below. I also explained the history of the area and how the old sign was patched together BEFORE 57 was extended from 10 to 210. They mentioned that since the sign designates 1 mile ahead, the "USE" line was more clear. They will check in again with Division of Design and get back to me.
3. Although I did not include this in my comments, on page 50/169, they are showing the route numbers at the left edge of the sign rather than the right side after the street name. I did not discuss this with them as they indicated that they received direction from the Division of Design to implement this change as a new standard. I did not tell then that now the plans are more inconsistent. I personally like the old style of Freeway/Street name, then the route number, then direction.
4. I asked them about exit number placement and they will get back to me about adding a few more where space is clearly available. They verbally agreed to add Exit 46 onto sign 250(b) on page 56.
The meeting minutes, action items, summary of changes, and the revised plans are all saved here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1vrwwygsynkxwln/Contract_07%E2%80%901W2204_Caltrans_Response.pdf
Thank you all for your time, for bringing up this project on this forum, and for all of your input. It felt like huge breakthrough. Let me know if anyone has questions that I can pass along to the Caltrans Engineers.
I am completely impressed by how this has all turned out. Great work! Question: on page 5 of your comments you talk about removing the CA-42 shields since that route doesn't exist anymore; right above it you talk about the 405/Artesia interchange and adding directionals to the CA-91 shield - but hasn't CA-91 been truncated back to I-110? Shouldn't the CA-91 shields be removed completely?
But again, this is incredible work, and more than I could have hoped for in terms of a response from Caltrans. Yay!
Quote from: DTComposer on May 21, 2014, 12:06:32 AM
I am completely impressed by how this has all turned out. Great work! Question: on page 5 of your comments you talk about removing the CA-42 shields since that route doesn't exist anymore; right above it you talk about the 405/Artesia interchange and adding directionals to the CA-91 shield - but hasn't CA-91 been truncated back to I-110? Shouldn't the CA-91 shields be removed completely?
I know 91's relinquishment status has changed over the last few years to cover more and more of the surface street route...as of January/February, the route is actually still well signed west of 110 to at least 405. Wonder if it's one of those "not yet officially returned to local maintenance" deals like 14U.
Certainly there are currently way more signs for 91's surface routing than there have been for 42 in years!
Quote from: TheStranger on May 21, 2014, 12:55:44 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on May 21, 2014, 12:06:32 AM
I am completely impressed by how this has all turned out. Great work! Question: on page 5 of your comments you talk about removing the CA-42 shields since that route doesn't exist anymore; right above it you talk about the 405/Artesia interchange and adding directionals to the CA-91 shield - but hasn't CA-91 been truncated back to I-110? Shouldn't the CA-91 shields be removed completely?
I know 91's relinquishment status has changed over the last few years to cover more and more of the surface street route...as of January/February, the route is actually still well signed west of 110 to at least 405. Wonder if it's one of those "not yet officially returned to local maintenance" deals like 14U.
Certainly there are currently way more signs for 91's surface routing than there have been for 42 in years!
Route 91 officially ends at Vermont Ave west of I-110. Many relinquished routes around the LA area still have signs up. Former route 2 is still well signed in Beverly Hills, with signs scattered in West Hollywood. Arroyo Parkway still has a CA 110 shield up heading south.