http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/massive-downtown-la-fire-shuts-754803 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/massive-downtown-la-fire-shuts-754803)
Massive Downtown L.A. Fire Shuts Down Parts of 101, 110 Freeways
"Embers spewed from the fire landed across a freeway, igniting brush and charring a traffic sign. But fortunately winds were light and did not blow the fire even farther.
The southbound lanes of 101 and 110 were reopened by 4:40 a.m., the California Highway Patrol tweeted. But the northbound side of 110 was still closed after sunrise, as commuter traffic backed up for miles. The southbound 101 Temple, Broadway and Los Angeles off-ramps were also closed as of 6:30 a.m., according to a tweet from the California Highway Patrol. Around 10 a.m., the California Highway Patrol tweeted that three lanes on the northbound side of the 110 are open, while three remained closed. The northbound 110-101 is also open, CHP advised in a subsequent tweet. Another tweet noted that some traffic signs on the northbound side of the 110 were burned down."
Weird. I’m familiar with the location because it abuts the Four-Level Interchange, which is the first stack interchange ever built. And I’ve often wondered what it would be like to live in the place right next to it. I mean, I understand others might not want to live so close to the highway, but I most certainly wouldn’t. Having done some research, though, I’ve found that the places that were built or are being built in the area (all of which are by the same developer) are a bit high on price and a bit low on tenant satisfaction. Oh well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2Faypvm1.png&hash=00defb2ac3f5025aa8038b095f1567506ee17534)
Anyway, the fire was intense. The palm tree under the I-10 / CA-60 sign is toast. The CA-110 sign melted. It’s five lanes away. The whole thing is crazy.
Those building look like they are way too close to the freeway. It's like there no ROW whatsoever.
Quote from: Brian556 on December 08, 2014, 09:50:06 PM
Those building look like they are way too close to the freeway. It's like there no ROW whatsoever.
It is pretty tight. At the palm tree there's 18 feet between the end of shoulder and the walls of the building. Elsewhere, however, there's as little as 5. I have to admit that I'm not sure how that came to be. The area had nothing built on it before this.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 08, 2014, 09:38:13 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2Faypvm1.png&hash=00defb2ac3f5025aa8038b095f1567506ee17534)
Yup, this sign melted/is charred; it will have to replaced.
The fire made headlines on the evening national news. I don't think the porcelain enamel signs on the offramp were affected by the blaze. In addition to the DaVinci Apartments, which were destroyed, the fire also several governmental buildings (Dept of Water and Power, LA Parks and Recreation, and LA County Health Services.
Also from the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-los-angeles-fire-20141208-story.html):
QuoteA series of dense, upscale apartment complexes have been built over the last decade around the 101-110 interchange in downtown L.A., including the under-construction DaVinci.
Developer Geoffrey Palmer's company is known for the Orsini, the Medici and other faux-Italian apartment buildings that have risen along the four-level interchange. The complexes have been part of the revitalization of downtown, though critics have complained about the design and size of the buildings.
The building was in the news earlier this year when the developer sought a pedestrian bridge that would link the DaVinci to other complexes in the area and offer residents a route to downtown attractions.
The developer told the city that transients living under the 110 Freeway would pose a safety threat to future renters. The bridge proposal faced criticism from some in downtown, but the City Council approved it in May.
A lot of questions on how he got away with building a 7 story ALL Frame building
I'm actually glad that sign melted and has to be replaced. I get so annoyed every time I drive by it and have to see that glaring misplaced, offset panel at the bottom of the 110 shield. You can see it in the Google street view photo.
In my opinion, the mainline sign should match the original 60's sign that said 110 North with Pasadena at the bottom. Or, at the very least, mimic the transition road sign to say 110 North TO 5 North.
The I-5 shield was first installed at this location by a non-Caltrans person who took matters into his own hands in order to make motorist more aware that the I-5 north ramp was a left exit. When the sign was up for replacement, Caltrans appeased this position and produced a misleading sign and also removed the Pasadena control city marker.
Hopefully they get it right this time, if not better...I highly doubt it.
Intense!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F14%2F12%2F08%2Fe8e394748ca8ae4a111398f6e187899f.jpg&hash=1744de9ef5b14730290a6724d4faaeb76ff95dc0)
Original
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images110/ca-110_nb_exit_024a_06a.jpg)
Rogue I-5 shield installed on the overhead just prior to the location above
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images110/ca-110_nb_exit_024a_01.jpg)
I always thought it was cool to have Hollywood as the control city for NB 101. Too bad that went away with the last re-signing.
I hope the rogue I-5 shield survived. That thing is legendary.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F14%2F12%2F09%2Fcc037ae2684ed9d31e37bc450672e4a7.jpg&hash=a7fdce329e61a98ff44702f587241d665219eeb0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F14%2F12%2F09%2F3d24c9bd3edaa3158540c39ccbf59b9b.jpg&hash=08c7d672c3862a00cdb08acafe0af7f05b1144bc)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F14%2F12%2F09%2F698682f2a87e53ddeb4a78118fb989a4.jpg&hash=badeab6d1a110b3bcd8a957ca83758d04f433638)
The plot thickens, lol:
Was Monday's Fire in Downtown L.A. an 'Architectural Hate Crime'? (http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/12/was-mondays-fire-in-downtown-la-an-architectural-hate-crime/383553/)
Quote from: AndyMax25 on December 09, 2014, 12:33:01 AM
I'm actually glad that sign melted and has to be replaced. I get so annoyed every time I drive by it and have to see that glaring misplaced, offset panel at the bottom of the 110 shield. You can see it in the Google street view photo.
In my opinion, the mainline sign should match the original 60's sign that said 110 North with Pasadena at the bottom. Or, at the very least, mimic the transition road sign to say 110 North TO 5 North.
The I-5 shield was first installed at this location by a non-Caltrans person who took matters into his own hands in order to make motorist more aware that the I-5 north ramp was a left exit. When the sign was up for replacement, Caltrans appeased this position and produced a misleading sign and also removed the Pasadena control city marker.
Hopefully they get it right this time, if not better...I highly doubt it.
I totally agree. The new sign is terrible. Where are the control cities?
Has this sign yet been brought to the attention of the Redesign This thread on the Illustrations forum? If it hasn't, it would be a good candidate.
I'm not graphically inclined (so I can't show it very well), but if I were to redesign this sign with APL (arrow per lane), I would have it as follows: Left to right:
NORTH I-5 / Sacramento / 2 miles /NO TRUCKS/(Left Arrow)
NORTH CA-110 / Pasadena / NO TRUCKS/ (2 straight arrows)
GORE
NORTH US 101 / Hollywood / TRUCK RTE / (Straight Arrow)
(Straight and Right Arrow)
SOUTH US 101 TO SOUTH I-5 EAST I-10 EAST CA-60 / Santa Ana/ San Bernardino/ TRUCK RTE / (Right Arrow)
Quote from: mrsman on December 09, 2014, 10:03:31 AM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on December 09, 2014, 12:33:01 AM
I'm actually glad that sign melted and has to be replaced. I get so annoyed every time I drive by it and have to see that glaring misplaced, offset panel at the bottom of the 110 shield. You can see it in the Google street view photo.
In my opinion, the mainline sign should match the original 60's sign that said 110 North with Pasadena at the bottom. Or, at the very least, mimic the transition road sign to say 110 North TO 5 North.
The I-5 shield was first installed at this location by a non-Caltrans person who took matters into his own hands in order to make motorist more aware that the I-5 north ramp was a left exit. When the sign was up for replacement, Caltrans appeased this position and produced a misleading sign and also removed the Pasadena control city marker.
Hopefully they get it right this time, if not better...I highly doubt it.
I totally agree. The new sign is terrible. Where are the control cities?
Has this sign yet been brought to the attention of the Redesign This thread on the Illustrations forum? If it hasn't, it would be a good candidate.
I'm not graphically inclined (so I can't show it very well), but if I were to redesign this sign with APL (arrow per lane), I would have it as follows: Left to right:
NORTH I-5 / Sacramento / 2 miles /NO TRUCKS/(Left Arrow)
NORTH CA-110 / Pasadena / NO TRUCKS/ (2 straight arrows)
GORE
NORTH US 101 / Hollywood / TRUCK RTE / (Straight Arrow)
(Straight and Right Arrow)
SOUTH US 101 TO SOUTH I-5 EAST I-10 EAST CA-60 / Santa Ana/ San Bernardino/ TRUCK RTE / (Right Arrow)
If I'm not mistaken, part of the rationale on the sign layout was message loading...I think I read here they try to limit to twenty elements per sign assembly. While I would love to see the control cities reinstated, your sign would have 32 elements, which would make it a little hard to parse out at freeway speeds.
Of course, how often is that stretch of 110 truly at freeway speeds?....
Quote from: DTComposer on December 09, 2014, 11:13:23 AM
If I'm not mistaken, part of the rationale on the sign layout was message loading...I think I read here they try to limit to twenty elements per sign assembly. While I would love to see the control cities reinstated, your sign would have 32 elements, which would make it a little hard to parse out at freeway speeds.
Of course, how often is that stretch of 110 truly at freeway speeds?....
Yes, message loading could be a problem, but sometimes with complicated interchanges, there are a lot of messages that need to be conveyed.
Another idea to reduce message loading would be to replace the rightmost sign as follows:
SOUTH US 101 Santa Ana/ San Bernardino/ TRUCK RTE / (Right Arrow).
(Yes, IMO the control cities are more important than the highway numbers of the highways that you'll reach 2 miles east of here.)
Of course, somewhere before there can be a roadside green sign saying:
I-10 EAST San Bernardino
I-5 SOUTH Santa Ana
CA-60 EAST Pomona
USE US 101 SOUTH.
Currently, as there is a mix of old and new signage, all of the messages that should be conveyed are conveyed. But I see the writing on the wall. As far as Caltrans Dist 7 is concerned, freeway names and control cities can be dumped into the dustbin of history. But it's wrong because freeway names and control cities are helpful to the driving public.
Yet, even I agree that at this particular location freeway names are redundant if the control cities are included. Harbor Freeway to San Pedro (the Harbor), Pasadena Freeway (Arroyo Seco Parkway) to Pasadena, Hollywood Freeway to Hollywood, Santa Ana Freeway to Santa Ana.
In both Texas and Florida, I have seen examples of BGS signage that lacks control cities for no good reason.
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.255834,-97.17124&spn=0.000018,0.012392&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.255818,-97.171367&panoid=7r1ChtYbBxlmow7L7_dZSg&cbp=12,280.16,,0,0 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.255834,-97.17124&spn=0.000018,0.012392&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.255818,-97.171367&panoid=7r1ChtYbBxlmow7L7_dZSg&cbp=12,280.16,,0,0)
Quote from: KG909 on December 09, 2014, 08:13:47 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F14%2F12%2F09%2Fcc037ae2684ed9d31e37bc450672e4a7.jpg&hash=a7fdce329e61a98ff44702f587241d665219eeb0)
that 101 shield looks awesome now.
I liked the old signs better. Especially the one for 5/Santa Ana 10/San Bernadino. That format was especially intuitive and easy to understand. The new sign is definitely sign salad, and is more difficult to read.
Stick to basics and follow the MUTCD. Route shield/Compass Direction/Control City. (No freeway names) Any other info should be on supplemental signs.
I'm having a hard time understanding why Texas and Calif. DOT's sometimes don't follow those simple concepts.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 19, 2014, 08:16:10 PM
I liked the old signs better. Especially the one for 5/Santa Ana 10/San Bernadino. That format was especially intuitive and easy to understand. The new sign is definitely sign salad, and is more difficult to read.
Stick to basics and follow the MUTCD. Route shield/Compass Direction/Control City. (No freeway names) Any other info should be on supplemental signs.
I'm having a hard time understanding why Texas and Calif. DOT's sometimes don't follow those simple concepts.
Have to disagree with you here. For years I could never figure out where, exactly, US 101 met I-5 and I-10. The older version of this sign implied that I-5 and I-10 both made it to the Four-Level interchange, when in reality both routes were further downstream of that point. US 101 really continued south of there, and when the new signs were installed, it marked a much clearer understanding that the Four Level is just 101 and 110, and if I want 5-10-60 I can follow 101 south. It used to seem like every freeway interchange around downtown would go to 5 or 10; now with the new signs, it is easier to figure out which freeway is exactly 5 and/or 10.
P.S. that new 101 sign is as close to sign salad as you'll find anywhere in California. In this context it seems acceptable given the confluence of so many routes in one general area. I've seen other places (such as North Carolina) with as many as six signed routes on one sign assembly.
Well Andy, you make a valid point too. Suppose the old sign would have had the word TO added before each line? Or another possibility would be for it to say 101 SOUTH TO above the other two lines. But I like having the route and destination shown together.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2014, 08:23:38 PM
Well Andy, you make a valid point too. Suppose the old sign would have had the word TO added before each line? Or another possibility would be for it to say 101 SOUTH TO above the other two lines. But I like having the route and destination shown together.
And that can't happen because overhead guide signs have a maximum height of 120 inches. There's no way to fit 101 SOUTH TO/I-5 Santa Ana/I-10 San Bernardino/ \/ TRUCK RTE \/ on a single panel. I think the best solution is this one I posted on the Road-Related Illustrations board...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v3.png&hash=8d4b90f7d81e185fd433e01e41e5fd23a8ef59c4)
V-e-r-y I-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g...........Myosh, I like your treatment of the 5/North exit. To make it currently MUTCD compliant you could move the yellow-boxed word EXIT to the top of the exit number box and just have 2 MILES on the bottom line.
Your having one sign for the two directions on the 101 is interesting too. You could modify that into an overhead-arrow per lane sign, again to comply with the current Manual. Reason being you can't have 2 down arrows over one-lane anymore, though I have no problem with that arrangement.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2014, 09:34:20 PM
V-e-r-y I-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g...........Myosh, I like your treatment of the 5/North exit. To make it currently MUTCD compliant you could move the yellow-boxed word exit to the top of the exit number box and just have 2 MILES on the bottom line.
Your having one sign for the two directions on the 101 is interesting too. You could modify that into an overhead-arrow per lane sign, again to comply with the current Manual. Reason being you can't have 2 down arrows over one-lane anymore, though I have no problem with that arrangement.
SignBridge, I suggest that you look over some of the more recent posts (Dec 9 and later) on "Redesign THis" in the Road-Related Illustrations forum. Click below.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.1700
Several of the commenters have posted ideas for this sign. Myosh had taken my idea to resolve this with APLs in a way that you might appreciate. But all of the recommedations are better than the current sign.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 20, 2014, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2014, 08:23:38 PM
Well Andy, you make a valid point too. Suppose the old sign would have had the word TO added before each line? Or another possibility would be for it to say 101 SOUTH TO above the other two lines. But I like having the route and destination shown together.
And that can't happen because overhead guide signs have a maximum height of 120 inches. There's no way to fit 101 SOUTH TO/I-5 Santa Ana/I-10 San Bernardino/ \/ TRUCK RTE \/ on a single panel. I think the best solution is this one I posted on the Road-Related Illustrations board...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v3.png&hash=8d4b90f7d81e185fd433e01e41e5fd23a8ef59c4)
Nice sign concept! I think that APL is difficult due to the limited sign heights in California. There has been a move in recently installed signs to call 110 north "Parkway" and to diminish the Pasadena control city and Pasadena Freeway name recently. What do you think about having the 110 sign say something about the Arroyo Seco Parkway, similar to how it's been signed on I-5 at 110? At least we can all agree it is state route 110 (not Interstate 110) north of the Four-Level Interchange.
Quote from: andy3175 on December 21, 2014, 02:27:04 AM
Nice sign concept! I think that APL is difficult due to the limited sign heights in California. There has been a move in recently installed signs to call 110 north "Parkway" and to diminish the Pasadena control city and Pasadena Freeway name recently. What do you think about having the 110 sign say something about the Arroyo Seco Parkway, similar to how it's been signed on I-5 at 110? At least we can all agree it is state route 110 (not Interstate 110) north of the Four-Level Interchange.
I would say that the control city is very important especially in highways that travel in a different direction from the direction they are signed in (i.e. the E-W US 101 Ventura Freeway that is signed as north-south or I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee that is signed east-west). But even where highways are signed in accordance with compass direction (which of course is most of the time), it's an added helpful piece of information to the traveler to generally let them know in which direction they are going.
Keep in mind that travelers have to make theses decisions going at highway speeds (not at the four level, but for many other freeway interchanges) and there are plenty of people who mistake east/west, so I don't want that to be the only information they have. The control city might be the piece of information that they need to get them to their location.
E.g. Pico Rivera is southeast of Downtown LA. If freeways were not available, the most direct way of getting there would be to take east-west streets like Washington or Whittier. Yet, by using the freeways taking I-5 south is the most direct way. Somebody might say, why should I take a freeway south when I want to go east? But the added information that they are heading towards Santa Ana might be more helpful.
And imagine for a second that we still had US highways (other than 101) in California. US 99 is east-west along the I-10 corridor for over 100 miles from LA to Indio. Would it be OK to sign this section as only US 99 without a control city? (Yes, I know that 60/70 were also signed on the corridor for most, but not all of the time period for when US 99 went to the Mexican border.)
OF course, my argument is only good when the proper control city is chosen. Let's not repeat the mistake of having CA-55 going to Anaheim.
One more gripe about the four level: There are signs saying no trucks on CA-110, but there is no guidance on a truck route to get trucks all the way to Pasadena. SUre, take the 101, but then what? I guess the city doesn't want any one street being the official truck route and who knows what will happen with the 710.
mrsman, thanks for that link to that Redesign thread. I had not seen it before and some of the ideas presented were interesting!
My recent posts on this sign here and on the Redesign This thread got me to think a lot about the lack of a signed recommended truck route to reach Pasadena. Obviously the best truck route depends on the ultimate destination, but it is certainly glaring when you're driving along on a freeway and you all of a sudden see a sign that is the equivalent for a trucker of "DO NOT ENTER" and are now forced to change direction, but don't know which is the best way to go.
2 possibilites:
Follow the business US 66 route: Take US 101 south to Broadway to Pasadena Avenue to Figueroa Street which closely parallels the freeway and leads to the 134 freeway.
Follow the CA-2 freeway. The least busy freeway that serves the Downtown LA area is a great connector to I-5, CA-134, and I-210. Just take US 101 to Glendale Blvd and you'll see the freeway about 1 mile north.
Again, neither is formally recommended and there is no further guidance about the truck route north once you leave CA-110.
But as I was thinking of all of this, I started thinking about the interesting history of the US routes that used to serve the Four Level Interchange.
US 101 Hollywood to Santa Ana along the E-W mainline of the interchange (as it does today, except that today US 101 ends at the E LA interchange)
US 66 from Santa Monica Blvd it joins the Hollywood Freeway, but then transitions onto the Arroyo Seco Parkway to Pasadena and eventually Chicago
US 6 entering the L.A. area from the Newhall Pass, it follows San Fernando Road and then takes the Arroyo Seco down to the interchange and it continues down the Harbor Freeway.
US 99 also entered the L.A. area from the Newhall Pass, followed San Fernando Road and then took the Arroyo Seco down to the interchange. From there it transitioned to the Santa Ana Freeway and thence the San Bernardino Freeway for its trip to Indio and then Calexico.
CA-11, essentially the historic CA/I-110 that also followed the Harbor Freeway and Arroyo Seco Parkway. CA-11 historically continued northwest past the Rose Bowl to the area where JPL now is.
[See 1956 Thomas Map for this information]
Now, there was also for a very brief time, there was a consideration that US 6 would be signed to enter the LA area from Newhall and follow the San Fernando Road corridor along present-day I-5, but then take present-day CA-170 (not CA-110) to connect with US 101. So then US 101, US 66, and US 6 would all travel from Hollywood to the Four Level. US 101 continuing to Santa Ana, US 66 to Pasadena, and US 6 to the Harbor Area and Long Beach.
What I find interesting is that many of the recommended truck routes can just go ahead and follow some of the different planned routings of the US highways. Traveling up the Harbor and need to head to I-5 north. IF you can't follow the old US 6 routing through the old Figueroa tunnels, then follow the planned US 6 routing along US 101 and CA-170 to I-5. Or as another alternative, the historic US 66 along Broadway, Pasadena Ave, and Figueroa.
And it also leads to some perspective that the weird left ramp from 110 to I-5 wasn't always a transition from one route to another, it was the continuation of one of the main routes of the freeway, following the US 6 / US 99 corridor from the Four-Level to Burbank and San Fernando.
Just drove by earlier today. New truss and signs have been installed. They look exactly the same as the ones that burned down.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F12%2F27%2Ff1614c4ba8e3939e79c681a0072d4487.jpg&hash=2529c5f88802ffe0a98f4320c63d529a733f4653)
BOOO!!
The sign is terrible. Bring back control cities.
Quote from: mrsman on December 30, 2015, 08:26:42 AM
BOOO!!
The sign is terrible. Bring back control cities.
Hey, give credit for one important thing: the sign pointing towards the southbound Santa Ana Freeway isn't using the "implied Caltrans TO" that had been there for decades (5 Santa Ana/10 San Bernardino) but rather the actual route number (US 101) for once!
...though the Richard Ankrom implied TO for North I-5 is still there, granted a much better alternative than no acknowledgement of that upcoming ramp.
What's annoying in this situation is that they didn't revise all the signs in the series for this exit. The one just beyond this set still says 10-San Bernadino/5-Santa Ana and Hollywood for the 101 destination. The MUTCD indicates that consistent information is supposed to be shown throughout the sequence of signs for any exit. So Hello! Is anyone at Caltrans paying attention?
Quote from: TheStranger on December 30, 2015, 02:38:51 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 30, 2015, 08:26:42 AM
BOOO!!
The sign is terrible. Bring back control cities.
Hey, give credit for one important thing: the sign pointing towards the southbound Santa Ana Freeway isn't using the "implied Caltrans TO" that had been there for decades (5 Santa Ana/10 San Bernardino) but rather the actual route number (US 101) for once!
...though the Richard Ankrom implied TO for North I-5 is still there, granted a much better alternative than no acknowledgement of that upcoming ramp.
Yes. I can acknowledge that it is nice to keep track of the real highway numbers, but let me tell you that control cities are very beneficial. I grew up in LA, so these freeways are very familiar to me, but I recently got back from a roadtrip to Norfolk, VA. All of the major freeways there are interstates of the I-x64 family. So it is quite confusing to tell the difference between I-264, I-64, and I-664 at one interchange. The one saving grace that helped me from getting lost was a very proper usage of control cities.
There is no reason for getting rid of the control cities to that extent over in Downtown LA. Give me Sacramento, Pasadena, San Pedro, Hollywood, Santa Monica, San Bernardino, Pomona, and Santa Ana.
From the 110, arguably more than one control city would work for US 101 south and I-10 east. I-10 east signage (at the interchange with the SM Freeway) should read I-10 east to CA-60 Pomona. US 101 south signage at the Four Level should read US 101 south San Bernardino Santa Ana. Putting in both the highway connections and the control cities together might be information overload - but the control cities are more important.
I can agree with the need for control cities, but in this case the route numbers are more important.
There is no way (that I see, at least) to get all the necessary control cities and route numbers on that right hand sign and keep it within the Caltrans sign height restriction.
Control cities could easily have put on the left hand pull through sign (as well as the "TO" for I-5 north, which really should be there).
Quote from: roadfro on December 31, 2015, 07:00:31 PM
There is no way (that I see, at least) to get all the necessary control cities and route numbers on that right hand sign and keep it within the Caltrans sign height restriction.
Even if Caltrans didn't have sign height restrictions...I feel like the issue of excessive message loading (highly discouraged in the MUTCD of course) would come into play, a side effect of just how many routes end up at the East Los Angeles Interchange nearby.
The older usage of Hollywood as control city also is so localized (literally one or two districts over from downtown) that while it is a useful tourist destination, it isn't a particularly great choice for long-distance driving.
Having said that, 170 north (to some extent 101 north on onramp signage leading to it via the Hollywood Freeway) and 5 north out here (and other roads leading to 5 north) have both used Sacramento instead of Bakersfield since the early 1980s, an interesting instance of Caltrans opting for a much further city directly on the route as opposed to a closer next destination not directly on the (numbered) route. (Compare this to 10 east still being signed for "San Bernardino" even though it barely skirts the town, as opposed to "Indio" or "Phoenix" from this spot)
Quote from: roadfro on December 31, 2015, 07:00:31 PM
Control cities could easily have put on the left hand pull through sign (as well as the "TO" for I-5 north, which really should be there).
In this case, I wonder if the philosophy is that each shield represents an individual message the driver must digest (particularly that 101 SOUTH TO 5 SOUTH/10 EAST/60 EAST sign).
You can make reasonable arguments for both ideas. Different people navigate differently. Some might do better with the control cities, others maybe with the route numbers as now shown. If the sign height restriction wasn't an issue, maybe 60-Pomona could just be added as a third destination to the original signs. I think that would be the most informative, but with the height restrictions it wouldn't work unless you eliminated the arrows, which might not be feasible.
In many ways, the control cities that are chosen match the names of the freeways that have been in use since at least the 1960's. So I-10 East to San Bernardino, because I-10 east is also known as the San Bernardino Freeway. And yes, the SB Fwy doesn't actually reach SB, but it goes in that direction. (And I-210 only began reaching SB relatively recently.)
With that being said, control cities can be easily implemented for the left part of the sign for Sacramento and Pasadena.
For the right part of the sign, they should be implemented anyway.
And the existing sign shows a way that each message can be represented with two lines of text:
<101> NORTH
Ventura
[I personally prefer Hollywood, but Ventura is fine.]
Now utilize a similar 2 line approach for the other directions:
TO <5> NORTH
Sacramento
<110> NORTH
Pasadena
<101> SOUTH TO <5> SOUTH & <10> EAST
Santa Ana - San Bernardino
No need to mention <60> here. Traffic from the 110 should not be encouraged to use the 101 to the 60, they should use the I-10 Santa Monica Freeway. Removing mention of the 60 should help address the sign issues and message loading issues that exist.
Quote from: mrsman on January 03, 2016, 04:00:47 PM
No need to mention <60> here. Traffic from the 110 should not be encouraged to use the 101 to the 60, they should use the I-10 Santa Monica Freeway. Removing mention of the 60 should help address the sign issues and message loading issues that exist.
I feel like 60 is mentioned because traffic coming up from the civic center area would already not be heading towards the Santa Monica Freeway though I generally agree with your logic. (Also, couldn't one easily take 10 east to 710 south to get to 60 and avoid the main East Los Angeles Interchange that way?)
Quote from: TheStranger on January 04, 2016, 11:51:57 AM
Quote from: mrsman on January 03, 2016, 04:00:47 PM
No need to mention <60> here. Traffic from the 110 should not be encouraged to use the 101 to the 60, they should use the I-10 Santa Monica Freeway. Removing mention of the 60 should help address the sign issues and message loading issues that exist.
I feel like 60 is mentioned because traffic coming up from the civic center area would already not be heading towards the Santa Monica Freeway though I generally agree with your logic. (Also, couldn't one easily take 10 east to 710 south to get to 60 and avoid the main East Los Angeles Interchange that way?)
Keep in mind this sign is on the Harbor Freeway northbound, not the 101 itself. Those coming from South LA would have already passed the exit for the 10 freeway. Those entering the Harbor from Downtown (3rd or 5th or 8th) should be encouraged to go to 110 south to 10 to 60.
Those who get on the 101 from the Civic Center (Grand or L.A. street or Alameda), those people would take the 101 to the 60. But they won't see this sign.
Quote from: mrsman on January 05, 2016, 08:36:23 AM
Those who get on the 101 from the Civic Center (Grand or L.A. street or Alameda), those people would take the 101 to the 60. But they won't see this sign.
I feel like this sign is designed to be consistent with the newer (2009-present) signage for 101 south at the San Bernardino Split:
https://goo.gl/maps/4AZLWRvZX1A2
Essentially, a driver who saw the "US 101 SOUTH to 5 SOUTH/10 EAST/60 EAST" sign here at the Four-Level would be able to see similar control legend 2 miles to the east (as opposed to any mention of 60 disappearing until the East Los Angeles Interchange)
I had another idea with regard to signage of a control city on these signs discussed above:
Traveling along US 101 south of the 110, whether on the mainline or whether transitioning from the 110, the sign should say:
SOUTH
<101>
East LA Interchange
similarly, on I-10 east of the 110, signs should say:
EAST
<10>
East LA Interchange
Supplemental signs indicate that those wanting <10> EAST San Bernardino, <60> EAST Pomona, and <5> SOUTH Santa Ana should follow signs to the East LA Interchange. These signs would reduce clutter and clearly indicate where the highway goes.
"East LA Interchange" is not a city, and really isn't a good control usage. And for the out-of-towners, they're not necessarily going to know what the East LA Interchange is for.
Supplemental signage for the other routes isn't a bad idea to reduce clutter though.
Quote from: mrsman on December 09, 2014, 11:49:26 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on December 09, 2014, 11:13:23 AM
If I'm not mistaken, part of the rationale on the sign layout was message loading...I think I read here they try to limit to twenty elements per sign assembly. While I would love to see the control cities reinstated, your sign would have 32 elements, which would make it a little hard to parse out at freeway speeds.
Of course, how often is that stretch of 110 truly at freeway speeds?....
Yes, message loading could be a problem, but sometimes with complicated interchanges, there are a lot of messages that need to be conveyed.
Another idea to reduce message loading would be to replace the rightmost sign as follows:
SOUTH US 101 Santa Ana/ San Bernardino/ TRUCK RTE / (Right Arrow).
(Yes, IMO the control cities are more important than the highway numbers of the highways that you'll reach 2 miles east of here.)
Of course, somewhere before there can be a roadside green sign saying:
I-10 EAST San Bernardino
I-5 SOUTH Santa Ana
CA-60 EAST Pomona
USE US 101 SOUTH.
Currently, as there is a mix of old and new signage, all of the messages that should be conveyed are conveyed. But I see the writing on the wall. As far as Caltrans Dist 7 is concerned, freeway names and control cities can be dumped into the dustbin of history. But it's wrong because freeway names and control cities are helpful to the driving public.
Yet, even I agree that at this particular location freeway names are redundant if the control cities are included. Harbor Freeway to San Pedro (the Harbor), Pasadena Freeway (Arroyo Seco Parkway) to Pasadena, Hollywood Freeway to Hollywood, Santa Ana Freeway to Santa Ana.
My post from 2014 in this thread is probably the best idea for this sign. Alas, the inconsistent D7 is throwing control cities into the dustbin of history with the new sign.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on December 27, 2015, 11:10:53 PM
Just drove by earlier today. New truss and signs have been installed. They look exactly the same as the ones that burned down.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F12%2F27%2Ff1614c4ba8e3939e79c681a0072d4487.jpg&hash=2529c5f88802ffe0a98f4320c63d529a733f4653)
More thoughts on this terrible sign that came to me since it was featured in a USA Today article that showed up on my phone.
Not only are there issues with lack of control cities that I mentioned upthread, but certain details make this sign very confusing.
The I-5 north ramp is 2 miles away to the north on the left. There should be an indiciation saying "2 miles" below the I-5 symbol.
The sign for 101 south is terribly misleading. Because of the arrows it appears that the right most lane is for I-10 (and 60) east and the next lane over to the left is for I-5 south. This is simply not true. The right lane will lead to the Temple and Broadway exits, if you don't merge left. The left lane can also exit to Broadway and will eventually be used to reach any further exits on 101 south and lead to the 10, 5, and 60. Of course to prevent all traffic from using one lane of the ramp, you want to encourage all traffic to use both lanes, so don't display the arrows in such a definintive way.
And if your thinking of the eventual downstream split, (San Bernardino Split) the highways displayed here are in the wrong order. 10 east should be on the left and I-5 and 60 should be on the right, grouped together, since the right lanes will take you to the East LA Intechange where you can make the choice to reach I-5 or 60.
To avoid this confusion, at minimum, you need to put "[101] TO" on the same line as "[10] [5] [60]". (Cardinal directions can be right above the appropriate shield.*) Then it will be clear that both arrow lanes lead you to 101 to reach any of the 3 freeways.
And if all the numbered shields landed on one line, you'd have plenty of room for the (IMO necessary) control cities of San Bernardino and Santa Ana.
* IMO Cardinal directions are not necessary if control cities are added. I beleive control cities would be most helpful.
Take a look at this sign along mainline 101 at the Broadway exit:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0592696,-118.2459443,3a,75y,108.43h,90.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfs7NfB-8_gU4BCiW-pjoyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
The sign works fine without cardinal directions. The sign would also work fine if the "[10] [5]" were replaced with "[101] TO [10][5][60]". But please leave the control cities.
Mrsman, I agree with some of your points. Re: the multiple routes shown on the right-most sign, I agree that the shields should be placed in the order that will eventually apply when you get further down the road to the route split. Caltrans should have done that.
And I also agree that route and destination might be more useful than route and cardinal direction. The right sign on the distant display shows that arrangement which was the way many of the signs in this area were originally set up. But I guess when they added the [60] shield there wasn't enough room for three destinations so they used the shorter cardinal directions. Remember that in California, the size of the sign (and therefore legend space) is limited by height requirements unlike in many other parts of the country.
Quote from: mrsman on April 19, 2018, 10:26:20 PM
To avoid this confusion, at minimum, you need to put "[101] TO" on the same line as "[10] [5] [60]". (Cardinal directions can be right above the appropriate shield.*) Then it will be clear that both arrow lanes lead you to 101 to reach any of the 3 freeways.
:
:
And if all the numbered shields landed on one line, you'd have plenty of room for the (IMO necessary) control cities of San Bernardino and Santa Ana.
* IMO Cardinal directions are not necessary if control cities are added. I beleive control cities would be most helpful.
SignBridge is correct in that there is a maximum guide sign height of 120 inches in California which greatly limits what can be done about the far-right sign. Earlier in this discussion I posted this redesign of the entry gantry...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v3.png&hash=8d4b90f7d81e185fd433e01e41e5fd23a8ef59c4)
... which moved the I-5 north information from the CA-110 pull-through to it's own 2 mile advance guide sign and tried to deal with the mass of shields on the 101 south exit sign.
But I had also created other alternatives which were posted in the Redesign This discussion on the Road Related Illustrations sub-forum...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101.png&hash=fcaedaba122c134bbdc79c889326bd2c1815e333)
This redesign moves the I-10/CA-60 information onto it's own supplemental guide sign which basically says "TO I-10 and CA-60 USE US-101 South" while the US 101 South exit sign gets a "To I-5 South" and a control city of Santa Ana. The only issue I have with this redesign is the pull-through which puts the "TO I-5 North" to the right of the CA-110 shield. It's misleading because the I-5 north exit is a left exit. Also, there's no room for exit numbers.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v2.png&hash=e64c3e8d1bb02b4d4b31abb8b3043966afa50400)
This redesign merges the two US 101 exit signs into a single one creating a Caltrans classic where there's only one US-101 shield positioned over a vertical line that "splits" the north and south exit information. There are no control cities for the southbound sign because there's simply no room for it.
As for the idea that control cities are more important than cardinal directions, are you suggesting a gantry that looks like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v4.png&hash=3c17247a5a58d430df5eec9119753ddf1aacd143)
If so, I would be strongly against it. If you're going to put the same route shield on two different signs, in this case the US 101 and I-5 shields you have to include cardinal directions otherwise you're going to cause a ton of confusion, especially when it comes to the I-5 shields.
Myosh_tino,
The left part of your first submission (from last night) is great for I-5 north and 110 north.
For the right part of the sign, I was thinking along the lines of keeping the really small font that currently says "101 south to" and just adding the (10) and (5) shields in the same small size. This would leave room for San Bernardino and Santa Ana below.
I'm thinking that even though there is great haste on the part of Caltrans to get rid of control cities to help with message loading concerns, that they at least somewhat recognize t he problem. The sign downstream has the old version of 101 Hollywood and 10/5 San Bernardino and Santa Ana. They didn't replace this sign and I don't beleive they are incilined to do so any time soon.
Incidentally, I don't really believe that the 60 has to be mentioned here at all. Those coming along 110 north are either coming from south of the 10 or from Downtown itself. IMO it would make more sense for traffic heading to the 60 (and I-5 south of the ELA interchange) to not use the 101 at all, but rather make their way to I-10 Santa Monica Fwy to reach the interchange. The only traffic that should use the 110 to 101 south ramp here are those heading to any of the 101 exits in Civic Center and Boyle Heights and those heading to I-10 towards San Bernardino. Perhaps San Bernardino can be the only control to be used, despite the anomaly that this section of the 101 is the Santa Ana Fwy.
All the designs above are interesting. This is a very difficult location to sign effectively. There are just too many routes, directions and destinations to post them all without serious message overload. Sometimes there are just no easy answers.
Ironically, the only time this location ever was signed without message overload was the 1960's signing which did not include the No Trucks and Truck Rte. designations. Those signs read as follows: North [11] Pasadena..........North [101] Hollywood.............Santa Ana [5], San Bernadino [10]
Quote from: mrsman on April 21, 2018, 11:48:20 PM
For the right part of the sign, I was thinking along the lines of keeping the really small font that currently says "101 south to" and just adding the (10) and (5) shields in the same small size. This would leave room for San Bernardino and Santa Ana below.
I am not a fan of dinky route shields on overhead guide signs. They're hard to see and would be a detriment to out-of-town motorists who would rely more on the route shields for navigation than control cities.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 21, 2018, 02:13:09 AM
Earlier in this discussion I posted this redesign of the entry gantry...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v3.png&hash=8d4b90f7d81e185fd433e01e41e5fd23a8ef59c4)
... which moved the I-5 north information from the CA-110 pull-through to it's own 2 mile advance guide sign and tried to deal with the mass of shields on the 101 south exit sign.
That is the optimal sign arrangement, IMHO. One thing to remember about this section of CA 110 is that it's only 2 miles north of the
actual 10/110 interchange; the control city of San Bernardino (and, IIRC, Santa Ana as well) is posted there. Downtown L.A. traffic getting on NB 110 these days is more likely to stay on 110 north toward NB I-5 or turn north on US 101 toward Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley; if they're heading (cardinal direction) SB on US 101 toward the San Bernardino Split, they're likely to get on that freeway near the Civic Center rather than head due west only to make a U-turn east (unless they're somewhere around Figueroa anyway!). Control cities for SB 101 at that point are hardly necessary -- at least since the traffic reports reference the route number rather than the freeway name (which in this instance coincides with the control city) -- and since neither of the destination freeways are 101 (it's merely a means to an end at this point!), even that number is functionally superfluous except for identification of what is essentially a
very long ramp!
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 21, 2018, 02:13:09 AM
SignBridge is correct in that there is a maximum guide sign height of 120 inches in California which greatly limits what can be done about the far-right sign. Earlier in this discussion I posted this redesign of the entry gantry...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v3.png&hash=8d4b90f7d81e185fd433e01e41e5fd23a8ef59c4)
... which moved the I-5 north information from the CA-110 pull-through to it's own 2 mile advance guide sign and tried to deal with the mass of shields on the 101 south exit sign.
I agree with sparker that this is a great design. The left side points out there is a left exit for I-5 in two miles which is not too soon a warning especially in an urban area. However, I prefer the next sign for the right half.
Quote
But I had also created other alternatives which were posted in the Redesign This discussion on the Road Related Illustrations sub-forum...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101.png&hash=fcaedaba122c134bbdc79c889326bd2c1815e333)
This redesign moves the I-10/CA-60 information onto it's own supplemental guide sign which basically says "TO I-10 and CA-60 USE US-101 South" while the US 101 South exit sign gets a "To I-5 South" and a control city of Santa Ana. The only issue I have with this redesign is the pull-through which puts the "TO I-5 North" to the right of the CA-110 shield. It's misleading because the I-5 north exit is a left exit. Also, there's no room for exit numbers.
The loss of exit number on the right isn't ideal though it might be possible to squeeze it in the upper left corner of the US 101 North Ventura sign much like you have the left exit I-5 sign in the prior example. I really like that as long as I know which highway I'm using it quickly directs me where to go. The control cities are also exactly what I'd be looking for. I'm not too keen on "To HWY X" signs in the first place, but this has a nice layout with "To I-5 North" and "To I-5 South" both distinct and "To CA 60 and I-10" off to the side but clear enough that drivers aren't trying to parse cardinal directions into it.
I'm probably less familiar with most other posters on this topic. I'm only vaguely familiar with the area and have only been following the Southwest forum for a few months as I prepare to move to the region. So there may be other reasons for how to design the signs at this location. But I would find this combination most useful from my experience. It could be prior signs have already done a better job at making sure drivers are aligned in the correct lanes (provided they're paying attention in the first place).
Quote from: skluth on April 25, 2018, 12:09:20 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101.png&hash=fcaedaba122c134bbdc79c889326bd2c1815e333)
Still like the idea for 110 north with the supplemental left-side reference to the I-5 north exit in 2 miles rather than including the I-5 shield on the main 110 pull-through. However, the US 101 ramp signage as pictured above also has quite a bit of merit, as SB US 101 actually terminates at and merges with I-5 toward Santa Ana -- and the main ramp sign suggests that. Placing I-10 & CA 60 on a supplemental sign is more than adequate for this particular location -- as I've iterated previously, 110 crossed I-10 only a couple of miles south of this location, and traffic originating south of downtown L.A. would have turned onto I-10 at that point; mentioning CA 60 on
any signage in or near the downtown "slots" on 101 or 110 is simply icing on the cake. I've always thought that CA 60 deserved at least trailblazer mention at the NB I-110 approach to the I-10/110 interchange (apparently Caltrans has disagreed with me for some 50+ years now -- at least prior to 2012, the last time I was through there).
Quote from: sparker on April 25, 2018, 04:23:01 PM
I've always thought that CA 60 deserved at least trailblazer mention at the NB I-110 approach to the I-10/110 interchange (apparently Caltrans has disagreed with me for some 50+ years now -- at least prior to 2012, the last time I was through there).
In that vein, here's an idle thought I just had:
That "TO 10 60" type sign in the post you quoted...I could totally see a "TO 5 SOUTH/60 EAST - USE 10 EAST" sign in that style being useful for northbound 110 travelers approaching the Santa Monica Freeway.
Quote from: TheStranger on April 25, 2018, 07:28:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 25, 2018, 04:23:01 PM
I've always thought that CA 60 deserved at least trailblazer mention at the NB I-110 approach to the I-10/110 interchange (apparently Caltrans has disagreed with me for some 50+ years now -- at least prior to 2012, the last time I was through there).
In that vein, here's an idle thought I just had:
That "TO 10 60" type sign in the post you quoted...I could totally see a "TO 5 SOUTH/60 EAST - USE 10 EAST" sign in that style being useful for northbound 110 travelers approaching the Santa Monica Freeway.
:clap: Splendid idea -- that would essentially encompass all three freeway-bound destinations available by utilizing I-10 east to the ELA interchange.
Quote from: sparker on April 25, 2018, 04:23:01 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 25, 2018, 12:09:20 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101.png&hash=fcaedaba122c134bbdc79c889326bd2c1815e333)
Still like the idea for 110 north with the supplemental left-side reference to the I-5 north exit in 2 miles rather than including the I-5 shield on the main 110 pull-through. However, the US 101 ramp signage as pictured above also has quite a bit of merit, as SB US 101 actually terminates at and merges with I-5 toward Santa Ana -- and the main ramp sign suggests that. Placing I-10 & CA 60 on a supplemental sign is more than adequate for this particular location -- as I've iterated previously, 110 crossed I-10 only a couple of miles south of this location, and traffic originating south of downtown L.A. would have turned onto I-10 at that point; mentioning CA 60 on any signage in or near the downtown "slots" on 101 or 110 is simply icing on the cake. I've always thought that CA 60 deserved at least trailblazer mention at the NB I-110 approach to the I-10/110 interchange (apparently Caltrans has disagreed with me for some 50+ years now -- at least prior to 2012, the last time I was through there).
I completely agree on that left exit I-5 for the left half. I'd splice the two options pictured with the first pic's left side and the second pic's right side for the sign (with somehow squeezing the exit number into the right side).
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 05:13:34 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 21, 2018, 02:13:09 AM
Earlier in this discussion I posted this redesign of the entry gantry...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v3.png&hash=8d4b90f7d81e185fd433e01e41e5fd23a8ef59c4)
... which moved the I-5 north information from the CA-110 pull-through to it's own 2 mile advance guide sign and tried to deal with the mass of shields on the 101 south exit sign.
That is the optimal sign arrangement, IMHO. One thing to remember about this section of CA 110 is that it's only 2 miles north of the actual 10/110 interchange; the control city of San Bernardino (and, IIRC, Santa Ana as well) is posted there. Downtown L.A. traffic getting on NB 110 these days is more likely to stay on 110 north toward NB I-5 or turn north on US 101 toward Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley; if they're heading (cardinal direction) SB on US 101 toward the San Bernardino Split, they're likely to get on that freeway near the Civic Center rather than head due west only to make a U-turn east (unless they're somewhere around Figueroa anyway!). Control cities for SB 101 at that point are hardly necessary -- at least since the traffic reports reference the route number rather than the freeway name (which in this instance coincides with the control city) -- and since neither of the destination freeways are 101 (it's merely a means to an end at this point!), even that number is functionally superfluous except for identification of what is essentially a very long ramp!
I agree. The combination of those two illustrations seems ideal. Every direction has at least one control city. You are told that you have to keep left for I-5 north and you are told that you have to use the 101 ramp to reach I-5 south. (There is no ramp at the Elysian Park interchange).
And yes, it is also necessary to have mention of these highways at the 10/110 interchange as well. We want drivers to get where they are going in the most direct way. If you are coming from the 110 well south of Downtown and want to reach the I-5 Santa Ana Fwy or the 60 Pomona Fwy, you should take I-10 to get there and not take a long tour around Downtown by way of the 101. If your destination is along the I-10 San Bernardino Freeway, you have a choice of whether you should use I-10 through the East LA interchange or 101 through the 4-level and SB Split. Or even better, taking the 10 and then the 60 and then using a connecting N-S freeway to reach the I-10 as far east as you can (i.e. 60 to 710 to 10 or 60 to 605 to 10, etc.) And here's the real secret, if your destination is really far east (Palm Springs, Arizona, Texas, Florida) just take the 60 all the way to the 10 and do not make any transition at all. Most of the lanes on the Santa Monica Fwy lead you to the 60, do not simply follow hte 10 trailblazer, take the 60 all the way east and don't further clog up the narrow transition ramps that exist in all of these Downtown interchanges.
Quote from: mrsman on April 27, 2018, 10:26:40 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 05:13:34 AM
That is the optimal sign arrangement, IMHO. One thing to remember about this section of CA 110 is that it's only 2 miles north of the actual 10/110 interchange...
I agree. The combination of those two illustrations seems ideal. Every direction has at least one control city. You are told that you have to keep left for I-5 north and you are told that you have to use the 101 ramp to reach I-5 south. (There is no ramp at the Elysian Park interchange).
OK guys. Here's the combination of the two sign drawings...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v5.png&hash=1ce25fa0e87cf50ac77cfacf32860d3429d7ae1f)
The only concern I have is with regards to message loading because there are 5 guide signs on this one gantry. But as I was composing this post, I asked myself why not combine the South 101 exit sign and the auxiliary (TO 10/60 USE 101 SOUTH) into a single sign. The added benefit is that I am now able to add exit numbers to both 101 signs...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v6.png&hash=6516ddd38aa34bf9f8f93f2c0e5ca80a93496882)
Note: In an attempt to head off comments about both 101 exits having the same exit number, that is how it is done in California when there's a downstream split after the divergence from the mainline. Only the initial divergence is numbered. What happens further down the ramp is irrelevant.
Ah caltrans! You finally come around to exit numbers 50 years late and you still do it wrong.
I really like your latest sign myosh. My only (small) regret is that there is no way to include San Bernardino as well.
The old sign (1960's to 2000's) looked like this:
5 Santa Ana
10 San Bernardino
v TRUCK RTE v
This could be improved like this:
101 to 5 Santa Ana
10 San Bernardino
v TRUCK RTE v
(For some unknown reason, the downstream sign, which is still posted, reverses the order of 5 and 10. Which one should take precedence? It doesn't matter to me as long as both are signed at the sign.)
And I am indifferent on the 60. I don't think that any traffic from the 110 should ever use the 101 to reach the 60 so I could totally leave it out from these signs.
But again, thank you. Your sign is so much better than what currently exists. :clap:
What is really odd is looking at the sign from 110 southbound (coming from Pasadena). It seems that the 1960's era signs did not mention San Bernardino at all, which is really strange. It would be terrible to route traffic along through Downtown to the 10 to only go back north along the 5/10 to reach San Bernardino Fwy. It really should be mentioned here as well.
All in all, I believe that all the highways of the East LA Interchange should get a mention from every conceivable vantage point from the 110 freeway - but lets keep 60 traffic off the 101.
Elysian Park Interchange: I-5 south to 10 east and 60 Santa Ana (signed along I-5 mainline and 110 south to I-5 ramp).
4-level interchange: as discussed above over multiple posts. US 101 south to 5 and 10 Santa Ana San Bernardino. Signed from 110 south, 110 north, and 101 south mainline.
Harbor/Santa Monica interchange (some call it the Harmonica, but I shudder at the term): I-10 east to 5 south and 60 San Bernardino (signed along 110 south, 110 north, and I-10 mainline).
Quote from: mrsman on April 29, 2018, 08:14:11 AM
This could be improved like this:
101 to 5 Santa Ana
10 San Bernardino
v TRUCK RTE v
But you have to include the cardinal directions for both 101 and 5 because you have other signs on the same gantry with the same route shields. Not doing so may cause confusion and ambiguity.
However, adding the cardinal directions will make laying out the sign next to impossible due to the 120-inch sign height limit.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v6a.png&hash=719b47967538fbf6e7c2281f87129f9eea17e26a)
The lighter green areas are the extensions to the sign panel to make everything fit (and look halfway reasonable).
You are right.
It is interesting that there is no requirement for the cardinal direction for 10 and 60. I understand that there is no mention of 10 west over here, but at the same time would an unsuspecting person possibly think that they could take the righthhand ramp and reach the Santa Monica Fwy?
Without mentioning EAST or San Bernardino, there could be grounds for confusion on that point.
Quote from: mrsman on April 29, 2018, 01:55:58 PM
You are right.
It is interesting that there is no requirement for the cardinal direction for 10 and 60. I understand that there is no mention of 10 west over here, but at the same time would an unsuspecting person possibly think that they could take the righthhand ramp and reach the Santa Monica Fwy?
Without mentioning EAST or San Bernardino, there could be grounds for confusion on that point.
Here's some theory that came to mind as I've been reading this thread:
While it is absolutely true that most drivers heading to Santa Monica from 110 would have already been doing so southbound, I feel like the signage here is to provide drivers who either have better access to northbound ramps (i.e. primarily along Figueroa Street and Bunker Hill in downtown) of the Harbor Freeway, or are forced into taking them due to traffic, a reminder that they aren't out of options for getting onto 10 East and 60 East. So I think that's why 10 is even mentioned at all.
While not mentioning a 10 cardinal direction isn't ideal for the Four-Level, 10 west (Santa Monica Freeway) can be accessed indirectly via 101 south if one switches over at 4th Street.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 28, 2018, 01:26:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on April 27, 2018, 10:26:40 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 05:13:34 AM
That is the optimal sign arrangement, IMHO. One thing to remember about this section of CA 110 is that it's only 2 miles north of the actual 10/110 interchange...
I agree. The combination of those two illustrations seems ideal. Every direction has at least one control city. You are told that you have to keep left for I-5 north and you are told that you have to use the 101 ramp to reach I-5 south. (There is no ramp at the Elysian Park interchange).
OK guys. Here's the combination of the two sign drawings...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v5.png&hash=1ce25fa0e87cf50ac77cfacf32860d3429d7ae1f)
The only concern I have is with regards to message loading because there are 5 guide signs on this one gantry. But as I was composing this post, I asked myself why not combine the South 101 exit sign and the auxiliary (TO 10/60 USE 101 SOUTH) into a single sign. The added benefit is that I am now able to add exit numbers to both 101 signs...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v6.png&hash=6516ddd38aa34bf9f8f93f2c0e5ca80a93496882)
Note: In an attempt to head off comments about both 101 exits having the same exit number, that is how it is done in California when there's a downstream split after the divergence from the mainline. Only the initial divergence is numbered. What happens further down the ramp is irrelevant.
The problem with combining the two right signs is now there is an implied Southbound I-10 and CA-60. We're all aware that there is no southbound for either highway. However, casual drivers might get confused.
Since there is an I-10 exit a couple miles earlier, I wonder whether the best solution is to eliminate any signs for I-10 and CA-60 here but instead have a separate earlier sign saying something like "San Bernardino - use US 101 South." Once on US 101, there already are signs directing drivers to I-10 San Bernardino.
Quote from: skluth on April 30, 2018, 04:47:51 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 28, 2018, 01:26:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on April 27, 2018, 10:26:40 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 05:13:34 AM
That is the optimal sign arrangement, IMHO. One thing to remember about this section of CA 110 is that it's only 2 miles north of the actual 10/110 interchange...
I agree. The combination of those two illustrations seems ideal. Every direction has at least one control city. You are told that you have to keep left for I-5 north and you are told that you have to use the 101 ramp to reach I-5 south. (There is no ramp at the Elysian Park interchange).
OK guys. Here's the combination of the two sign drawings...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v5.png&hash=1ce25fa0e87cf50ac77cfacf32860d3429d7ae1f)
The only concern I have is with regards to message loading because there are 5 guide signs on this one gantry. But as I was composing this post, I asked myself why not combine the South 101 exit sign and the auxiliary (TO 10/60 USE 101 SOUTH) into a single sign. The added benefit is that I am now able to add exit numbers to both 101 signs...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffts_110-101_v6.png&hash=6516ddd38aa34bf9f8f93f2c0e5ca80a93496882)
Note: In an attempt to head off comments about both 101 exits having the same exit number, that is how it is done in California when there's a downstream split after the divergence from the mainline. Only the initial divergence is numbered. What happens further down the ramp is irrelevant.
The problem with combining the two right signs is now there is an implied Southbound I-10 and CA-60. We're all aware that there is no southbound for either highway. However, casual drivers might get confused.
Since there is an I-10 exit a couple miles earlier, I wonder whether the best solution is to eliminate any signs for I-10 and CA-60 here but instead have a separate earlier sign saying something like "San Bernardino - use US 101 South." Once on US 101, there already are signs directing drivers to I-10 San Bernardino.
The only reason that there are still signs for San Bernardino on mainline 101 and from 110 is because Caltrans did not update all of the signs in the area. By combining the old set of signs with the new set of signs, we get all the information we need as drivers.
The signs for San Bernardino are to help people who have entered the 110 from Downtown (8th, 5th ,3rd). Most will take 110 north from those entrances to reach the San Bernardino Freeway and most will take 110 south to reach the I-5 Santa Ana or Pomona Freeways. Given the geography, I would assume that the majority of people taking the 110 north to 101 south ramp actually continue on the San Bernardino Freeway and don't head toward Santa Ana.
You are right that people coming from south of I-10 will take I-10 to reach Pomona, Santa Ana, and San Bernardino.