It looks like Caltrans is about to embark on a major sign replacement project in the San Francisco Bay Area that could spell the end of button-copy signs on Bay Area freeways. In the past, signs for the most part were only being replaced if they were part of another project (repaving, freeway widening, interchange improvement, etc) but this is the first time I've seen sign replacement as the primary purpose of a project in northern California.
Here's what is planned...
* 04-2J1504 --- Contra Costa Co. (Rts 4, 80, 580, 680), Cost - $3.03M
* 04-2J1604 --- Solano Co. (Rts 12, 37, 80, 113, 505, 680, 780), Cost - $1.1M
* 04-2J1804 --- Marin, Napa, Sonoma Co. (Rts 12, 29, 37, 101, 580), Cost - $2.16M
* 04-2J1404 --- Alameda Co (Rts 13, 24, 80, 84, 238, 580, 680, 880, 980), Cost - $4.61M
* 04-2J1704 --- Santa Clara Co (Rts 17, 85, 87, 101, 280, 237, 680, 880), Cost - $5.8M
Total cost of all 5 projects is $16.7 million.
In addition to the above projects, signs are also being replaced on I-580 at the 80/580/880 interchange in Oakland (04-1A6724) as part of a larger bridge repainting project. There is also a large $2.11M sign replacement project planned for Sacramento, Yolo, Placer and El Dorado counties (03-4F7104) <Note: started separate topic for this project (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16501.0)>.
There's a good chance I will draw some of the new signs and post them here to this thread, especially if there are any "weird" ones (and I'm sure there will be).
NOTE: I missed a similar $1.6M sign replacement project in District 5 which covers the central coast area (Project 05-1G1904, plans available here (http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/05/05-1G1904/plans/05-1G1904_plans.pdf))
Links to plans?
Quote from: KEK Inc. on September 19, 2015, 07:55:08 PM
Links to plans?
Not out yet. First 3 listed are to be advertised on Monday, 9/21. The rest will be advertised on 9/28.
Caltrans will only provide plans once a project is advertised but they will list projects that will advertise the following week and the week after next.
Myosh_tino--many thanks for the "Attachment D" and "Attachment E" heads-ups. The next couple of weeks will be interesting!
There was an earlier pure signing project (04-287614) that changed out the signs on pretty much all the freeways in San Mateo County, but that was ten years ago (plan sheet approval dates generally 2005-11-28).
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 20, 2015, 09:48:06 PM
Myosh_tino--many thanks for the "Attachment D" and "Attachment E" heads-ups. The next couple of weeks will be interesting!
You're very welcome JN Winkler. :colorful:
The next couple of weeks (starting tomorrow, usually at 9AM Pacific) should be interesting but I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the replaced signs will be carbon-copies of the old ones with an exit number shoe-horned in one way or another. I would be really surprised if APL's are headed to the Bay Area.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 20, 2015, 09:48:06 PM
There was an earlier pure signing project (04-287614) that changed out the signs on pretty much all the freeways in San Mateo County, but that was ten years ago (plan sheet approval dates generally 2005-11-28).
I thought so. All signs on I-280 and a majority on US 101 in San Mateo county were replaced around 2006 which coincides with the project you noted.
Found some time late this evening to draw a couple of the new signs. The first is on southbound I-680 approaching the CA-24 exit in Walnut Creek. Like I suspected, the new signs are pretty much a carbon-copy of the existing signs even down to the continued use of white-on-green arrows for option lanes and having two arrows point to the same lane.
Current Signs (from the AARoads Gallery)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images680/i-680_sb_exit_046b_02.jpg)
Drawing of New Signs
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd4_680s-24adv.png&hash=01b8280a95d7a5958eb20f4f2d182403bd8f6762)
Note: Only after previewing this post did I notice the small gap between the two signs
I'm sad to report that those unique backlit signs on east I-80 at the I-780 interchange are soon going to be a distant memory. Those signs are also part of the sign replacement project and the focus of my next drawing.
Current Signs (from the AARoads Gallery)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_eb_exit_030a_02.jpg)
Drawing of New Signs
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd4_80e-780ed.png&hash=eca460b6a1e9b345324f0f00abbc891c12402f1c)
Note: Obviously, I don't have that unique sign bridge in my library so I used a standard monotube instead.
This is a meta post about the 2015-09-21 advertisement.
* Besides the District 3 signing job (03-4F7104) and three of the District 4 signing jobs (04-2J1504, 04-2J1604, and 04-2J1804), the advertisement includes a District 5 signing job (05-1G1904) and it is this that actually has the largest count of pattern-accurate signing sheets (110) of any of the five sign replacement contracts.
* In District 4, the sign replacements appear to be divided by county groups. 04-2J1504 is Contra Costa County, 04-2J1604 is Solano County, and 04-2J1804 covers all of the District 4 counties north of the Golden Gate--Marin, Napa, and Sonoma.
* Rather unusually for California, the District 5 signing contract calls for bitten-out exit tabs sized to meet federal standards (10" word "EXIT," 15" exit number) instead of the 2004 Caltrans standards (8" word "EXIT," 12" exit number).
* I have been tracking Caltrans contract signing since construction plans began to be uploaded in 2001; the vast bulk of pattern-accurate signing sheets I have in my Caltrans collection date after the introduction of contractor-furnished permanent signs in 2004. This is the largest weekly advertisement I have ever seen in terms of number of contracts with pattern-accurate signing (16), pure signing contracts (5), and total count of pattern-accurate signing sheets (321). This week alone represents a 7% increase in the size of my Caltrans signing sheet collection.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 22, 2015, 03:35:54 AM
Drawing of New Signs
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd4_80e-780ed.png&hash=eca460b6a1e9b345324f0f00abbc891c12402f1c)
Note: Obviously, I don't have that unique sign bridge in my library so I used a standard monotube instead.
Question: So will there be no signage for Exit 30B (Benicia Road) overhead at this junction?
Quote from: TheStranger on September 22, 2015, 11:50:36 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 22, 2015, 03:35:54 AM
Drawing of New Signs
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd4_80e-780ed.png&hash=eca460b6a1e9b345324f0f00abbc891c12402f1c)
Note: Obviously, I don't have that unique sign bridge in my library so I used a standard monotube instead.
Question: So will there be no signage for Exit 30B (Benicia Road) overhead at this junction?
Looking at the plans, the answer is no. Apparently, exit 30B/Benicia Rd was never signed with an overhead BGS. According to the AARoads Gallery, the only signage for this exit is a ground-mounted sign that says "FRONTAGE ROAD" with an arrow.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 22, 2015, 10:19:33 AM
* Rather unusually for California, the District 5 signing contract calls for bitten-out exit tabs sized to meet federal standards (10" word "EXIT," 15" exit number) instead of the 2004 Caltrans standards (8" word "EXIT," 12" exit number).
Also unusual is the apparent use of the FHWA US Route Shield (M1-4) versus the Caltrans-spec US Route Shield (G26-1). It's shape and larger numerals is a dead giveaway in my eyes. It'll be interesting to see which shield is used when the signs are fabricated.
Just drew these two new signs...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd4-505S-80Eadv.png&hash=67c2ea019f46272b5e181e5fdc08353e15080e01) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fd4_580w-80w.png&hash=bc85b7526533b9d20d534ea16cb064bce788d4e2)
Sign on the left will be on southbound I-505 approaching the I-80 interchange. Sign on the right will be on westbound I-580 approaching the 580/880/80 interchange in Oakland. These signs show two different methods Caltrans is using to denote left exits.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 25, 2015, 02:55:57 AM
Sign on the left will be on southbound I-505 approaching the I-80 interchange. Sign on the right will be on westbound I-580 approaching the 580/880/80 interchange in Oakland. These signs show two different methods Caltrans is using to denote left exits.
I find it VERY interesting that the lanes from 580 west to 80 west (the former US 50 through lanes) get an exit number, yet there's still no sign of exit numbers for the left-through-lane-exits in the Sacramento area (US 50 off of I-80 east in West Sacramento, Route 99 south from Business 80 west in midtown, Business 80 east from Route 99 north) in what is that region's second sign replacement project in 7 years.
Does the ramp for US 101 north from I-280 north in San Francisco (the former US 101 through lanes from the late 1950s to 1964) get an exit number?
Quote from: TheStranger on September 25, 2015, 11:36:25 AM
Does the ramp for US 101 north from I-280 north in San Francisco (the former US 101 through lanes from the late 1950s to 1964) get an exit number?
No. Looking at Google Maps, none of the signs for US 101 on northbound I-280 have exit numbers.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 19, 2015, 03:16:08 PM
* 04-2J1404 --- Alameda Co (Rts 13, 24, 80, 84, 238, 580, 680, 880, 980), Cost - $4.61M
* 04-2J1704 --- Santa Clara Co (Rts 17, 85, 87, 101, 280, 237, 680, 880), Cost - $5.8M
Neither of these appear on the Caltrans District 4 plans and specs page (http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/). Did they pull them off or are they located someplace else?
Quote from: andy3175 on September 26, 2015, 11:25:42 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 19, 2015, 03:16:08 PM
* 04-2J1404 --- Alameda Co (Rts 13, 24, 80, 84, 238, 580, 680, 880, 980), Cost - $4.61M
* 04-2J1704 --- Santa Clara Co (Rts 17, 85, 87, 101, 280, 237, 680, 880), Cost - $5.8M
Neither of these appear on the Caltrans District 4 plans and specs page (http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/). Did they pull them off or are they located someplace else?
They're not posted yet.
The Alameda and Santa Clara county projects are going to be advertised starting this Monday. I guess I should have posted the dates each of those projects was going to be advertised. Sorry for the confusion!
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 26, 2015, 11:43:04 PM
The Alameda and Santa Clara county projects are going to be advertised starting this Monday. I guess I should have posted the dates each of those projects was going to be advertised. Sorry for the confusion!
Thanks ... another question: How do you get advance info about sign plans? Are they posted elsewhere in advance of actual advertisement?
Quote from: andy3175 on September 27, 2015, 12:05:19 AMThanks ... another question: How do you get advance info about sign plans? Are they posted elsewhere in advance of actual advertisement?
Caltrans divides its bid pamphlet equivalent (published every Monday) into attachments, as follows:
* Attachment A--This week's ads
* Attachment B--Last week's ads
* Attachment C--Postponed ads
* Attachment D--Next week's ads
* Attachment E--Ads for the weeks after next week
They are all available here, but you need to click on the (very small) down arrow icon next to "Advertised Projects" to show the links.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/contract_awards_services.html
I used to rely heavily on Attachment A and my original Caltrans downloader script loaded it every Monday to pull in plans for the current week's ads. Now I just use the "All advertised projects" link since I now hoover up addenda as well.
Everything Myosh_tino said about the District 4 signing jobs in his original post--routes, counties, estimated cost, advertising date--appears in the Attachment D or E blurb for each project. Releases of advance plans are rare for Caltrans and tend to be confined to high-profile projects like the Bay Bridge east span.
Caltrans used to publish a more extended letting forecast that ran one year ahead, but I don't see it anymore and suspect it was discontinued the last time the Office Engineer site underwent redesign. There is always the STIP, though interpreting those documents is an art.
Got a look at the plans for replacing overhead signs in Alameda and Santa Clara counties. There's a ton of carbon-copying and more than a few funky layouts. Drawings will be coming.
Much to Agentsteel's relief, one of the few remaining outlined US 101 shields (located at the Rengstorff interchange in Mountain View)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_sb_exit_400a_02.jpg)
From the AARoads Gallery
...is NOT scheduled for replacement. I'm wondering if it got forgotten because all signs from Ellis St to the San Mateo county line were replaced fairly recently either as part of a gore-point cleanup project back in 2006-07 or as part of the project that added a 2nd HOV lane which concluded about a year ago
or someone at Caltrans realized the historical significance of that old porcelain pull-through sign and is somehow protecting it.
It should be noted that the caption for the photo above on AARoads is incorrect. Here's how the caption currently reads...
QuoteSouthbound U.S. 101 reaches Exit 400A, Rengstorff Avenue and Amphitheatre Parkway. These signs have since been replaced, and the outline U.S. 101 shield that dates to the original Bypass U.S. 101 alignment is now gone. Photo taken 11/27/05.
Both of the old porcelain signs and the outline US 101 shield are still there. Andy3175, if you want photographic proof let me know.
Looking quickly at the Alameda County sign replacement project...
Page 57 on http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-2J1404/plans/04-2j1404_plans_pgs%20101-200.pdf (signs 165A & signs 166A) - no mention of Route 262 for the Mission Boulevard exit off of 680. Kinda surprised to see that when 262 is now one of the destinations signed from the express lane!
Page 82 in same document (sign 229A) - THREE lines of legend for Route 92! Should Half Moon Bay even be used this far east as a westbound control city? (The layout reminds me of the three-control-city signs along Route 120 east in Manteca for Route 99)
Page 83 in same document (sign 234B) - I know Caltrans is fond of the implied TO but given that 238 is signed as "238 to 880" in other examples in the document, wouldn't 238 TO 580 be more appropriate? (This serves as an interesting contrast to the usage of TO for 99 where it runs concurrent with 5 and 50 in Sacramento)
Also seeing a retention of the "two control cities on one line separated by a hyphen" style that has existed in the East Bay previously (particularly at the MacArthur Maze). I can think of many places where this would be useful outside of here, though I also wonder if it is detrimental as far as message loading is concerned.
Looking at Google Maps, neither Route 185 or Route 77 (the latter being a short freeway connector to High Street & Route 185 that IMO should be part of Route 185 instead) is signed off of Exit 38 of the Nimitz Freeway. Will this eventually change (and for that matter, Route 123 being noted off of either I-80 in Richmond or I-580 in Oakland)?
=====
Contra Costa County:
http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-2J1504/plans/04-2j1504_plans_pgs%200001-0100.pdf
Page 84: On Sign 65A, I've always wondered why it's listed for "TO 580 San Rafael/Fitzgerald Drive" rather than "Richmond Parkway TO 580 San Rafael"
Page 88: Interesting to see the "two control cities on one line with only a space as separation" thing for the exit to Route 4 for Hercules/Stockton, which seems confusing as it looks like some lanes go to one city and some go to another. (Unless they are specifically trying to point drivers to the first offramp to Hercules in that fashion)
Contra Costa County part 2:
http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-2J1504/plans/04-2j1504_plans_pgs%200101-0157.pdf
Page 2: Interesting to see "WEST" in superscript on sign 119A instead of centered with the Route 24 shield. Similar for NORTH text on Sign 148A over on Page 11
=====
Solano
http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-2J1604/plans/04-2j1604_plans.pdf
Page 46: Sign 33A (exit from I-80 east to I-505), interesting to see the further control city (Redding) listed ahead of the closer one (Winters) - a legend listing style I've seen mostly in Solano County.
=====
Marin/Napa/Sonoma
http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-2J1804/plans/04-2j1804_plans.pdf
Page 57: Sign 14A is an interesting layout (similar to the Route 12/29 concurrency on the page previous). The more "traditional" way I imagined this pullthrough is one line of "29/121 SOUTH" then the two control cities on separate lines.
Page 74: Sign 58 seems to have one legend text in a less bold version of FHWA Series E(M) than the second line.
Page 82: Horizontal shield stacking! Here it seems to correspond to 128's control city being Cloverdale and 101's being Eureka on this concurrency.
===
Santa Clara
http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-2J1704/plans/04-2j1704_plans_pgs0101-0200.pdf
Overall thought: Wouldn't a good Route 87 northbound control city be "Airport"?
Page 11: Shouldn't Signs 56 & 59 be pointing to "TO US 101 SOUTH" (as one on Route 85 would be staying in the mainline lanes to reach 101 north)? Sign 64 on Page 13 does denote this
Page 21: Interesting to see the references for Route 82 remaining despite the fact 82 has been relinquished south of 880. Also a very unusual four-streets-for-one-exit legend (sign 84, as well as Sign 86B on Page 22)
Page 34: Another example of one bolded legend line, one without bold (sign 121D for Route 85 north off of US 101)
Page 37: JCT Route 82 (relinquished south of 880 as noted) from US 101 on Sign 124 (a next-three-exits listing; similar example is Sign 139 on page 44)...should this be "Blossom Hill Road" instead? (In fact, the proposed signage for the exit itself has no acknowledgement of the 82 designation at all now)
Page 61: Sign 172B (exit for Old Bayshore Highway) has some unusual formatting...
Page 68: Sign 184 (Route 87 south from US 101 south) is a replacement for one that has been "Route 87 - Guadalupe Parkway" for a while. I feel "Route 87/Downtown San Jose" is the most logical concept here
Page 76: Surprised that Sign 210 (Route 237 west from US 101 south) doesn't have a "TO Route 85" on there.
Page 78: Another stray Route 82 shield remains on this next-three-exits sign (Sign 213), this time from 280.
Interesting to see the Guadalupe Parkway text for Route 87 disappearing on most signs (compared to the usage of Warren Freeway for Route 13 and the Capital City Freeway in Sacramento for the Route 51 segment of Business 80)
Page 98: Now that 82 no longer continues south of 880, a "NORTH" above the 82 shields for Signs 283A & 284 could be used here, though isn't necessary per se.
I was hoping that sheet S-34 on I-580 would have shown I-238 signed east-west. I get that the combined I-238 and SR 238 is a north-south corridor, but the segment between I-580 and I-880 functions (in my opinion) as an east-west route.
Here's the link to the plans:
http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-2J1404/plans/04-2j1404_plans_pgs%20101-200.pdf
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 28, 2015, 03:40:05 PM
It should be noted that the caption for the photo above on AARoads is incorrect. Here's how the caption currently reads...
QuoteSouthbound U.S. 101 reaches Exit 400A, Rengstorff Avenue and Amphitheatre Parkway. These signs have since been replaced, and the outline U.S. 101 shield that dates to the original Bypass U.S. 101 alignment is now gone. Photo taken 11/27/05.
Both of the old porcelain signs and the outline US 101 shield are still there. Andy3175, if you want photographic proof let me know.
I'll get to work on that ... thank you sir!
Fine detail: in the construction plans for 04-2J1404 (the Alameda County contract), the interchange sequence signs have oversized shields for SR 13 (Ashby Avenue) and for I-80 (on I-880) but those for other routes appear to adhere to Caltrans' usual sizing rule (digits same height as, and aligned vertically with, lowercase loop height of primary destination legend on the same line). I-80 is easy to understand given its importance as one of the Bay crossings, but the Ashby Avenue segment of SR 13 is just a city street, so its greater prominence is odd.
Caltrans has historically treated the word "Junction" and its usual abbreviation "Jct" as part of primary destination legend, i.e., put them on signs in mixed-case. Because of its unusual sizing and positioning rule for shields on interchange sequence signs, it is also far more likely than other states to use word "Junction" and its abbreviation on such signs for no apparent purpose other than to establish vertical positioning. (Other states simply put a shield or group of shields on their own line and treat them as vertical position controls in their own right.) However, all of the District 4 signing jobs reposition junction as a secondary "little word" that appears in "small caps" ("JUNCTION"). For same-line shields on interchange sequence signs, however, the usual positioning rule is adhered to by treating the small-caps word as if it were vertically aligned with the lowercase loop height of an imaginary line of mixed-case primary destination legend.
^ Interesting... I've always wondered why Caltrans tends to needlessly put the "Junction" on interchange sequence signs. That rationale might also help explain why some districts still put legends like "[10] Freeway" on those signs, despite deprecating the freeway name on older versions.
New signs coming to SR 29 in Napa...
http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/caltrans-to-do-sign-work-along-highway/article_49d00f7e-e05e-5c7f-86fe-e60ea6425513.html
QuoteCaltrans will be out with cranes and other equipment installing new, highly reflective signs along Highway 29 in and near the city of Napa that will lead to some nighttime ramp and highway detours.
The highway signs presently are illuminated at night by attached lights. But the new signs can be read solely using automobile headlights, allowing Caltrans to make the swap and cut the electricity. ...
Napa County isn't the first place to get the highly reflective signs along a highway or freeway. Caltrans is installing the signs all over the state and has already mounted them at locations in Solano County.
As myosh_tino reported in https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17827.msg2139614#msg2139614, the following are links to sign plans sorted by county:
* Alameda County (04-2J1404) - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-2J1404/plans/
* Contra Costa County (04-2J1504) - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-2J1504/plans/
* Solano County (04-2J1604) - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-2J1604/plans/
* Santa Clara County (04-2J1704) - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-2J1704/plans/
* Marin/Napa/Sonoma Counties (04-2J1804) - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/04/04-2J1804/plans/
Bumping this topic for a Santa Clara County update...
The first new signs that are a part of Project 04-2J1704 (Santa Clara County) are now being installed along Highways 17 and 85. Signs in and around the 17/85 interchange on Hwy 17 and south of Blossom Hill Road on Hwy 85 have been replaced. Last night, Caltrans replaced the interchange sequence signs in the median of Hwy 85 between I-280 and El Camino Real. In all of these cases, the light fixtures including the catwalks were removed.
I find it interesting that the valley's newest freeway, CA-85, is one of the first to have it's signs replaced. AFAIK, this was one of the last to receive button copy signs, many of which were still quite legible at night even when the signs weren't lit.
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 30, 2016, 06:12:51 PM
AFAIK, this was one of the last to receive button copy signs, many of which were still quite legible at night even when the signs weren't lit.
I also believe CA-85 was the last location to use closed box beam structures for the overhead signs.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTD0uaEA.png&hash=6ce98ff873c2c7e7f3eccec316027653d68fadf8)
Caltrans has since removed this design from their standard plans, I believe due to not meeting wind loading standards and difficulty detecting internal corrosion.
What was Caltrans' rationale for using the closed box sign structures? They could not have been very effective for wind movement, which is supposedly an issue in California installations.
Quote from: jeffe on December 02, 2016, 12:59:37 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 30, 2016, 06:12:51 PM
AFAIK, this was one of the last to receive button copy signs, many of which were still quite legible at night even when the signs weren't lit.
I also believe CA-85 was the last location to use closed box beam structures for the overhead signs.
Caltrans has since removed this design from their standard plans, I believe due to not meeting wind loading standards and difficulty detecting internal corrosion.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 05, 2016, 08:26:33 PM
What was Caltrans' rationale for using the closed box sign structures? They could not have been very effective for wind movement, which is supposedly an issue in California installations.
A couple of notes regarding the box-beam structures...
* I believe signs were not allowed to extend above the top of these structures although exceptions do exist (I-80 in Davis and Vallejo come to mind) so I'm thinking wind-loading was less of an issue.
* Corrosion detection is definitely an issue as it was noted in a policy memo regarding the switch of Type XI sheeting. I suspect that was the main reason why the box-beam sign truss was removed from Caltrans' Standard Plans.
I agree with jeffe that CA-85 was probably the last freeway to use box-beam for overhead guide signs in California.
Getting back to the sign-replacement project in Santa Clara county, apparently this is
NOT a whole-scale replacement. There are still a number of button-copy signs still left on CA-85. Most, but not all, of the old porcelain signs on the 1970's portion of 85 (between 101 in Mountain View and 280 in Cupertino) were replaced. Signs mounted to the CA-82/El Camino Real overpass are the only porcelain signs remaining on 85.
Every so often, I'll read Mr. Roadshow, who mentioned some of the retroreflective sign replacements in his column yesterday: http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/11/roadshow-new-reflective-freeway-signs-brighten-the-night/.
The response within his column appears positive.
Quote from: andy3175 on December 12, 2016, 11:36:14 PM
Every so often, I'll read Mr. Roadshow, who mentioned some of the retroreflective sign replacements in his column yesterday: http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/11/roadshow-new-reflective-freeway-signs-brighten-the-night/.
The response within his column appears positive.
Not to drive the thread too off-topic, but Question 2 in that article reminded me about something that's always bothered me: what's the deal with the "intermittent closures" that Caltrans does? During both a repaving project on SR 1 and a bridge project on SR 68 by me recently (the latter is still ongoing, while the former still has signs up), they put up these signs on the ramps, but rarely had the ramp actually closed. So, when they did close it, it was surprising. It seems like we should, at this point, have some sort of medium to allow at least a day's notice of a closure. Surely that can't be too much to ask. I mean, I've always found the road conditions display online somewhat useless in that respect: you can't do any kind of travel planning more than a few hours in advance, it seems. Wouldn't it be more useful to show planned projects for a given highway over the next week or so?
I don't know...
Quote from: coatimundi on December 13, 2016, 01:19:40 AM
... Not to drive the thread too off-topic, but Question 2 in that article reminded me about something that's always bothered me: what's the deal with the "intermittent closures" that Caltrans does? .... but rarely had the ramp actually closed. So, when they did close it, it was surprising. It seems like we should, at this point, have some sort of medium to allow at least a day's notice of a closure...
A related issue that really bugs me is the lack of advance distance notice.
Suppose you're traveling northbound and ahead of you, Caltrans is closing Exit 10, the one you intended to take. The next 3 exits ahead of you are 9, 10, and 13. With advance notice, you could get off at Exit 9 and take surface streets to Exit 10. Instead, there will be a sign after exit 9 -- basically "your exit is closed, too late, keep going" -- and you're stuck doing the extra few miles to backtrack.
Maybe it's apples to oranges, but it seems that CT almost never completely closed interchange ramps back in the day, unless the freeway was being reconstructed (and then the closure was often permanent).