I just spent the last 8 days in the Golden State, having stayed in Moreno Valley and Vallejo, spending the majority of my visit in the bay area. I have some thoughts/questions.
Things that I disliked:
- The 55 mph towing speed limit. Why does CA have it when so many other states besides Oregon(I think) don't? It really doesn't make things any safer, especially since the rest of traffic is flying by at 70-80 mph. I don't think that making a trip to the bay area take a miserably long time in the name of alleged safety is worth it.
- The road quality. Maybe I'm just a pampered Phonecian, but there were many "oh shit!" moments as our van bumped, banged, rattled, and bounced along the freeways, especially in the LA area. I guess I was just so so surprised that such poor pavement conditions were allowed to exist in such a widespread fashion. However there were many times where I found bouncing over the uneven sections of bridges and overpasses to be quite fun, like riding a roller coaster.
- Why does California make a curved white line on the right shoulder just before an exit, and then immediately after the exit the white shoulder line is slightly to the right for a short distance? I'm talking about this:https://goo.gl/maps/BBJMbiLbawp (https://goo.gl/maps/BBJMbiLbawp) It's really annoying for me to look at.
Things I liked:
- California is Interstate shield heaven. I love how State named shields are the norm rather than the exception, and it isn't hard at all to spy a button copy shield here and there. Additionally, I love "Freeway Entrance" signs. Is there a single on ramp in the state that doesn't have them? I'd be surprised. I really wish that Arizona did this.
- Lots of old button copy signage
Having visited other states, I do wonder why California's way of signing freeway off-ramps hasn't caught on. It seems both informative yet simple, whereas other states just give you a "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" with no other information.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
- Why does California make a curved white line on the right shoulder just before an exit, and then immediately after the exit the white shoulder line is slightly to the right for a short distance? I'm talking about this:https://goo.gl/maps/BBJMbiLbawp (https://goo.gl/maps/BBJMbiLbawp) It's really annoying for me to look at.
Thought in another thread on this forum it was indicated that this was for foggy conditions?
As for the speed limits, when I went out to California a few years ago, I don't recall the speed limits being that bad on the interstates - seemed like they mostly stayed at 65 in many of urban areas outside of the business districts or construction zones. Did they lower them in the past few years or am I remembering wrong?
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 23, 2016, 10:24:27 PM
As for the speed limits, when I went out to California a few years ago, I don't recall the speed limits being that bad on the interstates - seemed like they mostly stayed at 65 in many of urban areas outside of the business districts or construction zones. Did they lower them in the past few years or am I remembering wrong?
It's just that the speed limit for trucks and any vehicles towing is 55, not that truckers care. Motorists in general do not care about speed limits in California, then they act surprised when there's a wreck on 17.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
Additionally, I love "Freeway Entrance" signs. Is there a single on ramp in the state that doesn't have them? I'd be surprised. I really wish that Arizona did this.
I'm pretty sure California, Nevada, and Washington are the only states that regularly use "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs. Oregon uses them sparingly, but not regularly.
I am also a big fan of this, but mostly because I grew up in Washington. If anything, I just like to know when I'm entering a freeway, because it tells me several things (speed limit change, chief among them).
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
- The road quality. Maybe I'm just a pampered Phonecian, but there were many "oh shit!" moments as our van bumped, banged, rattled, and bounced along the freeways, especially in the LA area. I guess I was just so so surprised that such poor pavement conditions were allowed to exist in such a widespread fashion. However there were many times where I found bouncing over the uneven sections of bridges and overpasses to be quite fun, like riding a roller coaster.
Most of California's older concrete highways have no reinforcement from one section to the next, which leads to the characteristic "popping" noise as you drive over it as well as the bumps and other problems when the sections settle unevenly. States with money to do the job right pave with continuously reinforced concrete so the pavement basically lasts forever in perfect condition, while states with somewhat less money will at least reinforce the joints so that there isn't the uneven settling (usually visible as 3 lines across each joint where the tires would be crossing. I don't think Phoenix has any concrete left that is that old, and the rubberized asphalt overlay on everything smooths over a lot of problems.
I always liked the 55 MPH limit for vehicles hauling trailers. Not that anyone is really following the speed limit in urban areas but it does help make them run slower than cars for the most part. I've actually seen a lot of truckers maintain 80 MPH plus on I-10 in Arizona which makes it a pain in the ass to pass them.
One that's really weird if you are out in the the Sonoran and Mojave deserts is the road surface hum you'll get one some highways like CA 62 and US 95. What's even stranger is some of the older surfaces in the desert have gotten a red tint to them over time.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 23, 2016, 11:44:53 PM
I always liked the 55 MPH limit for vehicles hauling trailers. Not that anyone is really following the speed limit in urban areas but it does help make them run slower than cars for the most part. I've actually seen a lot of truckers maintain 80 MPH plus on I-10 in Arizona which makes it a pain in the ass to pass them.
One that's really weird if you are out in the the Sonoran and Mojave deserts is the road surface hum you'll get one some highways like CA 62 and US 95. What's even stranger is some of the older surfaces in the desert have gotten a red tint to them over time.
Might be the building material. A lot of Utah state highways have red asphalt.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
Things that I disliked:
You left both Moreno Valley and Vallejo off of this list. I'll just assume that was a mistake.
I mean, there are definitely worse pavement conditions out there (I would say that Illinois and PA would be my top candidates for the interstates), but California seems to be the worst in the West. I would assume it's just because there's a lot of lane mileage and limited budget. And then we have an ass ton of truck traffic that tears that nice new pavement to shreds as soon as it's laid down. There are some sections of roadway where I've seen trucks actually default to using the left lane when not passing because the bumps are so bad. The 101 is like that in several places near me.
I've always assumed that the state on the interstate shield here was more out of vanity than anything else. Telling you that you should feel lucky that you're here.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 24, 2016, 02:21:43 AM
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
Things that I disliked:
You left both Moreno Valley and Vallejo off of this list. I'll just assume that was a mistake.
I mean, there are definitely worse pavement conditions out there (I would say that Illinois and PA would be my top candidates for the interstates), but California seems to be the worst in the West. I would assume it's just because there's a lot of lane mileage and limited budget. And then we have an ass ton of truck traffic that tears that nice new pavement to shreds as soon as it's laid down. There are some sections of roadway where I've seen trucks actually default to using the left lane when not passing because the bumps are so bad. The 101 is like that in several places near me.
I've always assumed that the state on the interstate shield here was more out of vanity than anything else. Telling you that you should feel lucky that you're here.
I think it's just California never adopted a standard beyond the '57 interstate specs. Same is also true of the US route shields.
Quote from: Quillz on July 24, 2016, 01:55:11 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 23, 2016, 11:44:53 PM
I always liked the 55 MPH limit for vehicles hauling trailers. Not that anyone is really following the speed limit in urban areas but it does help make them run slower than cars for the most part. I've actually seen a lot of truckers maintain 80 MPH plus on I-10 in Arizona which makes it a pain in the ass to pass them.
One that's really weird if you are out in the the Sonoran and Mojave deserts is the road surface hum you'll get one some highways like CA 62 and US 95. What's even stranger is some of the older surfaces in the desert have gotten a red tint to them over time.
Might be the building material. A lot of Utah state highways have red asphalt.
Most definitely and it seems to be coming from some local quarry. Kelbaker Road (yeah way off the deep end) had a lot of that red asphalt as well...along with several other various roads in the area with peel back of the top layer of asphalt.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 24, 2016, 09:54:04 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 24, 2016, 01:55:11 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 23, 2016, 11:44:53 PM
I always liked the 55 MPH limit for vehicles hauling trailers. Not that anyone is really following the speed limit in urban areas but it does help make them run slower than cars for the most part. I've actually seen a lot of truckers maintain 80 MPH plus on I-10 in Arizona which makes it a pain in the ass to pass them.
One that's really weird if you are out in the the Sonoran and Mojave deserts is the road surface hum you'll get one some highways like CA 62 and US 95. What's even stranger is some of the older surfaces in the desert have gotten a red tint to them over time.
Might be the building material. A lot of Utah state highways have red asphalt.
Most definitely and it seems to be coming from some local quarry. Kelbaker Road (yeah way off the deep end) had a lot of that red asphalt as well...along with several other various roads in the area with peel back of the top layer of asphalt.
Right. This is like Texas' "Golden Highway". The roadbed materials (rocks, at least) are always sourced locally because it just makes sense to do it that way. Unless proper material isn't available, of course.
Much of the rock used in the Sonoran and eastern Mojave deserts is locally mined; large quarry operations dot the area from Lucerne Valley east through the Yucca Valley/29 Palms region. The local rocks are typically rich with iron ore; Kaiser had a huge mining operation at Eagle Mountain, north of Desert Center, until it ran dry about 25 years ago -- complete with a dedicated rail line (the Eagle Mountain Railroad) which ferried the loads from the mine to the SP (now UP) main line on the northeast shore of the Salton Sea. The high concentration of iron particles accounts for the reddish tint to the rock materials sourced locally.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
- The 55 mph towing speed limit. Why does CA have it when so many other states besides Oregon(I think) don't? It really doesn't make things any safer, especially since the rest of traffic is flying by at 70-80 mph. I don't think that making a trip to the bay area take a miserably long time in the name of alleged safety is worth it.
California is one of the very few states that still have a separate truck speed limit. (http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/speedlimit_laws.html) Since the state has an abnormally high number of collisions involving trucks (http://distracteddriveraccidents.com/california-truck-accident-facts-and-statistics/) I wouldn't expect this to change anytime soon.
Quote from: sparker on July 24, 2016, 10:41:23 AM
Much of the rock used in the Sonoran and eastern Mojave deserts is locally mined; large quarry operations dot the area from Lucerne Valley east through the Yucca Valley/29 Palms region. The local rocks are typically rich with iron ore; Kaiser had a huge mining operation at Eagle Mountain, north of Desert Center, until it ran dry about 25 years ago -- complete with a dedicated rail line (the Eagle Mountain Railroad) which ferried the loads from the mine to the SP (now UP) main line on the northeast shore of the Salton Sea. The high concentration of iron particles accounts for the reddish tint to the rock materials sourced locally.
So that's why Eagle Mountain is all boarded up and locked down. I actually traveled up there once on Kaiser Road/R2 since it was long abandoned just to see what was there. Basically you could tell it was a company mining town and some of the machinery can still be west of Desert Center on I-10. Word was the Marines out of 29 Palms were using the site for urban combat exercises which would explain why it was boarded up and fenced so well. That would explain why it's only the older road surfaces have that red tint.
Quote from: djsekani on July 24, 2016, 11:57:22 AM
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
- The 55 mph towing speed limit. Why does CA have it when so many other states besides Oregon(I think) don't? It really doesn't make things any safer, especially since the rest of traffic is flying by at 70-80 mph. I don't think that making a trip to the bay area take a miserably long time in the name of alleged safety is worth it.
California is one of the very few states that still have a separate truck speed limit. (http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/speedlimit_laws.html) Since the state has an abnormally high number of collisions involving trucks (http://distracteddriveraccidents.com/california-truck-accident-facts-and-statistics/) I wouldn't expect this to change anytime soon.
I would think the speed differential between cars and trucks would cause more collisions
California was state of art in 1965, and then stayed there. I only drove in California in SF Bay are back in 1997, and roads seemed stuck 25+ years in the past. And the signs looked really ghetto, with patches of MIS matched colors etc .
Granted it's a large populous state, but they should do better with maintenance and signing
My nephew lived in San Diego and Los Angeles, he said coming home to Florida the free ways all seemed so smooth.. and people here in Jacksonville bitch about the roads
One of the things that has always caught me off guard about the pavement conditions in California, is that Caltrans doesn't replace pavements when they do widening projects. I recall for example driving the recently widened section of CA-60 and I-215 through Riverside County, and being shocked at the poor pavement conditions on such a recently widened stretch of highway. Where I am from, the DOT would take the opportunity of adding new lanes onto a road as an opportunity to shift traffic off of the old road to resurface the old road. This doesn't seem to happen in California. Also, because California uses raised pavement markings as much as they do, there always seems to be tons of pock marks on the roads surface from decades of temporary or former lane configurations. All that said though, I think Riverside County may have the worst pavement in California. Just for comparison sake, I'd say that San Diego County has much, much better pavement quality.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 25, 2016, 08:56:21 AM
One of the things that has always caught me off guard about the pavement conditions in California, is that Caltrans doesn't replace pavements when they do widening projects.
Yeah, you're right, they often don't unless they absolutely have to. You see old, painted-over lane markings all the time on California roads everywhere. They often don't even make that much of an effort to cover them up. It's not just Riverside. It's all over the 101 up here whenever it's been realigned for whatever reason.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 25, 2016, 08:56:21 AM
One of the things that has always caught me off guard about the pavement conditions in California, is that Caltrans doesn't replace pavements when they do widening projects. I recall for example driving the recently widened section of CA-60 and I-215 through Riverside County, and being shocked at the poor pavement conditions on such a recently widened stretch of highway. Where I am from, the DOT would take the opportunity of adding new lanes onto a road as an opportunity to shift traffic off of the old road to resurface the old road. This doesn't seem to happen in California. Also, because California uses raised pavement markings as much as they do, there always seems to be tons of pock marks on the roads surface from decades of temporary or former lane configurations. All that said though, I think Riverside County may have the worst pavement in California. Just for comparison sake, I'd say that San Diego County has much, much better pavement quality.
probably a money issue
Quote from: jakeroot on July 23, 2016, 10:44:41 PM
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
Additionally, I love "Freeway Entrance" signs. Is there a single on ramp in the state that doesn't have them? I'd be surprised. I really wish that Arizona did this.
I'm pretty sure California, Nevada, and Washington are the only states that regularly use "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs. Oregon uses them sparingly, but not regularly.
I am also a big fan of this, but mostly because I grew up in Washington. If anything, I just like to know when I'm entering a freeway, because it tells me several things (speed limit change, chief among them).
Tennessee uses the no pedistrian/No non-motorized vehicles regulatory sign in lieu of the CA Freeway Entrance signs.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 25, 2016, 02:27:00 PM
Tennessee uses the no pedistrian/No non-motorized vehicles regulatory sign in lieu of the CA Freeway Entrance signs.
California uses these signs additionally. Just in case you didn't know you couldn't bring your horsecart onto the freeway from a sprawl exit in Pomona, you must be reminded.
You'll find more "no pedestrian/no NMV" signs at freeway entrances in urban areas with closely-spaced interchanges, where kids & other sundry folks might be tempted to walk or ride their bikes on the freeway between ramps to save a block or two. Since white-on-green, like the "Freeway Entrance" signage, denotes guide signs and black-on-white denotes legal notification, the "NP/NMV" signs are invariably black lettering on a white background. The idea here is to cover all bases -- to welcome appropriate vehicles while prohibiting others. That being said, I've noticed a few scattered around rural areas (such as along CA 99), probably to keep locals from bringing farm equipment on the road -- sometimes the definition of "appropriate" motorized vehicles can be a bit ambiguous.
Indiana does this for their ramps: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9205706,-86.1109481,3a,19.2y,114.9h,81.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spD7d2j_Gd5AGIX0CRmOIOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: jwolfer on July 25, 2016, 02:44:31 AM
Quote from: djsekani on July 24, 2016, 11:57:22 AM
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
- The 55 mph towing speed limit. Why does CA have it when so many other states besides Oregon(I think) don't? It really doesn't make things any safer, especially since the rest of traffic is flying by at 70-80 mph. I don't think that making a trip to the bay area take a miserably long time in the name of alleged safety is worth it.
California is one of the very few states that still have a separate truck speed limit. (http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/speedlimit_laws.html) Since the state has an abnormally high number of collisions involving trucks (http://distracteddriveraccidents.com/california-truck-accident-facts-and-statistics/) I wouldn't expect this to change anytime soon.
I would think the speed differential between cars and trucks would cause more collisions
That's what I'm saying. Makes the trip miserably long
and more dangerous.
Just got back from a vacation so here's my mega-reply...
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
The 55 mph towing speed limit. Why does CA have it when so many other states besides Oregon(I think) don't? It really doesn't make things any safer, especially since the rest of traffic is flying by at 70-80 mph. I don't think that making a trip to the bay area take a miserably long time in the name of alleged safety is worth it.
I believe this was meant to remind drivers that they should be more careful when towing because of the increased dangers (i.e. jack-knifing, increased stopping distance, etc). It should also be noted that the lane restrictions applied to big rigs also apply to all towing vehicles. Towing vehicles are to remain the far right lane except to pass which means they are banned from HOV and Express Lanes.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
The road quality. Maybe I'm just a pampered Phonecian, but there were many "oh shit!" moments as our van bumped, banged, rattled, and bounced along the freeways, especially in the LA area. I guess I was just so so surprised that such poor pavement conditions were allowed to exist in such a widespread fashion. However there were many times where I found bouncing over the uneven sections of bridges and overpasses to be quite fun, like riding a roller coaster.
That's the difference between asphalt and concrete. Most of LA's freeways are concrete which has a significantly longer lifespan than asphalt however as it ages, potholes at the "seams" are a significant problem. I seem to recall that placing asphalt over existing concrete wasn't feasible because there's nothing for the asphalt to adhere to but Caltrans recently repaved a section of US 101 between Palo Alto and Mountain View and they were able to place asphalt over the concrete. To repave in concrete can be a long process because you would essentially have to remove the old concrete and then install the new concrete but to do that without shutting down the freeway, it has to be done in phases. One such project is on I-80 in Sacramento where Caltrans is repaving 10 miles of freeway. Construction began in 2011 and should be done by late 2016. That's right... almost 6 years to do 10 miles.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
Why does California make a curved white line on the right shoulder just before an exit, and then immediately after the exit the white shoulder line is slightly to the right for a short distance? I'm talking about this:https://goo.gl/maps/BBJMbiLbawp (https://goo.gl/maps/BBJMbiLbawp) It's really annoying for me to look at.
Like
Revive 755 said, it's a visual indication of an upcoming freeway exit in areas prone to dense fog. That would include all costal regions and the central valley.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
Things I liked:
Lots of old button copy signage
Enjoy it while it lasts. Caltrans, probably at the behest of the FHWA, is slowing replacing all of those old button copy signs with new retro-reflective ones. if you look through this board, you see a number of topics about sign replacement projects in the S.F. Bay Area, Sacramento, the central coast and Los Angeles.
Quote from: bootmii on July 23, 2016, 10:41:03 PM
It's just that the speed limit for trucks and any vehicles towing is 55, not that truckers care. Motorists in general do not care about speed limits in California, then they act surprised when there's a wreck on 17.
Quote from: djsekani on July 24, 2016, 11:57:22 AM
California is one of the very few states that still have a separate truck speed limit. (http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/speedlimit_laws.html) Since the state has an abnormally high number of collisions involving trucks (http://distracteddriveraccidents.com/california-truck-accident-facts-and-statistics/) I wouldn't expect this to change anytime soon.
In 2014, a truck hauling dirt lost control coming down the mountain on CA-17 during the morning commute and plowed into 11 cars, killing one driver before jack-knifing and overturning. This happened at 8 am which is the peak of the morning commute.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 26, 2016, 02:25:52 AM
Just got back from a vacation so here's my mega-reply...
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
The 55 mph towing speed limit. Why does CA have it when so many other states besides Oregon(I think) don't? It really doesn't make things any safer, especially since the rest of traffic is flying by at 70-80 mph. I don't think that making a trip to the bay area take a miserably long time in the name of alleged safety is worth it.
I believe this was meant to remind drivers that they should be more careful when towing because of the increased dangers (i.e. jack-knifing, increased stopping distance, etc). It should also be noted that the lane restrictions applied to big rigs also apply to all towing vehicles. Towing vehicles are to remain the far right lane except to pass which means they are banned from HOV and Express Lanes.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
The road quality. Maybe I'm just a pampered Phonecian, but there were many "oh shit!" moments as our van bumped, banged, rattled, and bounced along the freeways, especially in the LA area. I guess I was just so so surprised that such poor pavement conditions were allowed to exist in such a widespread fashion. However there were many times where I found bouncing over the uneven sections of bridges and overpasses to be quite fun, like riding a roller coaster.
That's the difference between asphalt and concrete. Most of LA's freeways are concrete which has a significantly longer lifespan than asphalt however as it ages, potholes at the "seams" are a significant problem. I seem to recall that placing asphalt over existing concrete wasn't feasible because there's nothing for the asphalt to adhere to but Caltrans recently repaved a section of US 101 between Palo Alto and Mountain View and they were able to place asphalt over the concrete. To repave in concrete can be a long process because you would essentially have to remove the old concrete and then install the new concrete but to do that without shutting down the freeway, it has to be done in phases. One such project is on I-80 in Sacramento where Caltrans is repaving 10 miles of freeway. Construction began in 2011 and should be done by late 2016. That's right... almost 6 years to do 10 miles.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
Why does California make a curved white line on the right shoulder just before an exit, and then immediately after the exit the white shoulder line is slightly to the right for a short distance? I'm talking about this:https://goo.gl/maps/BBJMbiLbawp (https://goo.gl/maps/BBJMbiLbawp) It's really annoying for me to look at.
Like Revive 755 said, it's a visual indication of an upcoming freeway exit in areas prone to dense fog. That would include all costal regions and the central valley.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 23, 2016, 09:59:31 PM
Things I liked:
Lots of old button copy signage
Enjoy it while it lasts. Caltrans, probably at the behest of the FHWA, is slowing replacing all of those old button copy signs with new retro-reflective ones. if you look through this board, you see a number of topics about sign replacement projects in the S.F. Bay Area, Sacramento, the central coast and Los Angeles.
Quote from: bootmii on July 23, 2016, 10:41:03 PM
It's just that the speed limit for trucks and any vehicles towing is 55, not that truckers care. Motorists in general do not care about speed limits in California, then they act surprised when there's a wreck on 17.
Quote from: djsekani on July 24, 2016, 11:57:22 AM
California is one of the very few states that still have a separate truck speed limit. (http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/speedlimit_laws.html) Since the state has an abnormally high number of collisions involving trucks (http://distracteddriveraccidents.com/california-truck-accident-facts-and-statistics/) I wouldn't expect this to change anytime soon.
In 2014, a truck hauling dirt lost control coming down the mountain on CA-17 during the morning commute and plowed into 11 cars, killing one driver before jack-knifing and overturning. This happened at 8 am which is the peak of the morning commute.
overlaying asphalt over concrete is a perfectly valid practice, there is something for the asphalt to adhere to, if you do it right. Mill the concrete or rubblize it and you can put asphalt on to without a problem. The only issue you get when you overlay asphalt over concrete is reflective cracking, when the underlying concrete cracks, causing the asphalt to crack in the same place above.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 25, 2016, 08:56:21 AM
One of the things that has always caught me off guard about the pavement conditions in California, is that Caltrans doesn't replace pavements when they do widening projects. I recall for example driving the recently widened section of CA-60 and I-215 through Riverside County, and being shocked at the poor pavement conditions on such a recently widened stretch of highway. Where I am from, the DOT would take the opportunity of adding new lanes onto a road as an opportunity to shift traffic off of the old road to resurface the old road. This doesn't seem to happen in California. Also, because California uses raised pavement markings as much as they do, there always seems to be tons of pock marks on the roads surface from decades of temporary or former lane configurations. All that said though, I think Riverside County may have the worst pavement in California. Just for comparison sake, I'd say that San Diego County has much, much better pavement quality.
You're right. Cost is a major factor. So is the challenge with maintaining traffic while rebuilding the road.
There is a project underway here in Sacramento - the I-80 "across the top" HOV lane project, which will add an HOV lane in each direction - that also includes the complete replacement of the existing lanes. The right two lanes of the freeway were replaced. It was badly needed but that work added a considerable amount of time and cost to the project. The new lanes in the median was completed 2 years ago. They are almost done with the lane replacement in the westbound direction, which is the last major piece of work. By the time the work is done, it will have been 5 years since the work began. The project was supposed to have taken 4 years. There's a few reasons for this. They were very generous with the number of working days allocated to the project, which didn't really help. In addition, the prime contractor was short on funds and they couldn't do the work so there were many days when there was little work going on. With the dry winters we've had here, I think they could have completed the work in less than 4 years had they been able to pay their people to do it. But they couldn't. They eventually pulled out of the project and turned it over to their sub (and subsequently filed for bankruptcy). Work had to stop when another construction project took place on US-50 in downtown Sacramento. That killed one summer construction season. And they didn't make up for it in the dry winter. It's just been one thing after another.
Traffic had to be maintained throughout construction, resulting in some median crossovers and narrowed lanes, which have been a nightmare from a traffic perspective. There really wasn't any other option but to shift traffic around. The project is too long (~10 miles) to do a full closure and there aren't adequate detour routes (Capital City Freeway/CA-51, anyone?). On ramps and off ramps have been closed for up to 3 weeks during construction but it's obviously a lot easier to detour ramp traffic versus freeway traffic.
The whole project has been a big headache for those of us who use I-80 regularly. I, for one, will be glad when it's done.
iPhone
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 26, 2016, 08:10:26 AM
The only issue you get when you overlay asphalt over concrete is reflective cracking, when the underlying concrete cracks, causing the asphalt to crack in the same place above.
This is quite common on the freeways here; the expansion joints in the concrete below eventually appear in the asphalt above, and it becomes quite noisy. It seems to me that because of this, ADOT's zealous use of rubberized asphalt to make freeways quieter has sort of backfired on them in a way, however they have been very good about repaving the bad sections.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 28, 2016, 12:40:41 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 26, 2016, 08:10:26 AM
The only issue you get when you overlay asphalt over concrete is reflective cracking, when the underlying concrete cracks, causing the asphalt to crack in the same place above.
This is quite common on the freeways here; the expansion joints in the concrete below eventually appear in the asphalt above, and it becomes quite noisy. It seems to me that because of this, ADOT's zealous use of rubberized asphalt to make freeways quieter has sort of backfired on them in a way, however they have been very good about repaving the bad sections.
How has it back fired? I always liked how quiet it made my commutes back in my time in Phoenix rather than hearing a constant kathunk....kathunk....kathunk over the concrete slabs. Always seemed like the rubberized asphalt held up pretty well in my book.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 28, 2016, 12:40:41 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 26, 2016, 08:10:26 AM
The only issue you get when you overlay asphalt over concrete is reflective cracking, when the underlying concrete cracks, causing the asphalt to crack in the same place above.
This is quite common on the freeways here; the expansion joints in the concrete below eventually appear in the asphalt above, and it becomes quite noisy. It seems to me that because of this, ADOT's zealous use of rubberized asphalt to make freeways quieter has sort of backfired on them in a way, however they have been very good about repaving the bad sections.
It's not the asphalt that's the problem; it's that they didn't properly work on the concrete first. Even if they keep the concrete there as a base layer, they should work on some of the joint expansions first, which will allow the concrete to expand and contract and do its thing, but no cause the asphalt above it to crack and buckle that often, if at all.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 28, 2016, 08:16:38 AM
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 28, 2016, 12:40:41 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 26, 2016, 08:10:26 AM
The only issue you get when you overlay asphalt over concrete is reflective cracking, when the underlying concrete cracks, causing the asphalt to crack in the same place above.
This is quite common on the freeways here; the expansion joints in the concrete below eventually appear in the asphalt above, and it becomes quite noisy. It seems to me that because of this, ADOT's zealous use of rubberized asphalt to make freeways quieter has sort of backfired on them in a way, however they have been very good about repaving the bad sections.
How has it back fired? I always liked how quiet it made my commutes back in my time in Phoenix rather than hearing a constant kathunk....kathunk....kathunk over the concrete slabs. Always seemed like the rubberized asphalt held up pretty well in my book.
Yeah, I think Phoenix may have the nicest freeway network in the US. I don't think there is a freeway network anywhere that has roads as consistently smooth as they are in Phoenix. It's too bad the rubberized asphalt product that AZDOT uses doesn't work in more varied climates.
I am not a big fan of California's freeway signs. A bunch of them look like dilapidated industrial junk. Some are just worn out and others are patched here and there. They usually put exit tabs into the main sign panel rather than use a separate panel. This often creates some crowded looking sign layouts. I'm not sure if any states elsewhere do that. They also occasionally use some odd looking sign gantries.
Generally speaking I think Texas does a far better job with freeway signs. The sign layouts usually look a lot better. They even use some decorative support pylons for overhead signs on some of the big city freeways and toll roads.
Quote from: coatimundiI've always assumed that the state on the interstate shield here was more out of vanity than anything else. Telling you that you should feel lucky that you're here.
That could be true, but the Interstate shield was originally designed and shaped for the state name to be displayed along with relatively smaller numerals.
I really dislike neutered Interstate shields because the numerals are often set too big to fit in the shield comfortably and be properly centered. The motivation seems to be making the shield numerals equal in size to the numerals on US Highway and State Highway shields that may be in the same green sign layout or on the same guide post. One possible solution is using a larger Interstate shield. A lot of states don't even bother co-signing US or State routes along with an Interstate. At any rate the end results on neutered Interstate shields often look terrible. If they really want Interstate shield numerals to be this big then the shield itself should be redesigned to allow more space for the numerals to fit.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 28, 2016, 11:29:16 AM
I am not a big fan of California's freeway signs. A bunch of them look like dilapidated industrial junk. Some are just worn out and others are patched here and there. They usually put exit tabs into the main sign panel rather than use a separate panel. This often creates some crowded looking sign layouts. I'm not sure if any states elsewhere do that. They also occasionally use some odd looking sign gantries.
Generally speaking I think Texas does a far better job with freeway signs. The sign layouts usually look a lot better. They even use some decorative support pylons for overhead signs on some of the big city freeways and toll roads.
Quote from: coatimundiI've always assumed that the state on the interstate shield here was more out of vanity than anything else. Telling you that you should feel lucky that you're here.
That could be true, but the Interstate shield was originally designed and shaped for the state name to be displayed along with relatively smaller numerals.
I really dislike neutered Interstate shields because the numerals are often set too big to fit in the shield comfortably and be properly centered. The motivation seems to be making the shield numerals equal in size to the numerals on US Highway and State Highway shields that may be in the same green sign layout or on the same guide post. One possible solution is using a larger Interstate shield. A lot of states don't even bother co-signing US or State routes along with an Interstate. At any rate the end results on neutered Interstate shields often look terrible. If they really want Interstate shield numerals to be this big then the shield itself should be redesigned to allow more space for the numerals to fit.
I think the reason why they look so bad is that the sun ruins them.
The signs in CA do look much different from the rest of the US. They are not as bad as the ones down in Mexico.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 28, 2016, 11:29:16 AM
I am not a big fan of California's freeway signs. A bunch of them look like dilapidated industrial junk. Some are just worn out and others are patched here and there. They usually put exit tabs into the main sign panel rather than use a separate panel. This often creates some crowded looking sign layouts. I'm not sure if any states elsewhere do that. They also occasionally use some odd looking sign gantries.
I agree with this. I like button copy for the historic aspect, but at this point, most are so dirty/dilapidated to the point that they are simply very hard to read at the speeds of a moving vehicle. The much newer retroreflective signs may not be as historic, but there is no question they are superior when it comes to legibility, and that's what most important.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 28, 2016, 11:29:16 AM
I really dislike neutered Interstate shields because the numerals are often set too big to fit in the shield comfortably and be properly centered. The motivation seems to be making the shield numerals equal in size to the numerals on US Highway and State Highway shields that may be in the same green sign layout or on the same guide post. One possible solution is using a larger Interstate shield. A lot of states don't even bother co-signing US or State routes along with an Interstate. At any rate the end results on neutered Interstate shields often look terrible. If they really want Interstate shield numerals to be this big then the shield itself should be redesigned to allow more space for the numerals to fit.
The '61-spec interstate shields had a neutered variation that I think works very well, with 10'' numerals. The main issue I see today is most states use the '70-spec interstate shields and try to cram in 12'' numerals, which means they often have to use extreme horizontal kerning to make the numerals fit. It doesn't look good.
However, I've also seen some states (such as Idaho) simply use Series C numerals instead of Series D, another perfectly fine compromise. This allows for even 11-12'' numerals to fit quite comfortably.
On a 24" tall Interstate shield 10" numerals in Series D work alright whether the shield has the state name or not. Spacing can get a little tight with certain digits, like "22" for example. The '57 spec used 8" numerals. 12" numerals are just too freaking big for the shield. The resulting spacing issues harm legibility, which completely defeats the purpose of making the numerals bigger in the first place. When it comes to legibility the negative "white space" on the shield and sign panels is just as important as the numbers and letters.
I don't mind Series C lettering on 3 digit Interstate shields. I can't recall seeing it used on any 2 digit shields. I think that would look a bit odd.
Just for a little clarification...
'57-spec Interstate shields use 8" numerals on the 24" shield and 12" numerals on the 36" shield. California's freeway entrance assemblies typically use the 24" shield while reassurance shields (found on the freeway after on-ramps) will be the 36" shield.
Current spec Interstate shields call for 15" numerals on the 36" shield although states that use neutered shield will try to cram 18" numerals into the same shield.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 28, 2016, 04:39:43 PM
On a 24" tall Interstate shield 10" numerals in Series D work alright whether the shield has the state name or not. Spacing can get a little tight with certain digits, like "22" for example. The '57 spec used 8" numerals. 12" numerals are just too freaking big for the shield. The resulting spacing issues harm legibility, which completely defeats the purpose of making the numerals bigger in the first place. When it comes to legibility the negative "white space" on the shield and sign panels is just as important as the numbers and letters.
I don't mind Series C lettering on 3 digit Interstate shields. I can't recall seeing it used on any 2 digit shields. I think that would look a bit odd.
Idaho uses it quite a bit for I-84. I've also seen New Mexico use it for I-25. I think it looks and works fine.
Personally I've always liked the California Cut-out style US Route signs and the cut-out spade....even I would prefer it be closer to the original design. For what it's worth it actually gives the state signage some personality you don't really see anywhere else....that and all the older Interstate signs and button copy all over the place.
Quote from: myosh_tinoCurrent spec Interstate shields call for 15" numerals on the 36" shield although states that use neutered shield will try to cram 18" numerals into the same shield.
That bad practice drives me nuts. I design signs for a living, so details like that bother me more than most people. I don't know why the FHWA allows various states to get away with doing that in their sign shops.
Quote from: QuillzIdaho uses it quite a bit for I-84. I've also seen New Mexico use it for I-25. I think it looks and works fine.
Can you point out some specific locations of 2 digit Interstate shields using Series C numerals? Maybe in Google Maps/Street View? I can't recall seeing any of those on I-25 in New Mexico.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 28, 2016, 08:16:38 AM
How has it back fired? I always liked how quiet it made my commutes back in my time in Phoenix rather than hearing a constant kathunk....kathunk....kathunk over the concrete slabs. Always seemed like the rubberized asphalt held up pretty well in my book.
Backfired was probably the wrong word to use. I'm just saying that even the rubberized asphalt, the purpose of which was to make the freeways quieter, has still become noisy in many sections across the valley, seemingly sooner than they should, like this: https://goo.gl/maps/dsaVu7caAXn (https://goo.gl/maps/dsaVu7caAXn). The kathunk kathunk is still common here, but its certainly not as bad as in other places. Luckily, ADOT has been very good about repaving those sections. The portion of loop 202 in Tempe that was recently widened was getting pretty bad before they repaved it at the end of the project.
I'm not trying to trash on the valley's freeways though, I think we have the best freeway system in the nation.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/ID/ID19700261i1.jpg)
Not my photo, but saw many I-84 shields that looked just like that one, between Twin Falls and the Utah border.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on July 29, 2016, 12:31:17 AM
The portion of loop 202 in Tempe that was recently widened was getting pretty bad before they repaved it at the end of the project.
It was. Especially on the bridges. Those people who paid all that money for those overpriced Town Lake condos must have complained.
I recall the south end of the Price Freeway being pretty rough too, especially right before the 202.
But, here, they build the houses even closer to the freeway, they often have more lanes, and they're lucky if they get a decent sound wall.
There are a couple of interesting I-80 shields in Roseville which is just north of Sacramento. These shields appear to be properly shaped (unlike than angular shields found on some of California's 2DIs) but use narrower numerals. I want to say it is 12-inch Series C but I can't be 100% certain. Here is a link to a Google Map Street View image of the shield in question...
https://goo.gl/maps/8VNzwWK5sLU2
That's Series C.
Actually those "80" numerals look more like a condensed weight of Helvetica Neue. :-o
Quote from: coatimundi on July 25, 2016, 03:05:29 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 25, 2016, 02:27:00 PM
Tennessee uses the no pedistrian/No non-motorized vehicles regulatory sign in lieu of the CA Freeway Entrance signs.
California uses these signs additionally. Just in case you didn't know you couldn't bring your horsecart onto the freeway from a sprawl exit in Pomona, you must be reminded.
Interesting to poke fun at a seemingly ignorant horsecart operator not knowing what a highway entrance looks like - yet it's somehow perfectly OK for an actual automobile driver to not know what one looks like - and needing a sign to remind them...
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 28, 2016, 11:07:05 PM
Quote from: myosh_tinoCurrent spec Interstate shields call for 15" numerals on the 36" shield although states that use neutered shield will try to cram 18" numerals into the same shield.
That bad practice drives me nuts. I design signs for a living, so details like that bother me more than most people. I don't know why the FHWA allows various states to get away with doing that in their sign shops.
Quote from: QuillzIdaho uses it quite a bit for I-84. I've also seen New Mexico use it for I-25. I think it looks and works fine.
Can you point out some specific locations of 2 digit Interstate shields using Series C numerals? Maybe in Google Maps/Street View? I can't recall seeing any of those on I-25 in New Mexico.
Chalk one minor victory up for states rights.
I really don't have a feeling either way about the Freeway Entrance sign. It made sense when freeways were a novelty back before 1960. Or in Urban areas when the freeway entrance uses the street grid..
An interstate sign or just the grade separation indicates freeway to me and I think to most people, but I am a road geek.
They're very helpful in California, I think, because you sometimes don't know if you're getting on a freeway or not here. It happens a lot in LA: you just happen to make a wrong turn and you're suddenly on an entrance ramp to the 405 and can't get off for over a mile. And, when you do get off, you can get dropped in some neighborhood with no clue on how to get back, since just turning around mostly does not work, since standard diamond interchanges are pretty rare. It was a bigger problem before smartphones, when you then had to find a place to ask for directions.
It's actually happened to me a couple of times where, I've started to make a turn, then saw that sign, and went straight instead (or turned instead of going straight onto the freeway due to the sign).
Quote from: coatimundi on July 29, 2016, 03:50:39 PM
They're very helpful in California, I think, because you sometimes don't know if you're getting on a freeway or not here. It happens a lot in LA: you just happen to make a wrong turn and you're suddenly on an entrance ramp to the 405 and can't get off for over a mile. And, when you do get off, you can get dropped in some neighborhood with no clue on how to get back, since just turning around mostly does not work, since standard diamond interchanges are pretty rare. It was a bigger problem before smartphones, when you then had to find a place to ask for directions.
It's actually happened to me a couple of times where, I've started to make a turn, then saw that sign, and went straight instead (or turned instead of going straight onto the freeway due to the sign).
It can happen in urban areas when city streets were used to make exit and entrance ramps
Quote from: Avalanchez71Chalk one minor victory up for states rights.
That's a hollow victory for "states rights" considering their violation of MUTCD specifications results in something that looks very stupidly wrong. It's piss poor sign design. Very poor in both functions of legibility and design aesthetics.
Quote from: jwolfer on July 29, 2016, 02:06:48 PM
I really don't have a feeling either way about the Freeway Entrance sign. It made sense when freeways were a novelty back before 1960. Or in Urban areas when the freeway entrance uses the street grid..
An interstate sign or just the grade separation indicates freeway to me and I think to most people, but I am a road geek.
Coming back from a trip to Phoenix, I greatly missed the Freeway Entrance signs. In most areas, they aren't needed as long as you have the route number, but in some instances (like L-101) where you merge left from a side street onto the freeway, just a guide sign at the very end of the separation is not helpful. Interstates it's not always needed either. I don't think they have really been needed since the system was completed.
I have to agree though that Phoenix freeways (and just Arizona highways overall) are so much better maintained then California's by a long shot. The higher speed limit on the Interstates is also nice. It took me a while to realize that the limit was 75 while a bunch of cars were passing by me doing 80+. Guide signs are also clear and coherent, but I must say Clearview sucks. Give me Series E any day.
Freeway entrance signs are nice for when you've got a long state or US highway that may not always have a freeway segment. Obviously, you won't need it for an interstate, but look at US-101 in California and Oregon. Many freeway segments in the former, with non-freeway segments in between, while it's almost entirely a 2-lane coastal road in the latter. Or something like CA-41 in the Central Valley, where it's 2-lane highway until it's not, rapidly becoming freeway as you approach Fresno.
If it's a freeway, it should have FREEWAY ENTRANCE signs. Whether it's an interstate, state, county, or US route is not relevant. A freeway is a freeway.
Quote from: Quillz on July 30, 2016, 08:06:01 PM
Freeway entrance signs are nice for when you've got a long state or US highway that may not always have a freeway segment. Obviously, you won't need it for an interstate, but look at US-101 in California and Oregon. Many freeway segments in the former, with non-freeway segments in between, while it's almost entirely a 2-lane coastal road in the latter. Or something like CA-41 in the Central Valley, where it's 2-lane highway until it's not, rapidly becoming freeway as you approach Fresno.
That's why California has its "Begin Freeway" and "End Freeway" signs: so that drivers know when to expect cross traffic. Though it's often obvious, as is the case with most of Fresno's exurb freeway stubs, on freeway-to-expressway transitions, like the many on the 101, it's usually not obvious, and the speed limit doesn't change.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2016, 08:40:36 PM
If it's a freeway, it should have FREEWAY ENTRANCE signs. Whether it's an interstate, state, county, or US route is not relevant. A freeway is a freeway.
I agree with this. Most states just use the "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs without any further information. Having that extra bit of info (the route number, the cardinal direction) is nice.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 30, 2016, 09:54:51 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 30, 2016, 08:06:01 PM
Freeway entrance signs are nice for when you've got a long state or US highway that may not always have a freeway segment. Obviously, you won't need it for an interstate, but look at US-101 in California and Oregon. Many freeway segments in the former, with non-freeway segments in between, while it's almost entirely a 2-lane coastal road in the latter. Or something like CA-41 in the Central Valley, where it's 2-lane highway until it's not, rapidly becoming freeway as you approach Fresno.
That's why California has its "Begin Freeway" and "End Freeway" signs: so that drivers know when to expect cross traffic. Though it's often obvious, as is the case with most of Fresno's exurb freeway stubs, on freeway-to-expressway transitions, like the many on the 101, it's usually not obvious, and the speed limit doesn't change.
Better examples would be the 60 and 71 freeways. There's a brief portion of the 60 with cross traffic, and there are actually traffic lights on a short portion of the 71.
Talks are Caltrans if going to be finishing the 71 in the next couple years. Sounds like they finally hammered out the deal with Chino and Chino Hills.
Many other routes come to mind too, like SR 30. It had two stub freeways connected via a side street, making Freeway Entrace (FE) signs very nice to have. It's a good indication that you're not expecting cross traffic ahead unless you come to an 'End Freeway' banner. Another good case is the 86 Expressway. It has many grade separated intersections in Indio, but is not a freeway nor is signed as such. It's onramps just simply state SR 86 North/South. But I-10 right up the street does have FE signs, so you know it's limited access.
Quote from: Exit58 on August 01, 2016, 12:40:36 AM
Talks are Caltrans if going to be finishing the 71 in the next couple years. Sounds like they finally hammered out the deal with Chino and Chino Hills.
Many other routes come to mind too, like SR 30. It had two stub freeways connected via a side street, making Freeway Entrace (FE) signs very nice to have. It's a good indication that you're not expecting cross traffic ahead unless you come to an 'End Freeway' banner. Another good case is the 86 Expressway. It has many grade separated intersections in Indio, but is not a freeway nor is signed as such. It's onramps just simply state SR 86 North/South. But I-10 right up the street does have FE signs, so you know it's limited access.
I'd never be able to fit in in california when it comes to describing roads, I'd always say "California XX or SR XX" or "US 101" or "Interstate XX" instead of "THE XX"
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 01, 2016, 07:28:12 AM
I'd never be able to fit in in california when it comes to describing roads, I'd always say "California XX or SR XX" or "US 101" or "Interstate XX" instead of "THE XX"
"The XX" is more of a SoCal thing. Although my observation is that this particular nomenclature is more prevalent when talking about freeway-grade facilities.
You'd fit in a little better in NorCal, where highways tend to be referred to more by just the number (e.g. I-80 as simply "80") and "The" is not really used.
By the way, these nomenclature styles have also migrated to southern and northern Nevada as well. People in Vegas tend to say "The XX" frequently and Reno people frequently use numbers only, although this usage is not strictly adhered to and you will get many people who say "I-XX" or "US-XX" or "State Route XX" in both areas–although "Highway XX" is frequently used for U.S. Routes statewide
outside of urban areas.
Edited to add italics in last sentence.
"The" has firmly entrenched itself in Phoenix colloquialism as well, but that's only because it became a Los Angeles suburb in the 2000's. With all the Angelenos in the Bay Area, I've always been surprised that it hasn't caught on there. Maybe their last, too-late stand against cultural infringement from the south.
I'd be disappointed if it ever caught on in places like Houston, where you get to hear the nasally discomfort of a Texas accent saying "I".
Quote from: coatimundi on August 01, 2016, 01:19:52 PM
With all the Angelenos in the Bay Area, I've always been surprised that it hasn't caught on there.
Part of it is the continued usage of freeway names on radio traffic reports (i.e. the Bayshore, MacArthur, Eastshore and Nimitz Freeways) IMO.
Quote from: coatimundi on August 01, 2016, 01:19:52 PM
"The" has firmly entrenched itself in Phoenix colloquialism as well, but that's only because it became a Los Angeles suburb in the 2000's. With all the Angelenos in the Bay Area, I've always been surprised that it hasn't caught on there. Maybe their last, too-late stand against cultural infringement from the south.
I'd be disappointed if it ever caught on in places like Houston, where you get to hear the nasally discomfort of a Texas accent saying "I".
Personally I always preferred "the" followed by the route number. Back when I was living in Michigan everyone would refer to the highway, more specifically the freeways by name. So nobody would use "M-10" but would say the "Lodge." I might not know the name of all the freeways out there but I sure do know the route number.
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 01, 2016, 07:28:12 AM
Quote from: Exit58 on August 01, 2016, 12:40:36 AM
Talks are Caltrans if going to be finishing the 71 in the next couple years. Sounds like they finally hammered out the deal with Chino and Chino Hills.
Many other routes come to mind too, like SR 30. It had two stub freeways connected via a side street, making Freeway Entrace (FE) signs very nice to have. It's a good indication that you're not expecting cross traffic ahead unless you come to an 'End Freeway' banner. Another good case is the 86 Expressway. It has many grade separated intersections in Indio, but is not a freeway nor is signed as such. It's onramps just simply state SR 86 North/South. But I-10 right up the street does have FE signs, so you know it's limited access.
I'd never be able to fit in in california when it comes to describing roads, I'd always say "California XX or SR XX" or "US 101" or "Interstate XX" instead of "THE XX"
It's been an adjustment that took a few years. I grew up with "The Lodge", "The Chrysler", and "The Jeffries". I don't even think Detroit locals use those names any more.
I don't ever recall anyone saying "Bayshore Freeway" in a traffic report. Is there a certain station that does that? I'm mostly on KQED when I'm up there, and they may be too "NPR-ish" to be considered true representations. But they'll mostly preface it with location, like "In San Rafael, on 101 at Third Street".
The traffic reporters in Houston use both (e.g. - "I-10, the Katy Freeway"), which I always thought was a bit much for something that needs to be concise, but most freeways in Houston have two sides, so you can't just use the route number. At some point in the 90's, I-10 east changed from just "East" to "Baytown East", and the traffic reports followed suit. So that's a five syllable route identifier. Silly...
Quote from: djsekani on August 01, 2016, 04:57:48 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 01, 2016, 07:28:12 AM
Quote from: Exit58 on August 01, 2016, 12:40:36 AM
Talks are Caltrans if going to be finishing the 71 in the next couple years. Sounds like they finally hammered out the deal with Chino and Chino Hills.
Many other routes come to mind too, like SR 30. It had two stub freeways connected via a side street, making Freeway Entrace (FE) signs very nice to have. It's a good indication that you're not expecting cross traffic ahead unless you come to an 'End Freeway' banner. Another good case is the 86 Expressway. It has many grade separated intersections in Indio, but is not a freeway nor is signed as such. It's onramps just simply state SR 86 North/South. But I-10 right up the street does have FE signs, so you know it's limited access.
I'd never be able to fit in in california when it comes to describing roads, I'd always say "California XX or SR XX" or "US 101" or "Interstate XX" instead of "THE XX"
It's been an adjustment that took a few years. I grew up with "The Lodge", "The Chrysler", and "The Jeffries". I don't even think Detroit locals use those names any more.
Apparently my Cousin and Aunt do because they had no idea what I was talking about last October. When I said Lodge they finally got that I was headed downtown...then added the standard commentary you get from people in the suburbs about such an excursion. lol
Quote from: coatimundi on August 01, 2016, 05:01:55 PM
I don't ever recall anyone saying "Bayshore Freeway" in a traffic report. Is there a certain station that does that? I'm mostly on KQED when I'm up there, and they may be too "NPR-ish" to be considered true representations. But they'll mostly preface it with location, like "In San Rafael, on 101 at Third Street".
104.5 KFOG a few weeks ago.
I've heard "Eastshore Freeway" and the Macarthur Maze mentioned more on TV broadcasts.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 01, 2016, 05:15:01 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 01, 2016, 05:01:55 PM
I don't ever recall anyone saying "Bayshore Freeway" in a traffic report. Is there a certain station that does that? I'm mostly on KQED when I'm up there, and they may be too "NPR-ish" to be considered true representations. But they'll mostly preface it with location, like "In San Rafael, on 101 at Third Street".
104.5 KFOG a few weeks ago.
I've heard "Eastshore Freeway" and the Macarthur Maze mentioned more on TV broadcasts.
KCBS and KNBR still use freeway names in their traffic reports.
The four Bay Area freeway names often referenced over the air are: Bayshore, Eastshore, Nimitz, and MacArthur (101, 80, 880, and 580 respectively). Except for the bridges themselves, which are almost always named (along with the Caldecott Tunnel), the rest, including I-280 (formally the Junipero Serra Freeway) get numbers over the air. East of Castro Valley, 580 is simply 580; 680 has never been anything else; likewise with 780. One time, a few months ago, one of the traffic reporters referred to CA 4 (in the Antioch area) as the "Delta Highway" (it's got a few BGS's proclaiming it the "California Delta Highway") -- but that seemed to have been a one-time utterance; she subsequently went back to calling it "Highway 4".