The reconstruction of the I-15/I-215 Devore interchange is mostly complete. This is now a much easier drive, as the main line through there is now I-15.
Truck bypass routes for I-15 were added in both directions, signage on northbound I-15:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2016-08-21%252015n%2520at%2520215-0_zpscsoxbnhf.jpg&hash=957fd472e7aaed71b0e9752904ce3c4ad269aba1)
It's a little hard to see, but the southbound split now has I-15 braiding over I-215:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2016-08-21%252015n%2520at%2520215-1_zps8vrj7rfz.jpg&hash=80f1a42b54824f0013ca75a18d8db22454dff479)
Northbound I-215 now merges into I-15 from the right:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2016-08-21%252015n%2520at%2520215-4_zps2rmvadhz.jpg&hash=140585cdfa124cd89e54425f6af3cd1741e885a9)
Southbound, this used to be a mess with I-15 through traffic having to do a quick right exit
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2016-08-23%252015s%2520at%2520215-2_zpsawyq7syn.jpg&hash=7b4d659ce865b6b8bb93718c3e9c09be83040860)
Driving northbound through the interchange:
https://youtu.be/z-SL_a8Z3bM
Having NB I-215 traffic merge into I-15 from the right side is a godsend -- and long overdue. :nod: When 215 was the default "main line", slow-moving trucks from that route had to weave across the incoming I-15 traffic to get to the right lane for the steep uphill climb of Cajon; as one who drove this road twice a day for over a year with the old configuration, it always seemed to be an accident waiting to happen -- and happen it did (it claimed a friend's Ranger back in 2010!). Glad to see District 8 got it right -- I'll definitely be using that stretch when I head down there later this year.
When I used to work in Riverside and San Bernardino I would take I-215 up to Vegas or Laughlin pretty frequently. I used to just hang in the left lane and gun it up to something like 80 MPH since all the trucks were cutting over fast and you had the cars trying to weave through them. Usually you could get back over after a mile or two but it was always good to have advanced knowledge of what Cajon Pass was going to entail since it gave you an advantage.
Incidentally wasn't Cajon Blvd supposedly to be reconnected as part of this whole project? I've never seen evidence of it actually being a thing but it's a rumor I keep hearing from friends in the area.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2016, 09:04:43 AM
Incidentally wasn't Cajon Blvd supposedly to be reconnected as part of this whole project? I've never seen evidence of it actually being a thing but it's a rumor I keep hearing from friends in the area.
Yes, it was. If you look at the images of the area on Google Earth you can see the gap being closed.
iPhone
Quote from: jrouse on August 27, 2016, 10:01:12 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2016, 09:04:43 AM
Incidentally wasn't Cajon Blvd supposedly to be reconnected as part of this whole project? I've never seen evidence of it actually being a thing but it's a rumor I keep hearing from friends in the area.
Yes, it was. If you look at the images of the area on Google Earth you can see the gap being closed.
iPhone
Sweet, now the next time I'm down around L.A. and the Inland Empire I can do an uninterrupted 66 trip out of Cajon Pass. :bigass:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2016, 09:04:43 AM
When I used to work in Riverside and San Bernardino I would take I-215 up to Vegas or Laughlin pretty frequently. I used to just hang in the left lane and gun it up to something like 80 MPH since all the trucks were cutting over fast and you had the cars trying to weave through them. Usually you could get back over after a mile or two but it was always good to have advanced knowledge of what Cajon Pass was going to entail since it gave you an advantage.
Was driving a 16-year-old Mitsubishi mini-truck w/camper shell most of the time back then. Knew what was coming (re NB 215) -- but compensating for it was another thing altogether! When you're pretty slow, and are trying to make your way through others that are a bit slower, it can be an adventure, to say the least. With that vehicle, 80 uphill was asking a bit much (especially if the bed was loaded down with various shit).
Quote from: MarkF on August 27, 2016, 02:33:59 AM
Southbound, this used to be a mess with I-15 through traffic having to do a quick right exit
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2016-08-23%252015s%2520at%2520215-2_zpsawyq7syn.jpg&hash=7b4d659ce865b6b8bb93718c3e9c09be83040860)
Does Caltrans not believe in using arrow per lane signs, or do they just not follow the prohibition on having multiple arrows for a single lane that is in the national edition of the MUTCD?
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 27, 2016, 11:50:33 AM
Does Caltrans not believe in using arrow per lane signs, or do they just not follow the prohibition on having multiple arrows for a single lane that is in the national edition of the MUTCD?
Caltrans' 120" maximum sign height restriction makes using APLs somewhat difficult when the arrows themselves are supposed to be up to 72" tall.
However, Caltrans has done some limited experimentation with APLs in other areas, by greatly reducing the height of the arrows (cut down the stems). It's been noted in a few threads on this board.
Quote from: roadfro on August 27, 2016, 12:20:28 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 27, 2016, 11:50:33 AM
Does Caltrans not believe in using arrow per lane signs, or do they just not follow the prohibition on having multiple arrows for a single lane that is in the national edition of the MUTCD?
Caltrans' 120" maximum sign height restriction makes using APLs somewhat difficult when the arrows themselves are supposed to be up to 72" tall.
However, Caltrans has done some limited experimentation with APLs in other areas, by greatly reducing the height of the arrows (cut down the stems). It's been noted in a few threads on this board.
There's another problems with APLs in this case... there are two sets of option lanes. One is between the I-215 exit and the I-15 truck bypass and the second is between south I-15 and the I-215 exit. Lanes #1, #2 and #3 are for I-15, lane #4 is an option lane for I-15 or I-215, lane #5 is for I-215, lane #6 is an option lane for I-215 or I-15 truck bypass and lane #7 is for the I-15 truck bypass. I don't think there's anyway to do an APL that includes two sets of option lanes.
I might consider redrawing these signs using California's modified APL arrows although I'm not sure how I want to handle the two-option-lanes issue yet.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 27, 2016, 01:38:19 PM
There's another problems with APLs in this case... there are two sets of option lanes. One is between the I-215 exit and the I-15 truck bypass and the second is between south I-15 and the I-215 exit. Lanes #1, #2 and #3 are for I-15, lane #4 is an option lane for I-15 or I-215, lane #5 is for I-215, lane #6 is an option lane for I-215 or I-15 truck bypass and lane #7 is for the I-15 truck bypass. I don't think there's anyway to do an APL that includes two sets of option lanes.
I might consider redrawing these signs using California's modified APL arrows although I'm not sure how I want to handle the two-option-lanes issue yet.
There's no MUTCD-sanctioned method of using APLs in a multiple option lane scenario like this.
One potential workaround: It looks like the exits to I-215 and the I-15 truck lanes diverge at the same point. You could potentially just show the one APL option lane at the mainline diverge, and then use a subsequent set of APL signs to show the option lane between 215 and the truck lanes.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2016, 09:04:43 AMIncidentally wasn't Cajon Blvd supposedly to be reconnected as part of this whole project? I've never seen evidence of it actually being a thing but it's a rumor I keep hearing from friends in the area.
Cajon Blvd between Kenwood Ave and Devore Rd/Glen Helen Pkwy has been open as of July 15. Now if only the portion between Cleghorn Rd and the 138 were reopened somehow. You'd have an actual alternative route coming down from the High Desert whenever there is traffic on the 15.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 27, 2016, 11:50:33 AM
Quote from: MarkF on August 27, 2016, 02:33:59 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2016-08-23%252015s%2520at%2520215-2_zpsawyq7syn.jpg&hash=7b4d659ce865b6b8bb93718c3e9c09be83040860)
Does Caltrans not believe in using arrow per lane signs, or do they just not follow the prohibition on having multiple arrows for a single lane that is in the national edition of the MUTCD?
Quote from: roadfro on August 27, 2016, 12:20:28 PM
However, Caltrans has done some limited experimentation with APLs in other areas, by greatly reducing the height of the arrows (cut down the stems). It's been noted in a few threads on this board.
Experimentation seems to be limited to the Fresno area along westbound CA-180 at the 180/41 interchange and along northbound CA-99 at the 99/152 interchange north of Madera.
Max Rockatansky took this photo at the 99/152 interchange...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_8141a_zpsssdlwlax.jpg&hash=eab8ce40d981ccc73d7cc719d92455be9399c201)
There are numerous guide sign replacement projects about to get underway in northern California but none of the new signs are APLs.
One other thing I was thinking about tonight regarding the MUTCD's ban on multiple arrows for a single lane. As I read the MUTCD, it explicitly bans the practice of
two down-arrows pointing to the same lane in Sec 2E.19 paragraph 06. However, in the case of the California photo
Revive 755 refers to in his post, only the pull-through uses down arrows. The exit signs all use directional arrows and the MUTCD says nothing about the combination of directional and down arrows referring to a single lane. To me, this is kind of a gray area.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 28, 2016, 03:39:44 AM
There are numerous guide sign replacement projects about to get underway in northern California but none of the new signs are APLs.
Yeah, there aren't any APLs, but there is an effort to consolidate the arrows, at least on some signs.
For example, the two down arrows here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMttujOW.png&hash=e00fe8ced403480ecaaccabef127ef3067b5aadf)
Become one here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FklwREjQ.png&hash=ef5f0dcad01dd4ab4b620311be301d8235be0cdd)
Quote from: MarkF on August 27, 2016, 02:33:59 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2016-08-23%252015s%2520at%2520215-2_zpsawyq7syn.jpg&hash=7b4d659ce865b6b8bb93718c3e9c09be83040860)
For the above sign it seems like the arrows between I-215 and the truck bypass could be consolidated in a similar fashion. Not sure what could be done about the arrows between I-15 and I-215 through.
I like the "TRUCK BYPASS" banner at the top; seems a lot cleaner than the truck signing at the I-5 and CA-14 junction.
I don't mind the arrows for one lane on both signs, but maybe that speaks to my personality. I think it would worth it to see how the general public interprets the sign: do they read two lanes with that configuration or just one?
One thing that is nice about this is that it allows for the lane ending notice. California seems to do it quite often (it's also in San Jose in a couple of places, but unsigned) where the lane is not exit only, but ends right after the ramp, so it's defacto exit only without being quite so restrictive. Putting the lane arrow into two signs would not allow that to be there.
While I don't have a problem with this signage at all, how is it that California still gets away with its 120" height restriction on new sign installations. While I get the validity of that for older sign trusses, every other jurisdiction in the US seems to be able to construct tall signs, there is no reason California couldn't either.
Quote from: MarkF on August 27, 2016, 02:33:59 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2016-08-23%252015s%2520at%2520215-2_zpsawyq7syn.jpg&hash=7b4d659ce865b6b8bb93718c3e9c09be83040860)
I still don't understand why, with such a large sign panel for the I-15 pull-through, the route shield is positioned above the two control points. If Caltrans had followed their practice of putting the route shield *next* to the control points, layout would have been vastly improved IMO...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F15s-215_alt.png&hash=e801bdf96b627b73cdb57cf81a54371ebf36d783)
Note: I do know I forgot the "LANE ENDS 800 FT" plaque on the I-15 sign.
Just for kicks, here's an APL version using Caltrans' shorter shafted arrows...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F15s-215_caAPL.png&hash=d73db91f9b04d46d146febeceff91b5b3f4e4649)
Note: I'm still not happy with how I handled the I-15 truck bypass.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on August 29, 2016, 11:32:27 AM
While I don't have a problem with this signage at all, how is it that California still gets away with its 120" height restriction on new sign installations. While I get the validity of that for older sign trusses, every other jurisdiction in the US seems to be able to construct tall signs, there is no reason California couldn't either.
Earthquake codes?
I personally find the height limit to be irritating since it causes a lot of information to be omitted from the signage for this state's numerous complex interchanges. Even something that should be simple like the 210/18 junction requires multiple signs with different information on each; separate signs indicate "Waterman Avenue" and "Crestline / Lake Arrowhead", in any other state that'd all be on one sign.
At least the height limit doesn't apply to non-overhead signs.
Quote from: djsekani on September 02, 2016, 08:07:16 AMEarthquake codes?
I personally find the height limit to be irritating since it causes a lot of information to be omitted from the signage for this state's numerous complex interchanges. Even something that should be simple like the 210/18 junction requires multiple signs with different information on each; separate signs indicate "Waterman Avenue" and "Crestline / Lake Arrowhead", in any other state that'd all be on one sign.
At least the height limit doesn't apply to non-overhead signs.
No I think it might be the winds. Look at the area we're talking about. Caltrans learned their lesson when installing the signs on the Foothill Fwy (then SR-30, now SR-210) between Day Creek and Citrus. A lot of the original signs had to be replaced due to wind damage due to them being so tall and new. IIRC, they were some of the first retroreflective signage in the state.
Re: the 18/210 (30) interchange, that dates to the 1970s and the signage is all still original last I checked (probably not for long though). Those signs are very short for budgetary reasons I'm sure. SR 83/Euclid Ave in Ontario is a perfect example of how cramped a sign like that would be.
Quote from: djsekani on September 02, 2016, 08:07:16 AM
I personally find the height limit to be irritating since it causes a lot of information to be omitted from the signage for this state's numerous complex interchanges. Even something that should be simple like the 210/18 junction requires multiple signs with different information on each; separate signs indicate "Waterman Avenue" and "Crestline / Lake Arrowhead", in any other state that'd all be on one sign.
No it wouldn't for two reasons...
First, it would violate message loading standards which are in the national MUTCD (Waterman Ave, Crestline and Lake Arrowhead).
Second, the MUTCD discourages the use of street names *and* city names/control points on the same sign panel. For example, the exit sign for Fremont Ave on CA-85 currently reads "Fremont Ave/Los Altos" on separate lines. New signs which are supposed to be installed in the near future will simply read "Fremont Avenue".
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 02, 2016, 03:37:20 PM
Quote from: djsekani on September 02, 2016, 08:07:16 AM
I personally find the height limit to be irritating since it causes a lot of information to be omitted from the signage for this state's numerous complex interchanges. Even something that should be simple like the 210/18 junction requires multiple signs with different information on each; separate signs indicate "Waterman Avenue" and "Crestline / Lake Arrowhead", in any other state that'd all be on one sign.
No it wouldn't for two reasons...
First, it would violate message loading standards which are in the national MUTCD (Waterman Ave, Crestline and Lake Arrowhead).
Second, the MUTCD discourages the use of street names *and* city names/control points on the same sign panel. For example, the exit sign for Fremont Ave on CA-85 currently reads "Fremont Ave/Los Altos" on separate lines. New signs which are supposed to be installed in the near future will simply read "Fremont Avenue".
This is news to me. I've frequently seen "overloaded" signs in Michigan and several other states.
Edit: A poor example of what I mean since I'm having a hard time remembering where I've seen other ones.
https://goo.gl/maps/eNfuswo5rES2
https://goo.gl/maps/QiBykzohZTt
Quote from: djsekani on September 04, 2016, 06:54:24 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 02, 2016, 03:37:20 PM
Quote from: djsekani on September 02, 2016, 08:07:16 AM
I personally find the height limit to be irritating since it causes a lot of information to be omitted from the signage for this state's numerous complex interchanges. Even something that should be simple like the 210/18 junction requires multiple signs with different information on each; separate signs indicate "Waterman Avenue" and "Crestline / Lake Arrowhead", in any other state that'd all be on one sign.
No it wouldn't for two reasons...
First, it would violate message loading standards which are in the national MUTCD (Waterman Ave, Crestline and Lake Arrowhead).
Second, the MUTCD discourages the use of street names *and* city names/control points on the same sign panel. For example, the exit sign for Fremont Ave on CA-85 currently reads "Fremont Ave/Los Altos" on separate lines. New signs which are supposed to be installed in the near future will simply read "Fremont Avenue".
This is news to me. I've frequently seen "overloaded" signs in Michigan and several other states.
Reduction of message loading has been more emphasized with the 2009 MUTCD onward - basically one of the prime reasons (in newer signage) that destination signage has been deemphasized for offramps towards named roads.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 04, 2016, 09:45:48 PM
Quote from: djsekani on September 04, 2016, 06:54:24 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 02, 2016, 03:37:20 PM
Quote from: djsekani on September 02, 2016, 08:07:16 AM
I personally find the height limit to be irritating since it causes a lot of information to be omitted from the signage for this state's numerous complex interchanges. Even something that should be simple like the 210/18 junction requires multiple signs with different information on each; separate signs indicate "Waterman Avenue" and "Crestline / Lake Arrowhead", in any other state that'd all be on one sign.
No it wouldn't for two reasons...
First, it would violate message loading standards which are in the national MUTCD (Waterman Ave, Crestline and Lake Arrowhead).
Second, the MUTCD discourages the use of street names *and* city names/control points on the same sign panel. For example, the exit sign for Fremont Ave on CA-85 currently reads "Fremont Ave/Los Altos" on separate lines. New signs which are supposed to be installed in the near future will simply read "Fremont Avenue".
This is news to me. I've frequently seen "overloaded" signs in Michigan and several other states.
Reduction of message loading has been more emphasized with the 2009 MUTCD onward - basically one of the prime reasons (in newer signage) that destination signage has been deemphasized for offramps towards named roads.
It is true that the later versions of the MUTCD have focused on removing some of the information on the exit signs. But Caltrans has gone gangbusters on this approach --- so much so that the newer versions of the signs are no longer even useful. The road signs are meant to serve the driving public, and drivers usually decide on different criteria in determining what their exit is. Some focus on exit number, some focus on highway number, some focus on street name, and some focus on town name. Nobody is focusing on all of them, and if the sign is properly designed, we don't have to worry that the driver is going to panic becuase of message overloading.
Other states are happy to ignore the MUTCD, at least with respect to existing signage, with the mentality that "if it ain't broke don't fix it."
I think MD tends to do a pretty good job of displaying all the relevant information and while it might violate the new guidelines, when I drive by it, I don't feel overloaded. One of the key reasons, I believe, is that they do a very good job of properly spacing the information on the sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0134352,-77.0388466,3a,75y,290.01h,84.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxwgzAaN37kE76lwsI0DMEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Exit number, highway number, street name, town to the immediate south, town to the immediate north
Here is another example on the ICC, which was only opened a few years ago:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0982264,-77.0379357,3a,75y,317.4h,85.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOfmzUASI65V5oN299AMw8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Quote from: mrsman on September 05, 2016, 06:05:49 AM
I think MD tends to do a pretty good job of displaying all the relevant information and while it might violate the new guidelines, when I drive by it, I don't feel overloaded. One of the key reasons, I believe, is that they do a very good job of properly spacing the information on the sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0134352,-77.0388466,3a,75y,290.01h,84.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxwgzAaN37kE76lwsI0DMEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Exit number, highway number, street name, town to the immediate south, town to the immediate north
Here is another example on the ICC, which was only opened a few years ago:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0982264,-77.0379357,3a,75y,317.4h,85.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOfmzUASI65V5oN299AMw8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
I typically agree with the newer MUTCD guidelines that call for not mixing community names and street name signage, and overall reducing sign message loading.
With that said, I do have to say that these examples (especially the first) can mix the two nicely. In the first example, the sign is large enough to fit all the elements and the street name is noticeably smaller (and fits on one line), but still visible and distinctly separate from the destination cities. The second example isn't as clean, since the street name spans two lines, but employs the same concept.
However, there's one thing with these two examples: They are both isolated signs. The layout works here because the driver is just parsing the single sign. If these examples were displayed next to another similar sign on the same gantry, then it might become a bit too much to parse and would be an example of situations to avoid.
Quote from: djsekani on September 02, 2016, 08:07:16 AM
Earthquake codes?
If they can build buildings and bridges in California that are earthquake and wind proof, I can't see how there is a valid excuse for California's sign height restriction for new sign (and gantry installs).
Again, I don't have a problem with the sign height restriction, I just don't see how it can be used as an excuse to not follow the MUTCD.
Overhead signs assemblies are restricted on the coastal sections of highways, it seems. Highway 1 has no overhead signs along its freeway section through Marina and Seaside, where it is within view of the water. An overhead sign finally appears around Casa Verde Drive, as the highway leaves the coast.
So I think another possible reason behind not placing overhead sign assemblies would be for aesthetics, and possibly mitigating the concerns of nearby residents.
The sign height restriction has been discussed previously. I believe it is a combination of no standard details drafted for taller signs, and no wind loading analysis done for existing structures.
FWIW, Nevada also specifies a maximum overhead sign height limit in their standard plans. As with California, it is 120" (such examples are the signs that are usually slightly taller than the box frame of the sign truss, which is usually maxed out at 110"). However, the separate exit tab detail is not included in the 120". (The only known exception to the 120" max is the APL signs on I-80 at US 395 in Reno. These signs don't use the NDOT standard sign truss, so the mounting method is different. Note that all other signs installed during this project don't use the standard truss but still adhere to the max sign height.)
However, there have been although this seems to be somewhat informal