In the past few weeks, I've noticed that nearly all of the California-style exit gore signage on the I-10 freeway between I-405 and Downtown has been replaced with FHWA standard exit gore signage. I spotted the first sign on one of the I-10 to I-405 exits back in the spring. It seems that in the last month, this entire stretch of the 10 has had its signs replaced.
What's going on? Is this a new Caltrans spec?
I don't have photos of the I-10 resigning, I was tooling around Google Maps and spotted a similar replacement on I-5 way up in Northern California, south of Mt. Shasta.
You'll see in the GSV from Northern California that the new sign is moved back some distance from the gore point. The same is true of the signs on the 10 Freeway. Those signs are so far back that they stood out to me as improperly placed. Again: New policy/spec?
April 2018:
(https://s22.postimg.cc/f9abpw59t/screen-capture-2.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9963011,-122.4180621,3a,59.2y,80.31h,93.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIGLt3_LgMYRxB8jJUjzNGA!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
August 2016:
(https://s22.postimg.cc/9xvf56qwx/screen-capture-1.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9963011,-122.4180621,3a,59.2y,80.31h,93.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIGLt3_LgMYRxB8jJUjzNGA!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
(https://s22.postimg.cc/hqm2xczip/screen-capture-3.jpg)
A quick Google search turned up these documents from Caltrans from way back in 2015:
EXIT GORE SIGNAGE Memo, 8/12/2015 (PDF)
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/policy/Exit-Gore-Signs-memo.pdf
EXIT GORE SIGN OPTIONS, w/white on green colored sign graphics (PDF)
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tcd/docs/Exit-Gore-Sign-color.pdf
OTHER DOCUMENTS:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tcd/exit-gore.html
Has anyone else seen the FHWA-spec exit gore signs go up in other areas? And when did you see them? From an aesthetic perspective, it's weird to see FHWA-spec exit gore signs in California.
I thought I have seen some on CA 99. It turns out there are FHWA-spec exit signs there and they have been there since 2014.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9838731,-120.086256,3a,75y,127.16h,83.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXkQHMNncMgkbsQBz9dZuWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Here's one on southbound I-5 at CA 74 in San Juan Capistrano
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5042515,-117.6592123,3a,75y,179.2h,108.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBA-2F9pzYxKL9j4esnPYeg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
BTW, this topic came up a couple of years ago, see:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4883.msg2175825#msg2175825
As noted in the Caltrans HQ memo linked by mcmc, there are basically four options given to the individual Caltrans districts for dealing with exit gore signs:
- Use a FHWA standard sign mounted on two posts placed 200 feet downstream from the Caltrans standard location.
- Keep the sign in the standard position but use a steel post with a quick change base.
- Keep the sign in the standard position but use a wood post with a metal sleeve foundation to allow for faster changeouts.
- Increase the visibility of the exit sign by adding reflectors to the post
Districts 1, 2, and 3 (basically everything from Sacramento north) and Districts 6 and 10 (the Central Valley) are using option 1. Hence the large number of FHWA standard signs on CA-99 in the Central Valley and I-5 north of Sacramento.
Districts 4 and 7 (SF Bay Area and Los Angeles) are using option 2. These districts are more urban and it may be more difficult to move the sign away from the gore point. District 4 briefly used option 4, implemented by placing a blank yellow diamond sign near the base of the sign post, before moving to the metal posts. Based on those new signs on I-10, it sounds like District 7 may be moving towards option 1.
Districts 5 and 11 (the central coast and San Diego) seem to favor option 3. Most of the exit signs along US-101 in District 5 were replaced with wood post signs anchored in a metal sleeve placed in a concrete foundation. San Diego tends to specify using a wood post with a wedge shaped shim to keep the sign anchored in a concrete foundation.
These changes are being implemented to reduce the exposure of Caltrans crews to live traffic when an exit sign has to be replaced.
Yes I have seen the ones on the Santa Monica Freeway. I will post a pic soon because the one at the Crenshaw ramp was absurdly placed well past the gore point. It's about half way between the gore point and the overcrossing.
Here are some photos. The new placement doesn't make any sense to me. Might as well not have them at all. This is westbound on I-10(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180803/4f5c02ffbb315b8d8d870003fa61454d.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180803/995abfc4c8fc40a24286efaa0c14efb7.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180803/c15fad26b5d59f79d1c11c091a501258.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180803/0e829b7bd7c62bcd71130b837a8d2341.heic)
Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 03, 2018, 12:40:44 PM
Here are some photos. The new placement doesn't make any sense to me. Might as well not have them at all. This is westbound on I-10
Holy crap! That's just awful. I'd probably assume those signs were for an upcoming exit just after the bridge if I were driving through there.
Quote from: skluth on August 03, 2018, 04:02:29 PM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 03, 2018, 12:40:44 PM
Here are some photos. The new placement doesn't make any sense to me. Might as well not have them at all. This is westbound on I-10
Holy crap! That's just awful. I'd probably assume those signs were for an upcoming exit just after the bridge if I were driving through there.
Regarding those exit signs...
https://youtu.be/vhe3vSe-mmw
Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 03, 2018, 12:40:44 PM
Here are some photos. The new placement doesn't make any sense to me. Might as well not have them at all. This is westbound on I-10
Hard to tell, but that might actually follow the spec linked above. The spec shows that the old 1-post signs are situated just at the physical gore, whereas the new FHWA 2-post signs are shown following ±150 feet from a contrasting surface treatment area at the physical gore and then situated another ±50 feet beyond that. (A quick MUTCD search interestingly reveals that there does not appear to be a standard for placement of the gore signs.)
Even if these do follow the spec though, they are seriously misplaced. The spec sheet seems to be a bit more typical example of rural exit ramp configurations, or at least newer construction in urban areas. For cases like those pictured, with rapid elevation difference between mainline and ramp, placing the exit gore sign 200 feet back from the nose of the physical gore seems quite excessive. Even putting the sign halfway back through the contrasting paved island surfaces would be better, or maybe using the traditional CA exit gore sign & placement with quick-change sign bases would have been a better approach for these instances.
Yeah, it appears that those signs DO meet the new spec. I've seen the signs in person, and when driving at freeway speeds the visibility does seem somewhat "better" than it appears from the still pictures.
Having said that, given the visual clutter in an urban environment, it would be better to mount the signs closer to the gore point.
With exit 11, there's a streetlight in the gore and a single post sign could be placed on it. As it is right now, the streetlight blocks the visibility of the sign.
Exit 10 is a passible application of the downstream sign placement.
As others have noted, Exit 9 is a bit ridiculous given the elevation change at the sign placement.
Is district 7 (LA) the only urban district to use the downstream placement? As far as I know, district 4 (SF Bay Area) is keeping the signs at the normal location but using quick change posts.
Here are some photos from the eastbound side. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180903/2bc9751e0659b78d6a3b6995148aed5b.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180903/aa726961b001b835f775c878b6562571.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180903/6b97a919e78eb3124915b6b13ec75dbf.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180903/5c9f0225054dfabb8fa4bfea2b3e9308.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180903/34b1d80a81de5e39189989b9b29aa3cb.jpg)
That's awful.
It makes me wonder why Caltrans abandoned their usual single-post gore signage, which can be placed closer to the actual gore point, in favor of the FHWA-standard signs that were placed in very inappropriate locations.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Even with the FHWA-standard signs, there's enough room to post them in an appropriate spot... the Byzantine-Latino Quarter sign proves it! CalTrans is just being stupid because if they did it right, the FHWA might start demanding that they do OTHER things right, like external exit tabs, or not cramming a ton of stuff onto a sign that's significantly smaller than it's supposed to be to satisfy some "all signs must be the same height" mandate.
Caltrans District 4 in my area seems they've recently used FHWA Series D "M" (bold) with mismatching retroreflectivity and Telespar breakaway square metal posts instead of the usual wood ones on some replacement signs like for example I-280 in Daly City and the exit numbers, which brings to my attention that has Caltrans' quality of attention to detail gone bonkers? To be honest, some people could do better on attention to detail like me. It kinda seems ugly when the visual appeal has gone negative than before, and that it would have violated Caltrans' original technical guidelines for signage practices. I think all these corruption needs to stop and that it has be true California quality. The Telespar steel posts look ugly to me, the FHWA-style ones do not fit with California-specs and that wood posts should be always used. BTW does anyone have friends who work for Caltrans?
Wood post with mismatching retroreflectivity and exit 414B is supposed to be on a 3 digit exit sign, not on a one or two-digit one. Found on U.S. 101/CA 92 interchange, San Mateo/Foster City
(https://imageshack.com/i/poLuXUBsp)
Same as before, but on exit 47A, I-280 in Daly City with a Telespar post.
(https://imageshack.com/i/pnJyKFzqp)
It's frustrating to see all of the changes that caltrans is doing for the worse. Moving the exit sign locations in this manner provides no benefits to the public. And this is on top of my other complaints on signage including removing city names from Street exits and removing the names of freeways that are well-known. And throwing in the new fetish that caltrans has for roundabouts and we see that the whole agency has gone completely bonkers.
I am all for the safety of the highway workers but they need to find a way to keep the exit Gore signs at the exit Gore.
Nexus 5X
Quote from: mrsman on June 11, 2020, 10:34:18 AM
It's frustrating to see all of the changes that caltrans is doing for the worse. Moving the exit sign locations in this manner provides no benefits to the public. And this is on top of my other complaints on signage including removing city names from Street exits and removing the names of freeways that are well-known. And throwing in the new fetish that caltrans has for roundabouts and we see that the whole agency has gone completely bonkers.
I am all for the safety of the highway workers but they need to find a way to keep the exit Gore signs at the exit Gore.
Nexus 5X
I couldn't agree more. I have become increasingly frustrated with the trend of removing lights from gantry signs. I suppose it's on the theory that retroreflective signs shouldn't need supplemental lights but my observation is that while modern headlights are much brighter they are also aimed or provided with a cutoff feature so as to not blind oncoming drivers (raised pickup trucks notwithstanding). As a result, there isn't much light to reflect off the overhead signs as opposed to side-of-the-road signs that are more within headlights' reach. If you're familiar with an area it really doesn't matter but if you're not it can really be hazardous, particularly zipping along at 65+.
Without lights it seems like they are also removing the maintenance decks which probably helps in thwarting taggers from climbing up and redecorating. However, with modern LED lighting it seems like sign lighting could be provided without the deck since the frequency of relamping goes down precipitously with the longevity of LED. I'm sure it helps cut Caltrans' electric bill and maintenance costs but it seems like at a minimum overhead signs at decision points (exits/gores) the signs should be lit. My recollection from Arizona is that their signs are lit from above with a davit-style arm on which the luminaire is mounted with no maintenance deck. That design also addresses the "dark skies" concerns by not having lighting randomly shining upwards.
^ If Caltrans is using the right type of reflective sheeting for overhead BGSs, then unlit signs should not be an issue.
When Nevada DOT reconstructed I-80 through Reno-Sparks several years ago, all overhead signs were replaced with new signs & structures without lighting. The exception was the really big new APL signs at US 395 interchange and any signs located along curves (where there wouldn't be enough headlight distance to illuminate the sign for long enough)–those now have LED lights lit from above. But all the new signs are sufficiently legible. This seems to have been an experiment that paid off, as several one-off sign replacements along US 395/I-580 since then have been with upgraded sheeting and had lights & catwalk infrastructure removed.
Quote from: roadfro on June 12, 2020, 12:21:24 PM
^ If Caltrans is using the right type of reflective sheeting for overhead BGSs, then unlit signs should not be an issue.
When Nevada DOT reconstructed I-80 through Reno-Sparks several years ago, all overhead signs were replaced with new signs & structures without lighting. The exception was the really big new APL signs at US 395 interchange and any signs located along curves (where there wouldn't be enough headlight distance to illuminate the sign for long enough)–those now have LED lights lit from above. But all the new signs are sufficiently legible. This seems to have been an experiment that paid off, as several one-off sign replacements along US 395/I-580 since then have been with upgraded sheeting and had lights & catwalk infrastructure removed.
Generally the reflective sheeting works. I still like how Arizona does lighting on their signs - the downward facing lights to reduce "light pollution" rather than the upward facing lights that we are used to in California. As long as the sign can be seen.....
One problem is that some of the lettering on the reflective signs appears to wear off and/or be affected by graffiti removal. So it loses some of its reflective nature.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on July 22, 2018, 12:11:11 AM
Yes I have seen the ones on the Santa Monica Freeway. I will post a pic soon because the one at the Crenshaw ramp was absurdly placed well past the gore point. It's about half way between the gore point and the overcrossing.
I am OK with either type, though I kind of liked our unique vertical rectangles. One thing I do not like is the exit numbers on the sign itself. I would prefer that we add it in the upper right-hand corner of the sign like most other states do, instead of taking up part of the upper right portion of the sign itself.
Overall, I'm just happy to have the numbers, though. It makes it so much easier to gauge mileage remaining on a road trip, rather than rely on periodic distance signs.
Quote from: don1991 on June 12, 2020, 09:04:37 PM
Overall, I'm just happy to have the numbers, though. It makes it so much easier to gauge mileage remaining on a road trip, rather than rely on periodic distance signs.
Yep, and it also helps to tell if you are headed in the right direction (are the numbers getting closer to "your exit number" or not...)
Quote from: M3100 on June 12, 2020, 09:36:09 PM
Quote from: don1991 on June 12, 2020, 09:04:37 PM
Overall, I'm just happy to have the numbers, though. It makes it so much easier to gauge mileage remaining on a road trip, rather than rely on periodic distance signs.
Yep, and it also helps to tell if you are headed in the right direction (are the numbers getting closer to "your exit number" or not...)
Having the green mile markers would make that even easier. Then drivers might then realize how those exit numbers are calculated too :)
Does anyone think Caltrans needs to be reformed to true "California-quality"? I think it helps improve visual appeal to what we want and like the most.
Quote from: JUHSD-rvalencia on June 13, 2020, 01:47:41 PM
Does anyone think Caltrans needs to be reformed to true "California-quality"? I think it helps improve visual appeal to what we want and like the most.
What do you mean by this?
To the point where they should always never fool around using wrong retro-reflectivity level and the density of the FHWA series fonts used on exit signs as well as forbidding the use of three/four-digit exit signs when there's a one/two-digit exit (i.e. exit 25 on CA SR 92 in Hayward) or vice versa (i.e. exit 47A on Interstate 280 in Daly City and exit 414B on U.S. 101 in San Mateo), and that it should be abided by Caltrans original technical specs before they recently began using FHWA shenanigans. Even the use of FHWA gore points along with the double post exit signs should be phased out and banned, too. Also, the square steel posts used on exit signs in gore points should be wood only. Anyone have more suggestions? I'd be happy to reply. BTW on some areas like Alemany Maze and the Bay Bridge near Treasure Island, there are FHWA-style highway speed limit signs (small numbers) as supposed to the normal ones (large numbers) used in general. I won't mean to offend people, but I think we need to hire people who pays a lot of attention to detail who is really qualified to work for Caltrans if they die-hard want to.
Quote from: JUHSD-rvalencia on June 14, 2020, 07:03:38 PM
To the point where they should always never go crazy using wrong retroreflectivity level and the density of the FHWA series fonts used on exit signs as well as forbidding the use of three/four-digit exit signs when there's a one/two-digit exit (i.e. exit 25 on CA SR 92 in Hayward) or vice versa (i.e. exit 47A on Interstate 280 in Daly City and exit 414B on U.S. 101 in San Mateo), and that it should be abided by Caltrans original technical specs before they recently began using FHWA shenanigans. Even the use of FHWA gore points along with the double post exit signs should be phased out and banned, too. Also, the Telespars used on exit signs in gore points should be wood only. Anyone have more suggestions? I'd be happy to reply. BTW on some areas like Alemany Maze and the Bay Bridge near Treasure Island, there are FHWA-style highway speed limit signs (small numbers) as supposed to the normal ones (large numbers) used in general. I won't mean to offend people, but I think we need to hire people who pays a lot of attention to detail who is really qualified to work for Caltrans if they die-hard want to. :banghead: :hmmm: :confused:
I agree. The old Caltrans standards were far better than what they are doing now, and IMO even better than the standard FHWA approach.
But I would qualify and say that what they are doing now is attempting to qualify for FHWA, but still missing the mark in many areas.
Case in point, exit numbering on signs. This is a good idea, especially if the exit number is tied in to the highway mileage - CA is a very late adapter on these. But the implementation in CA is ugly compared to how it is done in most other states.
Quote from: JUHSD-rvalencia on June 14, 2020, 07:03:38 PM
To the point where they should always never go crazy using wrong retroreflectivity level and the density of the FHWA series fonts used on exit signs as well as forbidding the use of three/four-digit exit signs when there's a one/two-digit exit (i.e. exit 25 on CA SR 92 in Hayward) or vice versa (i.e. exit 47A on Interstate 280 in Daly City and exit 414B on U.S. 101 in San Mateo), and that it should be abided by Caltrans original technical specs before they recently began using FHWA shenanigans. Even the use of FHWA gore points along with the double post exit signs should be phased out and banned, too. Also, the Telespars used on exit signs in gore points should be wood only. Anyone have more suggestions? I'd be happy to reply. BTW on some areas like Alemany Maze and the Bay Bridge near Treasure Island, there are FHWA-style highway speed limit signs (small numbers) as supposed to the normal ones (large numbers) used in general. I won't mean to offend people, but I think we need to hire people who pays a lot of attention to detail who is really qualified to work for Caltrans if they die-hard want to. :banghead: :hmmm: :confused:
Some of what you desire should be aspired to for every state DOT. Adherence to specific design standards, making sure signs are appropriately sized, ensuring adopted standards make sense, etc.
However, I would disagree with some of your thoughts. I see no issue with the FHWA exit gore signs (they are bigger and more visible), but I do see issue with Caltrans' policy regarding the placement of these signs–as we've seen in this thread, the 200 foot setback in Caltrans' standard for these does not make sense in many applications. I also don't see an issue with using metal supports for exit gore signage (or other signage for that matter). In the case of exit gore signage, the use of breakaway metal posts is quicker to fix and reset a struck sign than wood posts–which is part of the reason for the change.
Quote from: mrsman on June 15, 2020, 08:40:27 AM
I agree. The old Caltrans standards were far better than what they are doing now, and IMO even better than the standard FHWA approach.
But I would qualify and say that what they are doing now is attempting to qualify for FHWA, but still missing the mark in many areas.
Case in point, exit numbering on signs. This is a good idea, especially if the exit number is tied in to the highway mileage - CA is a very late adapter on these. But the implementation in CA is ugly compared to how it is done in most other states.
Yes, some older Caltrans standards are quite nice.
I certainly agree with the thought on exit numbering though. When they were first implementing it, I could somewhat understand the initial approach for their exit "tab" design given certain constraints and wanting to replace signs within dimensions of the original panels. But it's been roughly 18 years since Caltrans started numbering exits...they need to get better on this now since exit numbering is now the standard rather than the exception–perhaps it's time they adopt external exit tabs.
Quote from: JUHSD-rvalencia on June 14, 2020, 07:03:38 PM
forbidding the use of three/four-digit exit signs when there's a one/two-digit exit (i.e. exit 25 on CA SR 92 in Hayward)
I'm seeing exits 25A and 25B on CA 92 there, which should use the 3/4 digit design, do you have a different example of this happening? (Totally agree with you that CA should stick to their own standards and install the proper signage though)
Quote from: stevashe on June 15, 2020, 11:48:08 AM
Quote from: JUHSD-rvalencia on June 14, 2020, 07:03:38 PM
forbidding the use of three/four-digit exit signs when there's a one/two-digit exit (i.e. exit 25 on CA SR 92 in Hayward)
I'm seeing exits 25A and 25B on CA 92 there, which should use the 3/4 digit design, do you have a different example of this happening? (Totally agree with you that CA should stick to their own standards and install the proper signage though)
Exit 27 on southbound Interstate 880 (Nimitz Fwy) in Hayward, near the interchange with CA SR 92. Note the mismatching retroreflectivity and the wrong position of the arrow. A Caltrans employee who has excellent attention to detail can do better than a inexperienced one. Holy mother of pearl! What does the world gonna have to do with these constant problems and rampant corruption? :poke: :pan: :banghead: :hmmm: :-o :wow:
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/1356/fkN0a4.png)
Just wanted to add my two cents.
I really don't have a problem with Caltrans switching to metal posts. The primary reason given was to increase worker safety because it takes less time to reinstall the metal post over the wood post.
Caltrans has installed FHWA-style gore signs on US 101 in San Mateo county and while and they've started to pop up on I-680 in San Jose and Milpitas. While I did say this back in 2018...
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 03, 2018, 01:15:19 PM
That's awful.
It makes me wonder why Caltrans abandoned their usual single-post gore signage, which can be placed closer to the actual gore point, in favor of the FHWA-standard signs that were placed in very inappropriate locations.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
... I'm not so opposed to Caltrans using the FHWA-spec signs given how they've butchered their own signs as pointed out by JUHSD-rvalencia. I think was was more appalling and the reason for my post above was the placement of those signs posted by AndyMax25. The placement of the FHWA-spec signs up here in the S.F. Bay Area isn't all that bad IMO and at least the layout is correct.
I don't mind FHWA-spec gore signs or metal posts, but I prefer California-spec signs as they're more aesthetically pleasing in many ways. Examples: route shields - FHWA spec digits are too big, and no cutout US route shields; no raised first letter for cardinal directions (though this changed to match the FHWA specs in the recent versions)
That said, Caltrans really need to adhere to their own published MUTCD regarding exit signs.
Left justified exit tabs for left exits (making the yellow LEFT panel on the exit number panel redundant), indicating the correct number of arrows for pull through and exit signs, and always post exit numbers for all relevant BGSs for example.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on September 03, 2018, 11:29:33 AM
Here are some photos from the eastbound side. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180903/2bc9751e0659b78d6a3b6995148aed5b.jpg)[img width=800 height=599]
And there's a very rare occurrence of a striped gore area on a California interstate.
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 18, 2020, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on September 03, 2018, 11:29:33 AM
Here are some photos from the eastbound side. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180903/2bc9751e0659b78d6a3b6995148aed5b.jpg)[img width=800 height=599]
And there's a very rare occurrence of a striped gore area on a California interstate.
That became standard in the latest California MUTCD dated March 27, 2020. See page 9 of the linked document from Caltrans... https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/ca-mutcd/rev-5/summary-of-changes_2014-camutcd-rev-5-a11y.pdf
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 18, 2020, 02:10:48 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 18, 2020, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on September 03, 2018, 11:29:33 AM
Here are some photos from the eastbound side. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180903/2bc9751e0659b78d6a3b6995148aed5b.jpg)[img width=800 height=599]
And there's a very rare occurrence of a striped gore area on a California interstate.
That became standard in the latest California MUTCD dated March 27, 2020. See page 9 of the linked document from Caltrans... https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/ca-mutcd/rev-5/summary-of-changes_2014-camutcd-rev-5-a11y.pdf
Now I'm curious as to whether the FHWA is now mandating states to stripe the exit gore areas because in addition to California, Connecticut recently started adding striping to its exit gores and updated its standard drawings to require the striping of exit gores.
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 18, 2020, 04:25:07 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 18, 2020, 02:10:48 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 18, 2020, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on September 03, 2018, 11:29:33 AM
Here are some photos from the eastbound side. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180903/2bc9751e0659b78d6a3b6995148aed5b.jpg)[img width=800 height=599]
And there's a very rare occurrence of a striped gore area on a California interstate.
That became standard in the latest California MUTCD dated March 27, 2020. See page 9 of the linked document from Caltrans... https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/ca-mutcd/rev-5/summary-of-changes_2014-camutcd-rev-5-a11y.pdf
Now I'm curious as to whether the FHWA is now mandating states to stripe the exit gore areas because in addition to California, Connecticut recently started adding striping to its exit gores and updated its standard drawings to require the striping of exit gores.
According to the current national MUTCD, that type of striping is still optional (Sec 3B.05).
Quote from: JUHSD-rvalencia on June 18, 2020, 05:10:49 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 18, 2020, 10:25:23 AM
And there's a very rare occurrence of a striped gore area on a California interstate.
Striped gore area is what is mostly common in other states, along with Canada (MUTCDC) and most countries under the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals. However, the latter (Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals) has the striped area mostly thicker for extra safety. I think if we revise the MUTCD for 2021, the thicker striped exit gore area would add extra safety along with the directional arrows on each lanes just right before an exit, just like southbound Interstate 280 intersecting with CA SR 1 in Daly City, and the upper deck of the Bay Bridge on the San Francisco terminus.
I like the idea of striped arrows in the lanes in theory, as I don't generally see a harm. But the difficulty that exists at many freeway to freeway transitions, especially in California is that there are two different exits that are represented by right turns. I mentioned this recently on another thread with respect to APL signs and I believe the same issues would apply here. (Basically the pavement markings would mimic the arrows that are present on the arrow per lane signs).
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26433.msg2508378#msg2508378
Quote from: mrsman on June 16, 2020, 08:06:08 AM
Not used too widely in California, but arrow per lane (APL) signs do make it easier to follow arrows. They work well at places where 2 highways split, a functional Y.
Like this:
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTGepOKu.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaroads.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D14459.50&tbnid=TMKUIK6fahEdbM&vet=12ahUKEwj-sIuMpYbqAhXHT98KHaDCAooQMygEegUIARDOAQ..i&docid=V_-gJTnu5OAr1M&w=1600&h=1200&itg=1&q=arrow%20per%20lane%20signs%20california&ved=2ahUKEwj-sIuMpYbqAhXHT98KHaDCAooQMygEegUIARDOAQ
The problem is that it is really hard to make such signs work at typical freeway to freeway interchanges that we see in CA:
Lanes 1,2,3 stay on Fwy A
Lane 4 on Fwy A or exit onto Fwy B northbound
Lane 5 Fwy B northbound or Fwy B southbound
Both Fwy B northbound and Fwy B southbound are right turns off the main highway. How do you distinguish them on an APL sign? (No good way)
Also, many on here note that arrows are used extensively on the "expressway" portions of US 101 as it transitions from freeway to expressway along the Central Coast. (This can be found on other major expressways as well, but US 101 is by far the most travelled of these in CA.) These are usually at intersections and the arrows are quite large. I never understood the need for these arrows as the lanes generally go where you expect them to, straight ahead.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4657312,-120.1030918,3a,75y,292.86h,59.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDazVKt_MiE7FaPEIQjxE3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Yes, there is a left turn lane at this point, but I'm questioning using arrows on the main lanes of the highway.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 18, 2020, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 18, 2020, 04:25:07 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 18, 2020, 02:10:48 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 18, 2020, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on September 03, 2018, 11:29:33 AM
Here are some photos from the eastbound side. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180903/2bc9751e0659b78d6a3b6995148aed5b.jpg)[img width=800 height=599]
And there's a very rare occurrence of a striped gore area on a California interstate.
That became standard in the latest California MUTCD dated March 27, 2020. See page 9 of the linked document from Caltrans... https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/ca-mutcd/rev-5/summary-of-changes_2014-camutcd-rev-5-a11y.pdf
Now I'm curious as to whether the FHWA is now mandating states to stripe the exit gore areas because in addition to California, Connecticut recently started adding striping to its exit gores and updated its standard drawings to require the striping of exit gores.
According to the current national MUTCD, that type of striping is still optional (Sec 3B.05).
Out here in New Mexico they stripe the gore areas with chevrons during resurfacing projects, but they aren't always maintained afterwards. Some places keep them up, while other let the gore striping fade away until the next resurfacing project.
Quote from: mrsman on June 18, 2020, 07:10:35 PM
Also, many on here note that arrows are used extensively on the "expressway" portions of US 101 as it transitions from freeway to expressway along the Central Coast. (This can be found on other major expressways as well, but US 101 is by far the most travelled of these in CA.) These are usually at intersections and the arrows are quite large. I never understood the need for these arrows as the lanes generally go where you expect them to, straight ahead.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4657312,-120.1030918,3a,75y,292.86h,59.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDazVKt_MiE7FaPEIQjxE3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Yes, there is a left turn lane at this point, but I'm questioning using arrows on the main lanes of the highway.
Maybe to prevent a wrong-way driver? Granted if said driver is drunk or high it doesn't really matter but if someone makes a honest mistake, then seeing those arrows pointing the wrong way should make he/she realize something is amiss.
Quote from: mrsman on June 11, 2020, 10:34:18 AM
I am all for the safety of the highway workers but they need to find a way to keep the exit Gore signs at the exit Gore.
In Oklahoma, ODOT will park a truck that has a crash-attenuator attachment on the back in the gore, so that any errant vehicles will crash into the truck and not the workers.
The fact that I'm citing ODOT practice as something to emulate means something has gone terribly wrong at Caltrans.
Also, many on here note that arrows are used extensively on the "expressway" portions of US 101 as it transitions from freeway to expressway along the Central Coast. (This can be found on other major expressways as well, but US 101 is by far the most travelled of these in CA.) These are usually at intersections and the arrows are quite large. I never understood the need for these arrows as the lanes generally go where you expect them to, straight ahead.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4657312,-120.1030918,3a,75y,292.86h,59.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDazVKt_MiE7FaPEIQjxE3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Yes, there is a left turn lane at this point, but I'm questioning using arrows on the main lanes of the highway.
[/quote]
The giant straight arrows are an indicator to thwart wrong way drivers, particularly on multilane roads, some with medians that sometimes can be quite large. They are used in combination with one-way signs, giant do-not-enter/wrong-way signs, and red RPM's. It's all about redundancy in hopes that an errant/confused driver, intoxicated or not, will clue in on at least one of the indicators that they're not doing it right. Wrong way drivers are bad news on any kind of roadway but on high-speed highways/expressways are often deadly.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 18, 2020, 10:18:41 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 18, 2020, 07:10:35 PM
Also, many on here note that arrows are used extensively on the "expressway" portions of US 101 as it transitions from freeway to expressway along the Central Coast. (This can be found on other major expressways as well, but US 101 is by far the most travelled of these in CA.) These are usually at intersections and the arrows are quite large. I never understood the need for these arrows as the lanes generally go where you expect them to, straight ahead.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4657312,-120.1030918,3a,75y,292.86h,59.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDazVKt_MiE7FaPEIQjxE3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Yes, there is a left turn lane at this point, but I'm questioning using arrows on the main lanes of the highway.
Maybe to prevent a wrong-way driver? Granted if said driver is drunk or high it doesn't really matter but if someone makes a honest mistake, then seeing those arrows pointing the wrong way should make he/she realize something is amiss.
Those straight ahead arrows are, in fact, wrong way arrows. They are depicted in the MUTCD in Figure 3B-24 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part3/fig3b_24_longdesc.htm). The use of these is as myosh_tino speculated, per the option statement in 3B.20:
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD 3B.20
Option:
37 The wrong-way arrow markings shown in Drawing D in Figure 3B-24 may be placed near the downstream terminus of a ramp as shown in Figures 2B-18 and 2B-19, or at other locations where lane-use arrows are not appropriate, to indicate the correct direction of traffic flow and to discourage drivers from traveling in the wrong direction.
It is not uncommon to see these placed on off ramps in California, especially in places with unusual geometry and/or high potential for or previous issues with wrong way movements. I just picked a random interchange on I-80 in Auburn, CA (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9004984,-121.0752252,162m/data=!3m1!1e3) and found them on the off ramp.
Quote from: roadfro on June 19, 2020, 11:55:38 AM
It is not uncommon to see these placed on off ramps in California, especially in places with unusual geometry and/or high potential for or previous issues with wrong way movements. I just picked a random interchange on I-80 in Auburn, CA (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9004984,-121.0752252,162m/data=!3m1!1e3) and found them on the off ramp.
That example is also good in that it has both wrong-way arrows and normal straight arrows so you can easily see the difference, namely that the heads of wrong-way arrows are not filled in.
Quote from: JUHSD-rvalencia on June 18, 2020, 11:10:35 PM
The only downside is that the U.S. right now, has no plans for the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, which has some advantages over the MUTCD such as more symbols than text and directional arrows on freeway / expressway markings. P.S. my mention of "Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals" should be on the "International Highways" section or some sort of topic that is appropriate for it (MUTCD revision 2021). :colorful: :pan: :hmmm:
The Vienna Convention has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum and the general consensus is there's little to no chance of the US adopting it (same with us going metric... which has also been discussed here) because the costs will most certainly outweigh the benefits (new signage, retraining drivers, etc).
Quote from: JUHSD-rvalencia on June 25, 2020, 12:30:47 AM
I think we're gonna have to start calling/emailing Caltrans' customer service and start complaining to them! Since I often pay attention to detail, it takes a very good eye to carefully and slowly place something straight without misaligning. The same is true however for the retroreflectivity level used on letters and numbers.
Do not use excessive emoticons. Read our rules.