For about eight months there's been an overhead sign gantry missing from the 57 north at the 91 interchange due to an accident that damaged it. They finally installed its replacement last week. The replacement signs for the 91 include non-integrated exit tabs for each movement. I'll try to get pics.
Apparently there's now design specs for exit tabs. In the most recent CA MUTCD, there's now a G-70(2) sign designation for tabs.
Here's a picture of the sign gantry that was replaced.
(https://i.imgur.com/BR0ZBwu.jpg)
In addition to the unique tabs, they also split the eastbound and westbound movements into separate signs, rather than the combined sign in the prior version.
I've never really liked that old, vertical panel BGS look that's so prevalent on CA-57. It's also at the CA-60/57 merger.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 30, 2020, 12:16:37 AM
For about eight months there's been an overhead sign gantry missing from the 57 north at the 91 interchange due to an accident that damaged it. They finally installed its replacement last week. The replacement signs for the 91 include non-integrated exit tabs for each movement. I'll try to get pics.
Apparently there's now design specs for exit tabs. In the most recent CA MUTCD, there's now a G-70(2) sign designation for tabs.
Here's a picture of the sign gantry that was replaced.
(https://i.imgur.com/BR0ZBwu.jpg)
In addition to the unique tabs, they also split the eastbound and westbound movements into separate signs, rather than the combined sign in the prior version.
Does the new sign still include "Riverside Fwy"?
No.
Booooooo. :ded:
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 30, 2020, 12:16:37 AM
For about eight months there's been an overhead sign gantry missing from the 57 north at the 91 interchange due to an accident that damaged it. They finally installed its replacement last week. The replacement signs for the 91 include non-integrated exit tabs for each movement. I'll try to get pics.
I'd love to see a pic of the new signs.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 30, 2020, 12:16:37 AM
Apparently there's now design specs for exit tabs. In the most recent CA MUTCD, there's now a G-70(2) sign designation for tabs.
The G70-2 spec is the tab itself. It is *not* the spec for a guide sign with an external tab despite what is shown in the CA MUTCD.
Additional Note...
I went to check out the I-880 express lanes which opened today and the express lane signs approaching the 880/237 flyover ramp now feature a black-on-yellow "LEFT" tab placed externally from the sign. If these are indications that Caltrans is ready to start using external tabs, I'm all for it as it might reduce the number of funky sign layouts I've been seeing lately.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 01, 2020, 11:59:45 PM
Additional Note...
I went to check out the I-880 express lanes which opened today and the express lane signs approaching the 880/237 flyover ramp now feature a black-on-yellow "LEFT" tab placed externally from the sign. If these are indications that Caltrans is ready to start using external tabs, I'm all for it as it might reduce the number of funky sign layouts I've been seeing lately.
FHWA has ordered Caltrans to discontinue placing the LEFT tab in the body of the sign and mount it on top of the sign structure as required per the CA MUTCD. So Caltrans is going to look at every left exit and make sure the signs meet the standard. This was in response to a fatal bus crash that occurred some years ago at the US-101/SR-85 interchange in south San Jose, where the bus driver mistakenly veered onto the HOV connector and overcorrected and crashed. This requirement from FHWA finally forced Caltrans' Division of Structures to develop a way to mount tabs on top of sign structures. There had not been any sort of a standard detail for that purpose. I had been asking the Structures team to develop it for years. It's a shame it took people dying for them to do it.
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2020, 10:25:57 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 01, 2020, 11:59:45 PM
Additional Note...
I went to check out the I-880 express lanes which opened today and the express lane signs approaching the 880/237 flyover ramp now feature a black-on-yellow "LEFT" tab placed externally from the sign. If these are indications that Caltrans is ready to start using external tabs, I'm all for it as it might reduce the number of funky sign layouts I've been seeing lately.
FHWA has ordered Caltrans to discontinue placing the LEFT tab in the body of the sign and mount it on top of the sign structure as required per the CA MUTCD. So Caltrans is going to look at every left exit and make sure the signs meet the standard. This was in response to a fatal bus crash that occurred some years ago at the US-101/SR-85 interchange in south San Jose, where the bus driver mistakenly veered onto the HOV connector and overcorrected and crashed. This requirement from FHWA finally forced Caltrans' Division of Structures to develop a way to mount tabs on top of sign structures. There had not been any sort of a standard detail for that purpose. I had been asking the Structures team to develop it for years. It's a shame it took people dying for them to do it.
From what I could tell, the "LEFT" tabs were being supported by two vertical "bars" (for lack of a better term) attached to the larger guide sign.
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2020, 10:25:57 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 01, 2020, 11:59:45 PM
Additional Note...
I went to check out the I-880 express lanes which opened today and the express lane signs approaching the 880/237 flyover ramp now feature a black-on-yellow "LEFT" tab placed externally from the sign. If these are indications that Caltrans is ready to start using external tabs, I'm all for it as it might reduce the number of funky sign layouts I've been seeing lately.
FHWA has ordered Caltrans to discontinue placing the LEFT tab in the body of the sign and mount it on top of the sign structure as required per the CA MUTCD. So Caltrans is going to look at every left exit and make sure the signs meet the standard. This was in response to a fatal bus crash that occurred some years ago at the US-101/SR-85 interchange in south San Jose, where the bus driver mistakenly veered onto the HOV connector and overcorrected and crashed. This requirement from FHWA finally forced Caltrans’ Division of Structures to develop a way to mount tabs on top of sign structures. There had not been any sort of a standard detail for that purpose. I had been asking the Structures team to develop it for years. It’s a shame it took people dying for them to do it.
This sounds like a poorly trained bus driver was the problem. If the signage was a trouble spot, then a lot more people would have died from this cause. Anyone who applies to drive a bus in a metro area should know that area perfectly.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on October 05, 2020, 07:55:07 PM
This sounds like a poorly trained bus driver was the problem. If the signage was a trouble spot, then a lot more people would have died from this cause. Anyone who applies to drive a bus in a metro area should know that area perfectly.
Rick
More like fatigued rather than poorly trained. The NTSB investigation put the onus on Caltrans for inadequate pavement markings and signage. Only now, 3 1/2 years after the results of the investigation were released, is Caltrans making the appropriate changes, namely the external "LEFT" tabs and marking gore points with chevrons.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 06, 2020, 12:57:39 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 05, 2020, 07:55:07 PM
This sounds like a poorly trained bus driver was the problem. If the signage was a trouble spot, then a lot more people would have died from this cause. Anyone who applies to drive a bus in a metro area should know that area perfectly.
Rick
More like fatigued rather than poorly trained. The NTSB investigation put the onus on Caltrans for inadequate pavement markings and signage. Only now, 3 1/2 years after the results of the investigation were released, is Caltrans making the appropriate changes, namely the external "LEFT" tabs and marking gore points with chevrons.
This reminds me of the Bluffton University bus crash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluffton_University_bus_crash) in Atlanta in 2007. Part of the cause there was the design of HOV exit signage, where left HOV exit signs were black-on-white and looked more like HOV regulatory signs. This incident was a contributing factor in what led the 2009 MUTCD to get a lot more detailed on the standards for HOV & managed lane guide signing, and may have also contributed to the development of the now-standard "LEFT" tab for left exits.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 06, 2020, 12:57:39 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 05, 2020, 07:55:07 PM
This sounds like a poorly trained bus driver was the problem. If the signage was a trouble spot, then a lot more people would have died from this cause. Anyone who applies to drive a bus in a metro area should know that area perfectly.
Rick
More like fatigued rather than poorly trained. The NTSB investigation put the onus on Caltrans for inadequate pavement markings and signage. Only now, 3 1/2 years after the results of the investigation were released, is Caltrans making the appropriate changes, namely the external "LEFT" tabs and marking gore points with chevrons.
I have driven when fatigued. Guess what? I am still alive! Knowing an area like the back of your hand allows for instinct to kick in even when tired.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on October 06, 2020, 08:25:49 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 06, 2020, 12:57:39 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 05, 2020, 07:55:07 PM
This sounds like a poorly trained bus driver was the problem. If the signage was a trouble spot, then a lot more people would have died from this cause. Anyone who applies to drive a bus in a metro area should know that area perfectly.
Rick
More like fatigued rather than poorly trained. The NTSB investigation put the onus on Caltrans for inadequate pavement markings and signage. Only now, 3 1/2 years after the results of the investigation were released, is Caltrans making the appropriate changes, namely the external "LEFT" tabs and marking gore points with chevrons.
I have driven when fatigued. Guess what? I am still alive! Knowing an area like the back of your hand allows for instinct to kick in even when tired.
Rick
If it's the accident I'm remembering, it was a Greyhound driver coming up from L.A. So knowing the area like the back of your hand may not always be a possibility when you're doing long-haul routes. I don't know how Greyhound drivers are assigned, so this could have been his normal route, or it could have been his first time. Articles I found said he lived in Victorville, so it certainly wasn't his home territory.
Quote from: DTComposer on October 06, 2020, 09:05:57 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 06, 2020, 08:25:49 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 06, 2020, 12:57:39 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 05, 2020, 07:55:07 PM
This sounds like a poorly trained bus driver was the problem. If the signage was a trouble spot, then a lot more people would have died from this cause. Anyone who applies to drive a bus in a metro area should know that area perfectly.
Rick
More like fatigued rather than poorly trained. The NTSB investigation put the onus on Caltrans for inadequate pavement markings and signage. Only now, 3 1/2 years after the results of the investigation were released, is Caltrans making the appropriate changes, namely the external "LEFT" tabs and marking gore points with chevrons.
I have driven when fatigued. Guess what? I am still alive! Knowing an area like the back of your hand allows for instinct to kick in even when tired.
Rick
If it's the accident I'm remembering, it was a Greyhound driver coming up from L.A. So knowing the area like the back of your hand may not always be a possibility when you're doing long-haul routes. I don't know how Greyhound drivers are assigned, so this could have been his normal route, or it could have been his first time. Articles I found said he lived in Victorville, so it certainly wasn't his home territory.
First time such a fact has been stated in this thread. Got any more that are unmentioned?
Rick
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2020, 11:36:32 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2020, 10:25:57 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 01, 2020, 11:59:45 PM
Additional Note...
I went to check out the I-880 express lanes which opened today and the express lane signs approaching the 880/237 flyover ramp now feature a black-on-yellow "LEFT" tab placed externally from the sign. If these are indications that Caltrans is ready to start using external tabs, I'm all for it as it might reduce the number of funky sign layouts I've been seeing lately.
FHWA has ordered Caltrans to discontinue placing the LEFT tab in the body of the sign and mount it on top of the sign structure as required per the CA MUTCD. So Caltrans is going to look at every left exit and make sure the signs meet the standard. This was in response to a fatal bus crash that occurred some years ago at the US-101/SR-85 interchange in south San Jose, where the bus driver mistakenly veered onto the HOV connector and overcorrected and crashed. This requirement from FHWA finally forced Caltrans' Division of Structures to develop a way to mount tabs on top of sign structures. There had not been any sort of a standard detail for that purpose. I had been asking the Structures team to develop it for years. It's a shame it took people dying for them to do it.
From what I could tell, the "LEFT" tabs were being supported by two vertical "bars" (for lack of a better term) attached to the larger guide sign.
Amazing. That's just how most states add exit tabs.
And here's a pic of the new sign assembly:
(https://i.imgur.com/OiOmu2W.jpg)
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on October 14, 2020, 10:14:31 AM
And here's a pic of the new sign assembly:
(https://i.imgur.com/OiOmu2W.jpg)
Not only external exit tabs, but the sign heights are slightly taller than the sign trusses. It's almost as if it were designed as an NDOT install... :) But it's refreshing to see since the SR 91 panels could be designed without constrained layouts.
Are the signs misaligned, or did they just not make the pull through sign wide enough? Seems odd that there's nothing over the #1 lane (unless it's an HOV lane and that signage is absent here).
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on October 14, 2020, 10:14:31 AM
And here's a pic of the new sign assembly:
(https://i.imgur.com/OiOmu2W.jpg)
<whistles> That is probably the best looking exit numbered BGS I have seen in California. I sure hope that this is the new spec and they roll it out everywhere. A lot of the jumbled signs that D4 has put up along I-680 would be MUCH clearer and legible without the inset exit tabs shoehorned in there.
It's a little change, but makes a big difference in layout, legibility, and appearance. I hope it spreads statewide.
Quote from: roadfro on October 14, 2020, 11:55:09 AM
Not only external exit tabs, but the sign heights are slightly taller than the sign trusses. It's almost as if it were designed as an NDOT install... :) But it's refreshing to see since the SR 91 panels could be designed without constrained layouts.
Are the signs misaligned, or did they just not make the pull through sign wide enough? Seems odd that there's nothing over the #1 lane (unless it's an HOV lane and that signage is absent here).
It's an HOV lane
Could be worse. (I've seen D8 do a lot worse.)
Quote from: roadfro on October 14, 2020, 11:55:09 AM
Are the signs misaligned, or did they just not make the pull through sign wide enough? Seems odd that there's nothing over the #1 lane (unless it's an HOV lane and that signage is absent here).
The signs are aligned correctly. The leftmost lane is an HOV lane.
Quote from: jrouse on October 14, 2020, 01:25:20 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 14, 2020, 11:55:09 AM
Not only external exit tabs, but the sign heights are slightly taller than the sign trusses. It's almost as if it were designed as an NDOT install... :) But it's refreshing to see since the SR 91 panels could be designed without constrained layouts.
Are the signs misaligned, or did they just not make the pull through sign wide enough? Seems odd that there's nothing over the #1 lane (unless it's an HOV lane and that signage is absent here).
It's an HOV lane
I feel like the HOV Lane should get a down arrow on the pull through sign with a diamond on top indicating it's HOV. It's a little pet peeve of mine and what I suggested might be non-standard so carry on if it's not. :spin:
Quote from: jdbx on October 14, 2020, 12:00:41 PM
<whistles> That is probably the best looking exit numbered BGS I have seen in California. I sure hope that this is the new spec and they roll it out everywhere. A lot of the jumbled signs that D4 has put up along I-680 would be MUCH clearer and legible without the inset exit tabs shoehorned in there.
It's the best sign assembly on that stretch of freeway, that's for certain. The kerning on this prior pull-through drives me mad:
(https://i.imgur.com/hskvUJA.png)
BTW, the exit tabs use the vertical backing supports for the signs below them as their mounting points. Those backing supports simply extend higher behind the tabs than they do behind other parts of the sign. So it's definitely not a separate mounting attachment design for the tabs. I wonder if this means there are not yet wind-loading specs for a tab attachment that would allow for the retrofitting of existing signs with these tabs. The lack of such specs was the reason initially given for why exit numbering was implemented with exit numbers integrated into the body of the signs rather than on external tabs like in most other states.
Quote from: jdbx on October 14, 2020, 12:00:41 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on October 14, 2020, 10:14:31 AM
And here's a pic of the new sign assembly:
(https://i.imgur.com/OiOmu2W.jpg)
<whistles> That is probably the best looking exit numbered BGS I have seen in California. I sure hope that this is the new spec and they roll it out everywhere. A lot of the jumbled signs that D4 has put up along I-680 would be MUCH clearer and legible without the inset exit tabs shoehorned in there.
Yeah, this is one of the cleanest signs I've seen come out in the last few years that wasn't a complete duplication of a previous sign.
That said, there's still inconsistencies:
- The directional differs in its vertical (and possible horizontal) position relative to the route shield on each panel;
- The shield/direction are positioned differently relative to the control city on each panel:
-57 North seems to be directly centered over Pomona
-91 West isn't centered over Los Angeles; nor is just 91 (which I could understand). It seems like 91 is centered over the ONLY block - maybe that's intentional?
-91 East isn't centered over Riverside nor is it centered within the panel
- 91 East/Riverside is just a bit higher than the counterparts on other panel;
- It also looks like the kerning between 5A and 5B is different, making the exit tabs different widths, but that may just be the angle of the photo.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on October 14, 2020, 10:14:31 AM
And here’s a pic of the new sign assembly:
(https://i.imgur.com/OiOmu2W.jpg)
Nice! Probably some of the nicest signs I've seen in quite sometime. I took a little time to draw the CA-91 west sign...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fca57-Exit5B.png&hash=0182bb1753a1bc97bf50f8f6c06da8cb40bcc7b2)
The exit tab is a standard 2-digit FHWA tab that is 30" tall and the sign panel is 120" tall making the total height, including the exit tab, 150". This isn't all that crazy now because express lane signs showing the current toll rates are anywhere from 140" to 160" tall.
While I wasn't all that crazy about California having to number it's exits (call me a California traditionalist... I know), the crazy sign layouts that resulted from having to shoe-horn in an exit tab drove me absolutely bonkers. If this is the future of freeway signage in California, I'm all for it 100%. :clap:
Now -- if D4 would follow suit (wishful but merely speculative thinking!) signage up here would be infinitely better. But they'd have to learn how to kern properly first or else we'd likely get some of the weirdest-looking BGS' in the state!
Quote from: SeriesE on October 14, 2020, 08:54:29 PM
I feel like the HOV Lane should get a down arrow on the pull through sign with a diamond on top indicating it's HOV. It's a little pet peeve of mine and what I suggested might be non-standard so carry on if it's not. :spin:
I recall this design being used in a few locations in the late 1990s. It was similar to an ONLY plaque, except it had a white background with a diamond and a down arrow.
It seems like the proper way to sign the HOV lane would be with a separate panel with an HOV label at the top. This is used in other locations; not sure why it wasn't done here.
As for this sign, it's good that it follows the standard of using a space between the number and the letter suffix. Especially since the capital B can look like an 8 without the space.
The cardinal directions also properly use S
MALL CAPS. A lot of sign plans still omit the larger first letter.
I'm sure someone else has reported this, but I couldn't find it so I thought I'd mention it here. Daniel probably already has this in his reports.
When I reviewed the California Transportation Commission agenda, I noticed an item from July modifying the state MUTCD related to exit numbering.
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ctcdc/july-9-2020/final-ctcdc-july9-2020-agenda-a11y.pdf
QuoteSection 2E.31: Interchange Exit Numbering
....
Standard:
02 Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit.
Interchange exit numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide sign, Exit Direction
sign, and Exit Gore sign. The exit number shall be placed on a separate plaque at above and abutting the top of the Advance Guide or Exit Direction sign.
I guess I wasn't aware of this change (I'm sure it's been reported elsewhere) and guess maybe these signs on SR 57 at ST 91 were the first application of this changed policy, assuming it was approved by the CTC?
Quote from: andy3175 on October 17, 2020, 02:00:43 PM
I'm sure someone else has reported this, but I couldn't find it so I thought I'd mention it here. Daniel probably already has this in his reports.
When I reviewed the California Transportation Commission agenda, I noticed an item from July modifying the state MUTCD related to exit numbering.
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ctcdc/july-9-2020/final-ctcdc-july9-2020-agenda-a11y.pdf
QuoteSection 2E.31: Interchange Exit Numbering
....
Standard:
02 Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit.
Interchange exit numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide sign, Exit Direction
sign, and Exit Gore sign. The exit number shall be placed on a separate plaque at above and abutting the top of the Advance Guide or Exit Direction sign.
I guess I wasn't aware of this change (I'm sure it's been reported elsewhere) and guess maybe these signs on SR 57 at ST 91 were the first application of this changed policy, assuming it was approved by the CTC?
Changes to the California MUTCD would be the responsibility of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) which is a separate body from the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
The California MUTCD permits the use of exit number tabs. It always has. These edits now mandate that tabs be used and the signs which had the tab in the body of the sign itself have been eliminated.
Thanks Joe. Very helpful to confirm.
I'm just glad to see exit numbering implementation, and I'm glad to see it evolve as this effort moves forward.
Quote from: andy3175 on October 17, 2020, 02:11:12 PM
Thanks Joe. Very helpful to confirm.
I'm just glad to see exit numbering implementation, and I'm glad to see it evolve as this effort moves forward.
You're welcome. I was at that meeting (if you look at the agenda I was a presenter and if you look at the minutes I spoke up several times during the meeting). I'm not sure how I missed this item. Particularly when you consider that I managed the exit number program for a short time several years ago.
Both the document Andy linked to and the actual meeting minutes (which I found via the Caltrans website) were very informative.
One bit that caught my eye was the FHWA's insistence that Caltrans implement arrow-per-lane signs. If this can be done using the shorter shafted arrows seen on westbound CA-180 at the CA-41 interchange in Fresno and limit it to freeway-to-freeway interchanges it's something I can live with. I'm still of the opinion that the FHWA's implementation wastes a lot of sign panel space.
Joe, good to have a Caltrans peep here. We love Caltrans, honest. We just love b*tching about it more. :)