AARoads Forum

Just saw this on Flickr...Route 60 at I-710:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/raymondyue/4881130813/

First time I've seen a center-tabbed, non-external sign in these parts...Certainly not all CalTrans districts use that form, as demonstrated by these examples installed in the last year:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4770792146/in/set-72157624279252253/

Bizarre.  Would it kill the California Department of Transportation to use normal tabs like everyone else?  I mean, they could put the tab above the sign a la Missouri and North Carolina, or they could incorporate a full width tab like Illinois into the sign.  Either way, it's better than that.  X-(

Quote from: Brandon on August 13, 2010, 03:30:32 PM
or they could incorporate a full width tab like Illinois into the sign.

I will say that the regular internal-tab California signs offer somewhat of a visual advantage over a full-width tab, in that the text justification on one side or the other of the sign area is slightly more obvious, via the divider lines.

Quote from: Brandon on August 13, 2010, 03:30:32 PM
Bizarre.  Would it kill the California Department of Transportation to use normal tabs like everyone else? ...  X-(

Apparently it would. The concern is wind loading... apparently the exit tabs would break off in the wind.

I assume Caltrans looked at other coastal states known for hurricanes, etc., and examined how they handle exit tabs. Here are some examples:

Florida: http://www.interstate-guide.com/images295/i-295_fl_nt_09.jpg

Alabama: http://www.gribblenation.com/alpics/gallery/IH10atMichigan.jpg

South Carolina: http://www.southeastroads.com/blog/southeast/i-026_eb_exit_219b_01.jpg


They might have also looked in tornado country:

Oklahoma: http://www.interstate-guide.com/images240/i-240_ok_et_08.jpg

Kansas: http://www.interstate-guide.com/images435/i-435_ks_nst_04.jpg


Ah, just kidding. The real motivation is that the "shove it in the corner" exit boxes help make the signs even uglier. The coup de grâce will probably be non-cutout US route markers and/or C***rv**w  :-(

they seem to have done an okay job on those 1971 porcelain exit tabs. 

then again, those porcelain signs in general are in excellent condition.  They had a design life of 30 years, and some of them are as much as 51 years old now and still going strong.  explain to me again why we have shitty Clearview retroreflective signs that last six years at most?

oh right, asphalt lobby.  and Transponder Jesus.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 04:53:17 PM
they seem to have done an okay job on those 1971 porcelain exit tabs.  

then again, those porcelain signs in general are in excellent condition.  They had a design life of 30 years, and some of them are as much as 51 years old now and still going strong.  explain to me again why we have shitty Clearview retroreflective signs that last six years at most?

oh right, asphalt lobby.  and Transponder Jesus.

I wonder how wind-loading was factored into the 1971 porcelain tabs (which were all center-aligned), and if the left/right justification in today's standards affected current thinking.

(though there IS that Exit 2C Alameda Street external tab, as well as the new external overhead tabs further north on 101/Santa Ana Freeway!)

In any case, button copy/porcelain/paneled signs really represent California's "long-life" sign philosophy, which is anathema to the current "replace every five years" approach used nationally.

Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2010, 05:37:44 PM
In any case, button copy/porcelain/paneled signs really represent California's "long-life" sign philosophy, which is anathema to the current "replace every five years" approach used nationally.

California designed a lot of things for long life, and they are getting their value out of it.  The original 1958 concrete on I-80 over Donner (likely the most abused stretch of pavement in the US, between the snow and the trucks) is still there in places and still works fine.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 05:43:15 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2010, 05:37:44 PM
In any case, button copy/porcelain/paneled signs really represent California's "long-life" sign philosophy, which is anathema to the current "replace every five years" approach used nationally.

California designed a lot of things for long life, and they are getting their value out of it.  The original 1958 concrete on I-80 over Donner (likely the most abused stretch of pavement in the US, between the snow and the trucks) is still there in places and still works fine.

Sorry but I have to disagree with you on that one.  Yes, the pavement is over 50 years old and Caltrans should be commended on making it last for such a long time but the concrete on westbound 80 from Truckee to Donner Summit is/was absolutely horrible.  The right lane had two huge ruts caused by decades of use by big rigs.  The other lane was in better shape but it was very, very rough to the point where I couldn't maintain 65 MPH because I was getting bounced around.

Thankfully, that 50+ year old pavement is being replaced with new concrete.  In fact, Caltrans is in the middle of a multi-year project to replace the pavement on I-80 from Colfax to the Nevada state line.

FWIW, the new reflective exit signs on I-80 over the Sierra Nevada mountains didn't last too long.  On a few of them, sections of the green sheeting has peeled away.  Examples...
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=truckee,+ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.983628,75.673828&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Truckee,+Nevada,+California&ll=39.311971,-120.494764&spn=0.010609,0.018475&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.311975,-120.495085&panoid=fbrtf1h28KH4Hrhl3F55tg&cbp=12,313.41,,0,12.94

http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=truckee,+ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.983628,75.673828&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Truckee,+Nevada,+California&ll=39.38363,-120.080062&spn=0.005299,0.009238&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.38352,-120.079738&panoid=-edAay9dcq5QVlZa9usLNQ&cbp=12,304.42,,1,1.31

Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2010, 04:13:15 PM

Quote from: Brandon on August 13, 2010, 03:30:32 PM
or they could incorporate a full width tab like Illinois into the sign.

I will say that the regular internal-tab California signs offer somewhat of a visual advantage over a full-width tab, in that the text justification on one side or the other of the sign area is slightly more obvious, via the divider lines.

It does?

Illinois:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_0833.jpg&hash=4e9871179a56e9a9c2fa5dc6b7768bb3fe0d6524)

This is rather visible and discernable, and no fugly divider lines required.

Quote from: Brandon on August 13, 2010, 06:10:47 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2010, 04:13:15 PM

Quote from: Brandon on August 13, 2010, 03:30:32 PM
or they could incorporate a full width tab like Illinois into the sign.

I will say that the regular internal-tab California signs offer somewhat of a visual advantage over a full-width tab, in that the text justification on one side or the other of the sign area is slightly more obvious, via the divider lines.

It does?

Illinois:
http://i837.photobucket.com/albums/zz298/midamcrossrds/100_0833.jpg

This is rather visible and discernable, and no fugly divider lines required.

Compare to:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4095%2F4773021097_7f1bc09dc9_z.jpg&hash=b57ada409573931acca94647292462b3aeb5803e)

(I wasn't referrering to the route-junction-split divider line, but rather having a line delineating tab space)

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2010, 06:04:59 PM
the concrete on westbound 80 from Truckee to Donner Summit is/was absolutely horrible.  The right lane had two huge ruts caused by decades of use by big rigs.  The other lane was in better shape but it was very, very rough to the point where I couldn't maintain 65 MPH because I was getting bounced around.

I definitely have done 85mph up that grade from Verdi.  In the left lane, because all the climbing trucks were clogging the right lane.

yes, by now, it's some of the worst concrete in the state, but the fact remains, it is infinitely better than shit asphalt that needs to be replaced every six years.

there is some asphalt paving on some sections of the old Ridge Route.  It's coming off horribly ... revealing perfectly good 1913 concrete.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 06:24:52 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2010, 06:04:59 PM
the concrete on westbound 80 from Truckee to Donner Summit is/was absolutely horrible.  The right lane had two huge ruts caused by decades of use by big rigs.  The other lane was in better shape but it was very, very rough to the point where I couldn't maintain 65 MPH because I was getting bounced around.

I definitely have done 85mph up that grade from Verdi.  In the left lane, because all the climbing trucks were clogging the right lane.

yes, by now, it's some of the worst concrete in the state, but the fact remains, it is infinitely better than shit asphalt that needs to be replaced every six years.

Hmmm... your car must have a better suspension or shock absorbers that mine.  :biggrin:  Like I said, I have trouble maintaining 65 MPH between Truckee and Donner Pass.  I do agree that concrete is the better pavement when it comes to longevity but there is a new type of asphalt being used here in the SF Bay Area to resurface the freeways.  It's called "rubberized asphalt" where they recycle old tires by grinding them up and adding it to the asphalt mix.  The result is an incredibly smooth and quiet road surface.  It also increases visibility during the rainy season because the surface is porous enough to absorb rain water and that cuts down on the amount of spray kicked up by fast moving cars.  Granted, this type of pavement is probably not meant to be used in the Sierra Nevada mountains where sub-freezing temps are common during the winter.

Caltran[s] uses sign bridges with set heights.  Their signs, for the most part, are the same height (I think there's two different heights) as the sign bridge or slightly taller.  I don't know the dimensions, but I'm sure TheStranger or myosh will know.  :P   

That said, full-width tabs take too much space on the sign since they have a set height.

Going back to TheStranger's original post, yeah, that centered tab within the sign looks weird.  If I were the sign designed, here's what I would have suggested.

The original...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F60-710.png&hash=8adc9d17b98ef1ce56b8755dcb3a80333ed12778)

Suggestion #1...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F60-710_alt.png&hash=894cf8c4a378c7be59595f7a5915283f8f9e470e)

Suggestion #2...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F60-710_alt2.png&hash=d9c503e1429d17a8fa7a7f12603fa31f1b7fde30)

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2010, 06:37:07 PM
Hmmm... your car must have a better suspension or shock absorbers that mine.  :biggrin:  Like I said, I have trouble maintaining 65 MPH between Truckee and Donner Pass. 

or I was in a rental car and didn't care if I returned it with three wheels   :sombrero:

QuoteI do agree that concrete is the better pavement when it comes to longevity but there is a new type of asphalt being used here in the SF Bay Area to resurface the freeways.  It's called "rubberized asphalt" where they recycle old tires by grinding them up and adding it to the asphalt mix.  The result is an incredibly smooth and quiet road surface.  It also increases visibility during the rainy season because the surface is porous enough to absorb rain water and that cuts down on the amount of spray kicked up by fast moving cars.  Granted, this type of pavement is probably not meant to be used in the Sierra Nevada mountains where sub-freezing temps are common during the winter.

how long does it last?  and what are the advantages of it being quiet?  I'm on the road, not at the library!

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2010, 07:18:10 PM

The original...

Suggestion #1...

Suggestion #2...

state name missing from shields.  Pasadena misidentified as Valley Boulevard.  state route 7 bear 15 inexplicably signed as interstate.  :sombrero:

that said, I like suggestion 1.  I've always liked multiple directional tabs with a single shield, which is a California tradition that goes back to the 1950s.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 13, 2010, 06:58:17 PM
Caltran[s] uses sign bridges with set heights.  Their signs, for the most part, are the same height (I think there's two different heights) as the sign bridge or slightly taller.  I don't know the dimensions, but I'm sure TheStranger or myosh will know.  :P   

That said, full-width tabs take too much space on the sign since they have a set height.

You are correct that the sign panel height should be the same for all signs on a structure (truss sign bridge, box-beam bridge, overpass, etc).  In fact, when a truss or box-beam bridge is used, Caltrans goes so far as to specify what the sign height must be based on what they call the "frame depth".  The frame depth is the height of the structure the signs are attached to.  See the drawing below...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fca_signHeights.png&hash=e1a18a2ffcfcebcb59a3f0ba162defbfe72122a8)

Of course, there are going to be exceptions (this is Caltrans we're talking about) but in general, the maximum height of an overhead sign is 120 inches.  There are numerous examples of larger signs being placed on smaller structures.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 07:20:36 PM

that said, I like suggestion 1.  I've always liked multiple directional tabs with a single shield, which is a California tradition that goes back to the 1950s.

I do too.  

Interestingly, some signage from this year - the Arroyo Seco Parkway name restoration project - lacks exit tabs for this type of signing!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raymondyue/4793004642/in/photostream/
(Seems to be a tab on the 110 sign in the distance though, which I find odd)


It appears that local CalTrans districts can make the choice whether a freeway junction will get exit numbers or not, which is unusual.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 07:19:51 PM

QuoteI do agree that concrete is the better pavement when it comes to longevity but there is a new type of asphalt being used here in the SF Bay Area to resurface the freeways.  It's called "rubberized asphalt" where they recycle old tires by grinding them up and adding it to the asphalt mix.  The result is an incredibly smooth and quiet road surface.  It also increases visibility during the rainy season because the surface is porous enough to absorb rain water and that cuts down on the amount of spray kicked up by fast moving cars.  Granted, this type of pavement is probably not meant to be used in the Sierra Nevada mountains where sub-freezing temps are common during the winter.

how long does it last?  and what are the advantages of it being quiet?  I'm on the road, not at the library!

Not sure about how long it lasts.  I think the first installation of this type of pavement was on I-880 in Alameda County and that was probably 5-7 years ago and it's still in very good condition.  The lack of spray from the car in front of you when the pavement is wet is what I really like about it.  I suspect the "quiet ride", which I appreciate because I don't have to crank up the radio while driving), also reduces road noise for the residents living near the freeway.

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2010, 07:42:58 PMI think the first installation of this type of pavement was on I-880 in Alameda County and that was probably 5-7 years ago and it's still in very good condition.  The lack of spray from the car in front of you when the pavement is wet is what I really like about it.  I suspect the "quiet ride", which I appreciate because I don't have to crank up the radio while driving), also reduces road noise for the residents living near the freeway.

those first two points are quite valid.  as for road noise - the ambient white background noise of tires on surface is not the stuff people complain about.  it's the jackhammer brakes, the honking, the hideous bursts of pseudo-acceleration from the guy who hasn't figured out that the fat muffler is so 1998 ... that's what contributes to detrimental road noise, and re-surfacing does nothing about it.

as for having to turn up the music - there are far greater indignities to be suffered in life!  :sombrero:

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 07:20:36 PM

state name missing from shields.  Pasadena misidentified as Valley Boulevard.  state route 7 bear 15 inexplicably signed as interstate.  :sombrero:

LOL!

It seems the "Valley Boulevard" appellation only starts appearing north of Route 60, and most of the time is a greenout plate over "Pasadena."  I do think that it'd be much more useful to have Los Angeles as the control city between Route 47 and I-5, but I digress.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 07:51:40 PM
as for road noise - the ambient white background noise of tires on surface is not the stuff people complain about.  it's the jackhammer brakes, the honking, the hideous bursts of pseudo-acceleration from the guy who hasn't figured out that the fat muffler is so 1998 ... that's what contributes to detrimental road noise, and re-surfacing does nothing about it.

Tell that to the folks living near CA-85.  When the new section of freeway (between 280 and 87) opened in 1994, the complaints about road noise came pouring in.  Please keep in mind that this is a concrete surface and no trucks are allowed.  The only solution was to micro-grind the pavement which resulted in a quieter ride in the car and a reduction in the road noise heard by near by residents.

Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2010, 07:58:00 PM


It seems the "Valley Boulevard" appellation only starts appearing north of Route 60, and most of the time is a greenout plate over "Pasadena."  I do think that it'd be much more useful to have Los Angeles as the control city between Route 47 and I-5, but I digress.

that or sign a surface-street TEMPORARY I-710 (Valley to Fremont Blvd maybe?).

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 08:54:05 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2010, 07:58:00 PM


It seems the "Valley Boulevard" appellation only starts appearing north of Route 60, and most of the time is a greenout plate over "Pasadena."  I do think that it'd be much more useful to have Los Angeles as the control city between Route 47 and I-5, but I digress.

that or sign a surface-street TEMPORARY I-710 (Valley to Fremont Blvd maybe?).

There is plenty of precedent for this too (Temp I-15 on Hammer Avenue/Route 31, Temp/State Route 215, and of course State Route 15 on 40th Street in San Diego)...which may not matter because I could see South Pasadena kvetching anyway. :p

Even then, 710 remains the best route from LA to LB and vice versa - the two largest urban cores in Los Angeles County - so why not have it signed for the former going northbound?  I wonder what its control cities were when the route was built as bear Route 15 (way before the I-210 to I-10 segment was even fully mapped out).

Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2010, 09:34:40 PM
There is plenty of precedent for this too (Temp I-15 on Hammer Avenue/Route 31, Temp/State Route 215, and of course State Route 15 on 40th Street in San Diego)...which may not matter because I could see South Pasadena kvetching anyway. :p

let 'em.  progress is awesome.  luddites are not.  if your house is about to go, accept the generous buyout and move on.  I was talking to a friend of mine whose business is about to be bought by Caltrans to build a segment of CA-58/I-40, and he told me that they were very reasonable in their negotiations and offered a very fair eminent domain buyout deal. 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 09:51:24 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2010, 09:34:40 PM
There is plenty of precedent for this too (Temp I-15 on Hammer Avenue/Route 31, Temp/State Route 215, and of course State Route 15 on 40th Street in San Diego)...which may not matter because I could see South Pasadena kvetching anyway. :p

let 'em.  progress is awesome.  luddites are not.  if your house is about to go, accept the generous buyout and move on.  I was talking to a friend of mine whose business is about to be bought by Caltrans to build a segment of CA-58/I-40, and he told me that they were very reasonable in their negotiations and offered a very fair eminent domain buyout deal. 

I suspect that rural areas have populations much more willing to friendly negotiate eminent domain, as opposed to say San Francisco (the actual "no freeways can be added" deal in local law there) or metro Los Angeles (think of how long I-105 took to build, let alone 710).  For some reason, San Diego only really had to deal with that when 15 was built on 40th Street, and when 252 was canceled - a rather small amount of disputed mileage for a city of over a million residents.

Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2010, 09:54:14 PM

I suspect that rural areas have populations much more willing to friendly negotiate eminent domain, as opposed to say San Francisco (the actual "no freeways can be added" deal in local law there) or metro Los Angeles (think of how long I-105 took to build, let alone 710).  For some reason, San Diego only really had to deal with that when 15 was built on 40th Street, and when 252 was canceled - a rather small amount of disputed mileage for a city of over a million residents.

well, San Diego County is pretty traditionally Republican ... make note of that fact as you see fit!

(not that I like the Republicans much, but between them and the Democrats they've got every idiosyncrasy and social weakness elegantly covered, with a disquietingly significant proportion of the benefits of existence left by the wayside.  Would be nice to have a major party rise from the ashes with a line just a bit more promising than "we're morons, but we'll be strong morons on your behalf!".)

Going back to the original topic...

Obviously, this new LA-style "exit tab in sign divider area" deal isn't being used universally, partially because of the general tendency for most CalTrans districts to "replace in kind" other than the addition of tabs, and also due to the inconsistency in giving junctions exit numbers to begin with.

This makes me ask...how much freedom in design do the individual districts have, and are there examples past and present of this in effect in the field?

Quote from: kurumi on August 13, 2010, 04:39:19 PM

Quote from: Brandon on August 13, 2010, 03:30:32 PM
Bizarre.  Would it kill the California Department of Transportation to use normal tabs like everyone else? ...  X-(

Apparently it would. The concern is wind loading... apparently the exit tabs would break off in the wind.

aka "Caltrans is full of shit"?

I remember reading an article about Wabash Blvd. in the 1990's where the neighborhoods about to be destroyed became a haven for drugs and crime because people wouldn't move in...

QuoteHmmm... your car must have a better suspension or shock absorbers that mine.  :biggrin:  Like I said, I have trouble maintaining 65 MPH between Truckee and Donner Pass.  I do agree that concrete is the better pavement when it comes to longevity but there is a new type of asphalt being used here in the SF Bay Area to resurface the freeways.  It's called "rubberized asphalt" where they recycle old tires by grinding them up and adding it to the asphalt mix.  The result is an incredibly smooth and quiet road surface.  It also increases visibility during the rainy season because the surface is porous enough to absorb rain water and that cuts down on the amount of spray kicked up by fast moving cars.  Granted, this type of pavement is probably not meant to be used in the Sierra Nevada mountains where sub-freezing temps are common during the winter.

It would be nice if they would use the rubberized asphalt in southern California, too! Rubberized asphalt is used on the freeways in and around Phoenix and it's really nice! :clap: In fact, the city of Phoenix just within the last couple of weeks repaved 7th Street between Bethany Home Road and Northern Avenue (within a block of my apartment) with rubberized asphalt. That stretch of 7th Street has needed it for years and it's about time they did it!


[Fixed quoting. --Roadfro]

Quote from: TheStranger on August 13, 2010, 05:37:44 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 04:53:17 PM
they seem to have done an okay job on those 1971 porcelain exit tabs. 

then again, those porcelain signs in general are in excellent condition.  They had a design life of 30 years, and some of them are as much as 51 years old now and still going strong.  explain to me again why we have shitty Clearview retroreflective signs that last six years at most?

oh right, asphalt lobby.  and Transponder Jesus.

I wonder how wind-loading was factored into the 1971 porcelain tabs (which were all center-aligned), and if the left/right justification in today's standards affected current thinking.

(though there IS that Exit 2C Alameda Street external tab, as well as the new external overhead tabs further north on 101/Santa Ana Freeway!)

In any case, button copy/porcelain/paneled signs really represent California's "long-life" sign philosophy, which is anathema to the current "replace every five years" approach used nationally.

The wind load standard changes were recent - 2002 or 2003?  The sign trusses with the tabs in Los Angeles obviously predate that. 

When Caltrans developed the new truss structures to meet the wind load standard changes, it was stated that the structures could accommodate exit number tabs.  But a detail for mounting those tabs has not been developed.

I assume the wind-load standard was raised? That is the structures must now withstand a higher wind load than in the past? I don't understand the reasoning. Have the winds in southern Calif. increased in the 21st Century?

Quote from: SignBridge on July 16, 2011, 04:35:49 PM
I assume the wind-load standard was raised? That is the structures must now withstand a higher wind load than in the past? I don't understand the reasoning. Have the winds in southern Calif. increased in the 21st Century?

It was raised.  It was an AASHTO thing, not Caltrans.

Quote from: SignBridge on July 16, 2011, 04:35:49 PM
I assume the wind-load standard was raised? That is the structures must now withstand a higher wind load than in the past? I don't understand the reasoning. Have the winds in southern Calif. increased in the 21st Century?

I would assume so they can actually put exit numbers on the signs without cramming so much stuff into off places.  Though this would probably be much less of an issue if Caltrans actually understood what an exit tab is (even the signs that don't put exit numbers in random places have a bunch of green space to the left of where the tab would normally end).

It's too bad the MUTCD doesn't allow California to adopt a signing style similar to what Quebec does for exit numbers.  Then they wouldn't have this problem.

Quote from: deanej on July 21, 2011, 12:27:58 PMI would assume so they can actually put exit numbers on the signs without cramming so much stuff into off places.  Though this would probably be much less of an issue if Caltrans actually understood what an exit tab is (even the signs that don't put exit numbers in random places have a bunch of green space to the left of where the tab would normally end).

Nope.  Joe Rouse has already said it was an AASHTO change, not something Caltrans devised to accommodate exit tabs.  I suspect it had to do with issue of an updated edition of AASHTO's structural design guide for luminaires and sign support structures and possibly also with a NCHRP report on wind buffeting of cantilever sign structures.

The only other exit tab style that I can see CalTrans implementing is the wide top-right text style that IDOT used in Chicago.

Quote from: HighwayMaster on July 30, 2011, 06:42:41 PM
The only other exit tab style that I can see CalTrans implementing is the wide top-right text style that IDOT used in Chicago.

And seems to be implementing across the state.  There are plenty downstate like that as well.

Sorry to be reviving, but I was looking through my pictures and found this center-tabbed sign at the CA-210/I-215 interchange. It's the sign in the far-right:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.staticflickr.com%2F6217%2F6868263336_31c0ae1287_c.jpg&hash=971dda0e6676a0fa218857ac8e4bd794b2df4cc7)

That is quite possibly the ugliest standard for signage I've seen in any state, and that even includes Clearview.

Quote from: Steve on March 25, 2012, 06:58:22 PM
That is quite possibly the ugliest standard for signage I've seen in any state, and that even includes Clearview.

Agreed.  I've seen much nicer Clearview.  CalTrans seriously needs to increase their sign size to contain the information properly.

Yawn. More hate from the jealous.

Quote from: blawp on March 26, 2012, 12:44:42 AM
Yawn. More hate from the jealous.

Now, now.  They are entitled to their opinion on how we do things here.

In this case (the centered exit "tab"), I have to agree with them that the centered internal tab doesn't present the best look.  Although the connector from east 210 to south 215 is not constructed yet, I'm pretty sure underneath the greenout is the legend, shield and arrow for the south 215 exit sign.  I mean, why fabricate two signs when you can make one sign and greenout what hasn't been constructed yet.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of the centered internal tab.  Here's how I would have laid out that sign.

First, with the I-215 south portion of the sign greened out...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F210-215_cur.png&hash=ea9aa5f2f5a0b32c34e97eb07cdb28badc9fa2a6)

Once that ramp is completed and the greenout is removed...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F210-215_future.png&hash=ff480750d4036c42c88e6b4a7f7b6978b457f0cb)

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 26, 2012, 02:59:38 AMOnce that ramp is completed and the greenout is removed...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F210-215_future.png&hash=ff480750d4036c42c88e6b4a7f7b6978b457f0cb)

This layout is an improvement.

I am not sure who we get to blame for the layout shown in the photo above.  I don't know the contract which has it as a new installation, but it is shown as an existing installation (presumably requiring greenout) in 08-4440U4.  This is a SANBAG contract designed by Parsons Brinckerhoff and administered by Caltrans.  I have a copy of the plans, which show other fun stuff like exit tabs taken out of the bottom of the sign panel.

I agree with JNW. The suggested revised layout looks much better. I really can't understand why Caltrans and its contractors seem to be so clumsy re: the configuration of their sign legends.

I'm not even referring to the exit tab necessary - the sign panels are not put together well, lines of text are too close to each other, and even the carpool lane has a problem with the "END" being so poorly located as to be easily overlooked. CA has an incredibly haphazard style of making messages fit on signs, rather than designing signs to fit the messages. That's what gets me.

^ Agreed, regarding the haphazard nature of signs. CalTrans apparently has a uniform height requirement of signs on one structure and imposes maximum panel heights as well. Nevada follows suit, but they seem to use have a higher max height and use exit tabs so things don't end up nearly as cluttered. CalTrans could easily adopt some Nevada standards for new signs/structures that would help the look of their signs.

Quote from: Steve on March 26, 2012, 09:36:51 PM
I'm not even referring to the exit tab necessary - the sign panels are not put together well, lines of text are too close to each other, and even the carpool lane has a problem with the "END" being so poorly located as to be easily overlooked. CA has an incredibly haphazard style of making messages fit on signs, rather than designing signs to fit the messages. That's what gets me.

      I, ^{for one}, think you
                   ^{about this}. As _long as the information
      who _{cares how} it is presented?

Love, Caltrans

If you thought the layout of those 210 and 215 signs were bad, take a look at these two signs...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F101s_Exit382_new.png&hash=673c25dfc04cba327ede3913a8ff8027845c57b5)
Original Sign... from the AARoads Gallery (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_sb_exit_382_02.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F101s_Exit383_new.png&hash=97caaa04aaa887bfe9798f2eafc61258c7179269)
Original Sign... from the AARoads Gallery (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_sb_exit_383_02.jpg)

These signs are part of the 101-Tully Road interchange rebuild project in San Jose and were recently installed.  The drawings I made come pretty close to what is out there.  The first thing I noticed was the squeezing in of "Yerba Buena Rd" (13.3/10 legend and on two lines no less... ugh!) around a black-on-yellow arrow.  The problem is, that arrow points to an option lane.  Caltrans uses the same arrow on the Tully Road advance guide sign and, once again, that is an option lane.  I thought the use of the black-on-yellow arrow was a sign goof until I got a look at the signing plan for the project and realized it was NOT a goof... the black-on-yellow arrow was in the signing plan!  This is also the first time I've seen the use of the new 26-inch EXIT ONLY plaques (old ones were 20 inches).

I'm not really sure what the engineer was smoking when he/she designed these signs but I believe the use of a black-on-yellow arrow for an option lane is a big mistake and will lead to driver confusion.  In the past, a white-on-green down arrow was used for option lanes.

As for the layout of the Capitol Expwy advance guide sign, because traffic wanting to get to Yerba Buena Rd must use the Capitol Expwy exit, it is necessary to include it on the overhead sign but laying out a sign with that long a road name isn't easy.  I guess the old sign was about as good at it can be but the way Caltrans used two lines kind of irks me.

Quote from: kurumi on March 27, 2012, 02:50:03 AM
      I, ^{for one}, think you

are _being muchtoo particular

                   ^{about this}. As _long as the information

is there,

      who _{cares how} it is presented?

Love, Caltrans

LOL!  :-D

My eyes are burning.  I grew up in San Jose, and I remember those exits quite vividly. 

Did these atrocities reach Hellyer Rd and Story Rd/I-280/I-680? 

I've seen those signs as well. I just don't like the fact that the optional exit lane isn't in a white-on-green arrow.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 27, 2012, 05:08:06 AM
My eyes are burning.  I grew up in San Jose, and I remember those exits quite vividly.  

Did these atrocities reach Hellyer Rd and Story Rd/I-280/I-680?  

No and thank goodness.  The Story Road, I-280/I-680 and Hellyer Road exits were not part of this particular project however, there is supposed to be a new 280/680 advance guide sign for northbound 101.

Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on March 27, 2012, 10:04:59 AM
I've seen those signs as well. I just don't like the fact that the optional exit lane isn't in a white-on-green arrow.

I'm wondering if the black-on-yellow arrow was used because of the elimination of the white-on-green down arrow in the 2009 MUTCD?  California didn't adopt the new MUTCD until early 2012 but this project's plans were published in 2010.

Quote from: kurumi on March 27, 2012, 02:50:03 AM
      I, ^{for one}, think you

are _being muchtoo particular

                   ^{about this}. As _long as the information

is there,

      who _{cares how} it is presented?

Love, Caltrans

:-D Needs more greenout!

I'm currently of the opinion that CA shouldn't have adopted the MUTCD at all - then they could have adopted Quebec-style exit number signing, which has the advantage of actually fitting on CA signs.

I agree with virtually all the above comments. If you're interested in the "option-lane" signing issue, you should go over to the General Highway Talk section, Traffic Control sub-section, thread on MUTCD Gripes. Good discussion and graphics on the last pages.

Re: the black-on-yellow option lane arrow. I don't think it specifically has to do with the new standard in the 2009 Manual. The way I see it, either the engineer made a mistake in the specs, or they are experimenting with this design for some reason. But I agree it creates confusion. You'd seem to associate it with the exit-only lane. It does look weird. If I lived in Calif. I might write to Caltrans about it.

Ready for some more California sign layout hilarity?  My drawing below is based on the sign plan for a new weigh station on I-80 in Cordelia, CA.  Because of it's proximity to the I-80/CA-12 interchange in Fairfield, the exit gets these new signs...

Hmmm... where should I start... I guess the first thing that caught my eye was the unusual layout of the I-80 pull through.  I think the designed wanted to include down arrows but when the exit sequence sign was included on the structure, that made putting down arrows rather difficult unless you wanted them "dancing".  Couple that with putting both control cities on the same line and you've got one rather oddly laid out sign.  The CA-12 advance guide sign also puts both control cities on the same line however, compared to the existing sign (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_eb_exit_043_03.jpg), this one is a bit of an improvement.

If I were designing these signs here's how I would have done it...

I've never seen such a terribly laid out pull-through.  it reminds me of the JUNCTION 99 1 1/2 MILES sign northbound at the 5/99 split in Wheeler Ridge, but is oh so much worse!

If California were to follow the 2009 MUTCD to the letter, then the I-80/CA-12 sign I drew earlier might look something like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F80-12_new_apl.png&hash=83ede325d95c067940cbf67b6bc4a3fd091f6ec5)

That's right.  I-80 eastbound is going to be 7 lanes wide... 5 through lanes, one option lane and one exit only lane. :wow:

Doesn't Caltrans seem to take that pesky MUTCD as more of a suggestion than a requirement? Seems like California's own signing style has lingered on for many years.......

Quote from: SignBridge on March 29, 2012, 04:02:39 PM
Doesn't Caltrans seem to take that pesky MUTCD as more of a suggestion than a requirement?

Many states use their own MUTCD or have their own supplement to it, but few if any others vary their standards as much as Caltrans. Personally, I wish more states would use at least the CA-style US shield.

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 29, 2012, 01:43:42 AM
If California were to follow the 2009 MUTCD to the letter, then the I-80/CA-12 sign I drew earlier might look something like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F80-12_new_apl.png&hash=83ede325d95c067940cbf67b6bc4a3fd091f6ec5)

That's right.  I-80 eastbound is going to be 7 lanes wide... 5 through lanes, one option lane and one exit only lane. :wow:

That's an improvement over the current signage, IMHO.  One could even use three I-80 shields with it as in:
EAST/{80} Sacramento EAST/{80} Fairfield EAST/{80}

Quote from: Brandon on March 29, 2012, 09:30:00 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 29, 2012, 01:43:42 AM
If California were to follow the 2009 MUTCD to the letter, then the I-80/CA-12 sign I drew earlier might look something like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F80-12_new_apl.png&hash=83ede325d95c067940cbf67b6bc4a3fd091f6ec5)

That's right.  I-80 eastbound is going to be 7 lanes wide... 5 through lanes, one option lane and one exit only lane. :wow:

That's an improvement over the current signage, IMHO.  One could even use three I-80 shields with it as in:
EAST/{80} Sacramento EAST/{80} Fairfield EAST/{80}

I disagree.  I think there is too much wasted space on the sign which is a by-product of the arrow-per-lane signs.  The original signs...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_eb_exit_043_03.jpg)
...are more than adequate although the layout of the CA-12 exit sign leaves much to be desired.

CalTrans cares more about keeping the signs at a consistent height than legibility at times, but I like myosh's design (which follows CalTrans standard) much more than the 2009 MUTCD arrow-per-lane.  I think the arrow-per-lane is good in some applications where multiple different lanes actually go to different things, but that's about it.

Is there a specific reason Caltrans insists on height uniformity? Is it related to wind-load? In the Northeast there is no such height uniformity, and I assume they design for wind-load here also. New York State in particular, designs each sign's height and width for its specific legend and pretty much follows the examples shown in the Manual. One display can have 3 signs all different heights. I've never thought there was any problem with the appearance of those displays.

SignBridge, it's a load of BS, the wind loading argument, and related to something internal.  IDOT (Illinois) District 1 does the same thing for most of their signage, but uses taller signs.

Wind loading is their rationale for lack of correct exit tabs, not signs. Some states just insist on making the signs all the same height for some reason. Presumably it is meant to be aesthetically pleasing that all signs are the same size, but honestly, I think that whatever aesthetic value you get there is more than offset by the fact that is usually results in signs with too little or too much blank space. Following the spacing guidelines in the MUTCD to determine the size of a sign panel results in nice, balanced-looking signs. Trying to force the legend in one sign to fit in the space provided, not so much.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 31, 2012, 01:06:13 AM
Wind loading is their rationale for lack of correct exit tabs, not signs. Some states just insist on making the signs all the same height for some reason. Presumably it is meant to be aesthetically pleasing that all signs are the same size, but honestly, I think that whatever aesthetic value you get there is more than offset by the fact that is usually results in signs with too little or too much blank space. Following the spacing guidelines in the MUTCD to determine the size of a sign panel results in nice, balanced-looking signs. Trying to force the legend in one sign to fit in the space provided, not so much.

...and yet the 2009 MUTCD now requires the use of arrow-per-lane signage for multi-lane exits with an option lane.  A style of signage that IMO has way too much blank space... especially when there are 3 or more through lanes.

With regards to the wind-loading argument, when a truss sign bridge is used (the most common structure used on California's freeways), the sign panels are mounted on a frame which is then mounted on the truss.  If signs are made smaller than the truss, the frame will have to be mounted in such a way that wind-loading does become a factor because of a lack of mounting points on the truss.  The same can be said for mounting a sign that's too tall.  Too much of the sign panel would be exposed above the truss.  FWIW, here's a diagram I drew up awhile ago that explains the relationship between the truss's depth and the sign panel height...

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 31, 2012, 02:18:36 AM...and yet the 2009 MUTCD now requires the use of arrow-per-lane signage for multi-lane exits with an option lane.  A style of signage that IMO has way too much blank space... especially when there are 3 or more through lanes.

Actually, the MUTCD does not require arrow-per-lane diagrammatics, or indeed any other type of diagrammatic, except for multilane exits at major interchanges which have an option lane and a TOTSO for the through route.  For all other multilane exits with an option lane, the diagrammatics are optional, not mandatory.  (Remember our discussion on this point in SkyscraperCity (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=277981&page=394)?)  There is, for example, no danger of an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic being placed at the I-80/SR 12 interchange.

In regard to the observation about sign panels being mounted to a removable sign panel frame which is then connected to the truss, this applies to formed panel signs.  I think there is more flexibility in mounting laminated-panel signs, which Caltrans also uses extensively as overheads.  I believe the 1970's exit numbering experiment used overhead-mounted laminated-panel signs (center tabs); some early exit tab retrofits in District 2 (northern reaches of I-5) were applied to ground-mounted laminated-panel signs (right-hand tabs).  (I think these retrofitted signs have since been replaced, or at any rate a contract calling for their replacement has been advertised sometime in the last three or four years.)

Where sign aesthetics are concerned, I think situations where one sign panel has a small amount of legend while an adjacent sign panel has a large amount lead to ugly results, regardless of whether design rules call for uniform panel height.

TOTSO?

I'm with myosh; too much blank space on OAPL signs. BTW, the first one has appeared in my part of Long Island. Westbound NY-25 (Jericho Tpk) at the I-495 (L.I. Expwy.) interchange.

Why is there no chance of OAPL signs being used at Calif's I-80/SR-12 interchange? Looking at the map it looks like it could be a major or heavily used intermediate interchange that would require that type sign or diagrammatic if there is an option lane. Though I thought the old signs pictured did the job well enough, except for the screwy arrangement of the legend on the SR-12 sign. What city was shown before the Suisun City panel was added?

Quote from: SignBridge on March 31, 2012, 09:25:00 PM
Why is there no chance of OAPL signs being used at Calif's I-80/SR-12 interchange? Looking at the map it looks like it could be a major or heavily used intermediate interchange that would require that type sign or diagrammatic if there is an option lane.

Because the arrow-per-lane signs would exceed the current maximum guide sign height for overhead signs in California which is 120 inches (10 feet).  The arrows I used are 66 inches tall which would only leave 54 inches for the shields and legend.  IIRC, the arrow-per-lane signs I drew for the I-80/CA-12 exit were somewhere around 14 feet tall.

Nevada and Arizona uses similar sign bridges, and they don't restrict the sign height like CalTrans does. 

Quote from: SignBridge on March 31, 2012, 09:25:00 PMTOTSO?

British roadgeeking term--"Turn off to stay on"--used for situations where a route follows an exit.

QuoteWhy is there no chance of OAPL signs being used at Calif's I-80/SR-12 interchange? Looking at the map it looks like it could be a major or heavily used intermediate interchange that would require that type sign or diagrammatic if there is an option lane.

There is in fact no requirement to use an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic at the SR 12 exit.  It can be used, as indeed it can be used at any other exit with an option lane, but the requirement to use is actually quite narrowly defined (in § 2E.20 of the 2009 MUTCD):

*  Major interchange--Check.

*  Has an option lane--Check.

*  Is a split, or is a TOTSO for the through route--No.  Hash mark.

Caltrans can use an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic if it wishes but, for the reasons Myosh_tino cites, it will not so wish.

Ah yes, the height issue again. So are there currently NO overhead diagrammatic signs used anywhere in California?

From what you guys have said, it sounds like Caltrans keeps the sign height uniform so as to keep the mounting hardware as simple and standard (and low cost) as possible. I guess they think that's more important than the issue of cramming the legend onto the signs every which way they do. And that's probably why they won't go with separate exit number tabs either. 'Cause it would require more mounting hardware. They might have a point there. States that use the full width of the sign panel for exit number tabs  might do that for the same reason. Mounting hardware maybe costs more than additional sign surface?

Quote from: SignBridge on April 01, 2012, 05:55:01 PMAh yes, the height issue again. So are there currently NO overhead diagrammatic signs used anywhere in California?

That is not quite true.  Caltrans has arrow-per-lane diagrammatics in District 3 (notably on Business 80, and I think also on SR 99 north of Sacramento).  But they pre-date the MUTCD versions and are designed on somewhat different principles.

I think technical concerns about mounting hardware are quite insignificant compared to the added sign square footage, which comes at a substantial extra cost.  The height requirements are also related to truss depths, so replacement of the entire sign structure would also come into play.

Quote from: myosh_tino on March 27, 2012, 02:53:19 AM
If you thought the layout of those 210 and 215 signs were bad, take a look at these two signs...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F101s_Exit382_new.png&hash=673c25dfc04cba327ede3913a8ff8027845c57b5)
Original Sign... from the AARoads Gallery (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_sb_exit_382_02.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F101s_Exit383_new.png&hash=97caaa04aaa887bfe9798f2eafc61258c7179269)
Original Sign... from the AARoads Gallery (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_sb_exit_383_02.jpg)

These signs are part of the 101-Tully Road interchange rebuild project in San Jose and were recently installed.  The drawings I made come pretty close to what is out there.  The first thing I noticed was the squeezing in of "Yerba Buena Rd" (13.3/10 legend and on two lines no less... ugh!) around a black-on-yellow arrow.  The problem is, that arrow points to an option lane.  Caltrans uses the same arrow on the Tully Road advance guide sign and, once again, that is an option lane.  I thought the use of the black-on-yellow arrow was a sign goof until I got a look at the signing plan for the project and realized it was NOT a goof... the black-on-yellow arrow was in the signing plan!  This is also the first time I've seen the use of the new 26-inch EXIT ONLY plaques (old ones were 20 inches).

I'm not really sure what the engineer was smoking when he/she designed these signs but I believe the use of a black-on-yellow arrow for an option lane is a big mistake and will lead to driver confusion.  In the past, a white-on-green down arrow was used for option lanes.

As for the layout of the Capitol Expwy advance guide sign, because traffic wanting to get to Yerba Buena Rd must use the Capitol Expwy exit, it is necessary to include it on the overhead sign but laying out a sign with that long a road name isn't easy.  I guess the old sign was about as good at it can be but the way Caltrans used two lines kind of irks me.

The actual signs:

I saw this thread in the "Info Center" at the bottom of the forum homepage.  I rarely venture out of the Northeast region, but this thread looked interesting enough to comment on.

I fail to see why California hates real exit tabs.  I looked up how big they have to be, and found that they add 30 inches to a sign assembly's height according to Table 2E-1 in the MUTCD (Page 186).  I would think that if wind loads were as severe of a problem as Caltrans claims, the tab would just break away in high winds.

As proof of the wind load on tall signs argument being a moot point, take this (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york600/i-690_wb_exit_013_01.jpg) example from here in Upstate NY.  It survived the Labor Day storm of 1998, and is located about 4.5 miles from the State Fairgrounds, where a tornado touched down.  Based on the NYSDOT mounting requirement of 18 feet for this overhead sign (17 foot overpasses for the Interstate, plus 1 foot over the minimum bridge height, see this page (https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/engineering/cadd-info/drawings/bridge-detail-sheets-usc/os-overhead-sign-structures-usc) for overhead sign design details) and the fact that it looks to be as tall as the space from the road surface to the bottom of the sign, I'd say that it's at least 18 feet high.  According to this PDF (https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/engineering/cadd-info/bridge-details-sheets-repostitory-usc/BD-OS2E.pdf), the maximum height for an overhead sign is 19' 6".

Many California signs I've seen could have a much better layout if the exit number had an actual tab and/or the sign height were increased to add as little as one line of text as opposed to being squeezed in the sign.

P.S.: The word "for­um" (yay for invisible characters!) changed to "Usenet" in the preview.  Is that some April Fools joke?

Here's another center-tabbed oddity. 
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5150%2F5605244193_36b0ea1e91_z.jpg&hash=e715f31ffac12fea3eaae869ba760e45bcc123ad)

Oh, and apparently there are some newer external tabs in California...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7021%2F6678038915_ba2ac49c20_z.jpg&hash=847332ff6f5cc197c8739f79235c662dc5dc8ba1)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4100%2F4891378647_2dbacd5958_z.jpg&hash=877284a4377c0f2813d2e77031e24abf7d3c9bf2)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7002%2F6540567537_5eb60bcbca_z.jpg&hash=1fcdfcbc4b62974adfa73dd676b84f6fe9d1e038)

(Image Sources:  RaymondYu's Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/raymondyue/))

Whoa, they changed the street name?  I remember it being just "Cabazon" not too long ago.

Gee, those three photos show that the CalTrans wind-loading argument is full of hot air and bullshit.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 02, 2012, 12:38:09 AMOh, and apparently there are some newer external tabs in California...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7021%2F6678038915_ba2ac49c20_z.jpg&hash=847332ff6f5cc197c8739f79235c662dc5dc8ba1)

This is unusual because it is an external tab adjacent to the RSPF for a formed-panel sign.

Quote(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4100%2F4891378647_2dbacd5958_z.jpg&hash=877284a4377c0f2813d2e77031e24abf7d3c9bf2)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7002%2F6540567537_5eb60bcbca_z.jpg&hash=1fcdfcbc4b62974adfa73dd676b84f6fe9d1e038)

These are all laminated-panel signs.

Quote from: Michael on April 01, 2012, 10:57:24 PMI fail to see why California hates real exit tabs.  I looked up how big they have to be, and found that they add 30 inches to a sign assembly's height according to Table 2E-1 in the MUTCD (Page 186).

Actually, 24" is the standard tab height in California.

It is not a question of Caltrans "hating" exit tabs.  The sign specs all present strip tabs, external tabs, and bitten-out tabs as allowable design options, and all three have been used in California.  I think the relative unpopularity of external tabs (particularly on overhead signs, which are the reason KEK's pictures are of interest) has more to do with the lack of standard mounting details for trusses and for some types of sign substrate that Caltrans frequently uses.  Caltrans is understaffed as it is, so if some form of "inside" tab complies with the standards and does not require an added detail to be drawn up and verified separately, then it is an instant winner in terms of preparation time.  I suspect the pictures KEK posted are all taken from OSFP work designed by consultants working for regional measure agencies, county engineering departments, and even Indian tribes (the Morongo sign, I am 99% sure, was funded by the Morongo reservation as part of their casino development).

QuoteI would think that if wind loads were as severe of a problem as Caltrans claims, the tab would just break away in high winds.

Even a 24" tab flying around in a high wind is dangerous.  That said, I don't think the wind loading argument works against exit tabs in quite that way.  I think it has more to do with a replacement sign fitting within the same footprint as the existing sign not needing calculations to verify that it complies with wind loading standards, while a sign with an external tab would not fit into the same area and would need wind loading calculations to be done.

QuoteP.S.: The word "for­um" (yay for invisible characters!) changed to "Usenet" in the preview.  Is that some April Fools joke?

Yes, a rather annoying one, which now has fortunately ended.

Quote from: Snozzberries on April 02, 2012, 08:57:47 AM

Quote from: Michael on April 01, 2012, 10:57:24 PMP.S.: The word "for­um" (yay for invisible characters!) changed to "Usenet" in the preview.  Is that some April Fools joke?

Yes, a rather annoying one, which now has fortunately ended.

Someone needs a sense of humor installed.

Quote from: Steve on April 02, 2012, 07:18:50 PMSomeone needs a sense of humor installed.

I'd certainly agree with that.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2012, 07:56:26 PM

Quote from: Steve on April 02, 2012, 07:18:50 PMSomeone needs a sense of humor installed.

I'd certainly agree with that.

Congrats on your shortest post ever!

The Oregon signs were proved to be fake, so it's probable the external tab photos that I posted could be fake.

Am I the only one that likes the I-710 Exit sign at the 60?  It seems less confusing to me then a lot of other signs, that get almost no complaints.  Also just curiuosity why does Caltrans always get put down so much in this forum, not that I'm defending Caltrans.  Just wondering.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 02, 2012, 12:38:09 AM
Here's another center-tabbed oddity. 
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5150%2F5605244193_36b0ea1e91_z.jpg&hash=e715f31ffac12fea3eaae869ba760e45bcc123ad)

I actually find this layout to be informative. It tells me that both identified routes (I-10 East and West) exit the mainline at this point, and the ramp will divide shortly after the exit. The exit tab ties the two together and I would not infer the possibility of a second exit for WB I-10 just ahead. Now, if California had used the upper-right pointing arrows rather than the down arrows at the exit point, it would tell me much the same thing.

Those external tab pictures are absolutely fake. I drive the 10, 60, and 210 routinely and have never seen those.

I did see one external tab sign on I-5 SB heading towards San Diego two weeks ago today; I wish I'd taken a picture so I could remember where.  That was the only such one I noticed anywhere between LA and SD, taking 405 and 5 all the way from near LAX down to the last exit before Mexico.  Not sure why that one sign had a tab--error, contractor decision, who knows.

There are/were a set of signs with external tabs on i-5 just south of the 101 junction but before the 710, they have been there a very long time.

Quote from: blawp on April 06, 2012, 04:50:38 PM
Those external tab pictures are absolutely fake. I drive the 10, 60, and 210 routinely and have never seen those.

Thought they looked too good to be true.

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on April 07, 2012, 01:46:41 AM
There are/were a set of signs with external tabs on i-5 just south of the 101 junction but before the 710, they have been there a very long time.

Those (as well as external tabs along the US 101 segment of the Santa Ana Freeway, and the 110 Harbor Freeway) all date back to a 1971 signing experiment.  IIRC, the first 30 miles of I-10 were a part of this as well, though most of the 1971-era signs along that route have been replaced over time.

Quote from: TheStranger on April 07, 2012, 06:56:36 PM

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on April 07, 2012, 01:46:41 AM
There are/were a set of signs with external tabs on i-5 just south of the 101 junction but before the 710, they have been there a very long time.

Those (as well as external tabs along the US 101 segment of the Santa Ana Freeway, and the 110 Harbor Freeway) all date back to a 1971 signing experiment.  IIRC, the first 30 miles of I-10 were a part of this as well, though most of the 1971-era signs along that route have been replaced over time.

If external tabs could be used in 1971, why not currently?  Many of the CalTrans gantries haven't changed since then, design-wise.

Probably because the 1971 experiment was voluntary, and the current numbers were forced by the FHWA.

Here in Louisiana we have external exit# tabs and we have hurricanes force wind as well. I guess that LADODT doesn't consider it an issue. I've never seen one blow off, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. That said I don't mind the Caltrans  embedded exit# tab. I would prefer it on the right or left edge of the sign however and I agree that the exit should have up facing arrows.
They just put up new signs alone I-12 after widening it. One of them has a Caltrans look to it at the exit, but not at the interval warning sign.

Mark

Quote from: JustDrive on April 02, 2012, 01:57:02 AM
Whoa, they changed the street name?  I remember it being just "Cabazon" not too long ago.

It's always been been Morongo Trail, the sign use to say Cabazon because it was the city at that exit. Morongo Trail is basically just the 2 roundabouts at the freeway exit (or maybe just 1 since theres a sign that says Apache Trail but I cant figure out where that is) The exit clearly serves Seminole Dr

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2010, 07:18:10 PM
Going back to TheStranger's original post, yeah, that centered tab within the sign looks weird.  If I were the sign designed, here's what I would have suggested.

The original...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F60-710.png&hash=8adc9d17b98ef1ce56b8755dcb3a80333ed12778)

Suggestion #1...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F60-710_alt.png&hash=894cf8c4a378c7be59595f7a5915283f8f9e470e)

Suggestion #2...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F60-710_alt2.png&hash=d9c503e1429d17a8fa7a7f12603fa31f1b7fde30)

There should be another freeway that uses these same sign designs it's the 405 freeway (San Diego Freeway) at the 101 freeway (Ventura Freeway) in Sherman Oaks they were installed this April when I drove from LAX up to the Ventura area.

I prefer the middle design. (one exit number tab)

Mark

Quote from: pctech on October 31, 2012, 10:53:29 AM
I prefer the middle design. (one exit number tab)

Mark

But the center tabbed seems to be good considering that it can take less sign making effort  than a split tabbed design which is suggestion #2

In the case of a left handed exit. The tab is on the left side of the sign and there is a yellow/black lettering "left exit" block in the main body of the sign? At least this is what I've seen on the few pictures of left exits that I've seen in CA. Here the the entire exit tab is yellow with black lettering now.

Mark

Quote from: pctech on November 02, 2012, 08:24:12 AM
In the case of a left handed exit. The tab is on the left side of the sign and there is a yellow/black lettering "left exit" block in the main body of the sign? At least this is what I've seen on the few pictures of left exits that I've seen in CA. Here the the entire exit tab is yellow with black lettering now.

Mark

There are a few left-exits that I have personally seen in northern California and from what I recall, none of them have a black-on-yellow LEFT EXIT plaque.  This even applies to few HOV-to-HOV direct connectors in northern California.

I saw a center exit tab here in Louisiana on Sat. It's in New Orleans on I-10 west bound at the Airline Hwy/Tulane exit. The sign splits down the middle with the exit number tab in the center. It's the only one that I've seen here to date.

Mark

Quote from: kurumi on August 13, 2010, 04:39:19 PMApparently it would. The concern is wind loading... apparently the exit tabs would break off in the wind.

CalTrans ought to ask Oregon DOT what they did in eastern Oregon in this high-wind environment:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcberna/4654310027/

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 13, 2010, 07:18:10 PM
Going back to TheStranger's original post, yeah, that centered tab within the sign looks weird.  If I were the sign designed, here's what I would have suggested.

The original...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F60-710.png&hash=8adc9d17b98ef1ce56b8755dcb3a80333ed12778)

Suggestion #1...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F60-710_alt.png&hash=894cf8c4a378c7be59595f7a5915283f8f9e470e)

Suggestion #2...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F60-710_alt2.png&hash=d9c503e1429d17a8fa7a7f12603fa31f1b7fde30)

Most states use separate A & B designations on their transition roads.  Anyone else frustrated with Caltrans?  I've seen original and suggestion 1 & 2 used. 

I finally saw the clearest new signs at an interchange.  Its NB I-15 at CA-60.
https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-117.550115!3d34.010398!2m2!1f355.68!2f89.14!4f75!2m4!1e1!2m2!1swYd0YPYvnzvYtqjMHQl3RQ!2e0&fid=5

Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 01, 2013, 08:06:02 PM
Most states use separate A & B designations on their transition roads. 

Yes and no.  Not sure if it was this thread, but I recall that I asked about that and basically, the Caltrans practice of using only one number/letter if ONE ramp splits off the freeway directly (as opposed to separate ramps, i.e. cloverleafs without C/D roads, which do get separate letters) is not uncommon elsewhere.

My big problem with Caltrans's exit numbers is that they don't skip letters for partial interchanges or swap them when the exits are out of order. So exits for the same road will have different numbers in each direction.

I think the Caltrans rule about all this is.....there are no rules!   :-D

Well, (chuckle!) now we see why Caltrans resisted exit numbering for so many years. Because it results in exactly this kind of complexity which can sometimes be almost counter-productive. It was so much simpler the old way, without any exit numbers.

Also re: TheStranger's point above re: using separate exit number suffixes for the split part-way down an exit ramp or transition: The only reference I could find in the MUTCD is Sec. 2F.46.04 which states: Exits from the collector-distributor roadways may be numbered with an appropriate suffix, which in effect means either way is correct, showing it as either one exit number or an A and B exit.

I've heard that in other states, they've tried putting the exit tab outside the main body of the sign.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 03:22:07 PM
I've heard that in other states, they've tried putting the exit tab outside the main body of the sign.

It's a novel concept; several states and toll agencies have experimented with it.

Quote from: Brandon on August 02, 2013, 03:42:21 PM
It's a novel concept; several states and toll agencies have experimented with it.

toll agencies too!?  holy shit, next thing you know it will become standard industry practice.

Quote from: pctech on July 12, 2012, 01:24:31 PM
Here in Louisiana we have external exit# tabs and we have hurricanes force wind as well. I guess that LADODT doesn't consider it an issue. I've never seen one blow off, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. That said I don't mind the Caltrans  embedded exit# tab. I would prefer it on the right or left edge of the sign however and I agree that the exit should have up facing arrows.
They just put up new signs alone I-12 after widening it. One of them has a Caltrans look to it at the exit, but not at the interval warning sign.

Mark

I could recall only one instance a BGS on an overhead gantry being bent was back in 2002 on the I-10 overpass over Airline Dr/Tulane Ave/Carrollton Ave. I think it was during Tropical Storm Isidore. It has since been replaced but as you may notice how much higher it goes beyond the gantry that it could one again get bent if the winds make a drect blow.
http://goo.gl/maps/KnZeB

On the ground mounted BGSes, Louisiana uses metal poles with breakaway bolts so that would break off during a major wind event such as the ones on US 90 between Lafayette and Morgan City that were blown down during Hurricane Lili in 2002 but could easily be reinstalled. It's all wooden posts from my observations from roadtrips California in 2012 and 2013. Louisiana only use wooden posts for temporary use and eventually switches them out for permanent metal breakaway poles on a concrete base.
http://goo.gl/maps/3EOOw (temporary wooden poles)
http://goo.gl/maps/57D2q (note the switch to permanent metal poles on a concrete base)