Just went out to Bakersfield to visit my parents (moved there last October). First real time driving around California. Went around Bakersfield, out to the coast and down to San Diego.
Routes taken: I-5, I-805, I-8, US-101, CA-166, CA-126, CA-163, CA-99, CA-33, CA-119.
Flew into Burbank at night. LA is an interesting combination of light and dark areas at night. The hills are dark without any light whatsoever, and the valleys are bright as day. Anyway, got onto I-5 north from Hollywood Way and went over the mountains to Bakersfield. The truck traffic rivals I-80/94 in Indiana on I-5 there. Noticed that the CalNEXUS programs is either half-assed or half finished. Some signs had exit numbers while others were devoid of them. They're damned useless without proper mileposts. CalTrans also seems to believe you don't need the information as to how far the next exit is. That was most annoying. Anyway, the mountains were not all that steep IMHO when compared to Colorado, but the extra lanes were appreciated. Came into town on Cal 99.
Driving around Bakersfield was an adventure. Every flipping left turn is protected only. If there was a signal, the left had no permitted phase. Rather silly, IMHO. If it's clear, then you should be able to go. The revenue..er..red light cameras have no advance warning signs (required in Illinois). In addition, the major streets were all signed for 50 or 55 mph. They might be better at 40 to 45 mph, IMHO. Most folks seem to drive them at 40 to 45. Also, the main streets had medians that prevented what I thought were logical left turn locations.
Took Panama Ln out to Cal 43 and then down to Cal 119 to Taft and stopped by the oil workers monument. Got pictures. Continued down Cal 33 to Cal 166 in Maricopia. Apparently Maricopia's PD is disbanded as both the chief and assistant are on administrative leave. From what I've heard, good riddance; it's supposed to be quite the speed trap. From Maricopia, followed Cal 166 west to US-101, stopping by the San Andreas Fault at the Carrizo Plain NM. Took US-101 south to Solvang and spent some time there. Nice little town; however, the pedestrians (and this is from what I've seen in California) cross without even looking for traffic. In Chicago, they'd be road pancakes if they did that.
From there, continued down US-101 to Ventura. In Ventura, visited the Channel Islands NP visitors center. Cool place. Walked a bit of the beach there and got a few sunset photos of the sun setting over the islands. Took Cal 126 back to I-5 and Cal 99 to Bakersfield. One thing I noticed about California, as compared to the Midwest, is that population seems every concentrated. You have one place with a lot of people, and then miles upon miles of nothing in between. Here, people seem a bit more spread out.
Went to visit the San Diego Zoo on Monday (12/26). Took Cal 99 to I-5 through LA. I-5 winds its way through LA, and the drivers seemed fine on the straights, but slowed for every flipping curve. Could not figure out what the fuss about LA drivers is about. They're, IMHO, like Chicago drivers who use turn signals. Anyway, went down I-5 to I-805 (someone used an online mapping service - not me - to figure the route). I realized that we were too far east and took I-8 back to Cal 163 and got to the zoo. Used I-5 all the way back to Cal 99. What is the point of the border patrol crappola..er..station north of San Diego? All it seemed to do was stop up traffic for no really good reason.
A few other observations: Jake, I'm sorry, but those old button copy signs have got to go. They're completely illegible at night. Dangerously illegible. I couldn't discern even with the lights shining on them. CalTrans needs mileposts in the worst way, and needs to add signage letting folks know where the next exit is. They also need more services signage between LA and San Diego. Had to guess at an exit for a gas station in Carlsbad and got lucky. IMHO, CalTrans is way behind the times and needs to catchup to where the Midwest is. It's hard to believe they were an innovator at one time. I do; however, like the separate truck lanes at major interchanges. It's a good idea; would not mind seeing it implemented here, especially along I-80.
QuoteNoticed that the CalNEXUS programs is either half-assed or half finished.
Some areas are certainly lacking, LA County being one such area. Here in Orange County, the exit numbers are pretty well signed, even though a lot of older signs have the number added in the corner of the BGS, kind of as an afterthought.
QuoteTook Cal 99 to I-5 through LA.
Direct, but if you have more time on another visit, I'd suggest cutting over to CA-1, at least to drive south from Newport Beach and take in some beautiful views of the coast near Laguna Beach.
QuoteWhat is the point of the border patrol crappola..er..station north of San Diego? All it seemed to do was stop up traffic for no really good reason.
A bit of an annoyance, I totally agree. I've never had to fully stop, just slow to about 5 MPH while I'm waved through. Just don't get too tan in SD and you'll be fine if you catch my drift. :-P
QuoteA few other observations: Jake, I'm sorry, but those old button copy signs have got to go. They're completely illegible at night. Dangerously illegible. I couldn't discern even with the lights shining on them. CalTrans needs mileposts in the worst way, and needs to add signage letting folks know where the next exit is. They also need more services signage between LA and San Diego. Had to guess at an exit for a gas station in Carlsbad and got lucky.
I'd suggest next time, if driving at night north of LA, to take the 15. It's nicely lit, and a lot of the signage has been replaced in recent years with the huge growth inland.
Overall, hope you had a decent trip despite a few traffic observations. Hopefully the weather was to your liking! :-)
QuoteWhat is the point of the border patrol crappola..er..station north of San Diego? All it seemed to do was stop up traffic for no really good reason.
what, you failed to kill a Mexican for Jesus while you were down here??? our benevolent leaders are so, so disappointed in you.
Quote from: Brandon on December 28, 2011, 11:16:58 PM
A few other observations: Jake, I'm sorry, but those old button copy signs have got to go. They're completely illegible at night. Dangerously illegible. I couldn't discern even with the lights shining on them. CalTrans needs mileposts in the worst way, and needs to add signage letting folks know where the next exit is.
I used to agree on the old signs, but now I find them quite charming and appreciate the historical insight and intrigue they provide. Many of them could stand a good power wash or something to get rid of the rust from bolts and such. CalTrans does need to be better about maintaining the lighting on their older signs until they get replaced...
I'm not quite sure why CalTrans *needs* mileposts. Besides, CalTrans has their postmile system which doubles for the same purpose as mileposts for maintenance and motorist aid purposes. The typical driver doesn't really use mileposts all that much anyway. Adding exit numbers is much more useful for navigational purposes than mileposts would be. (Although, I think CalTrans did miss an opportunity to implement both exit numbers and conventional mileposts with CalNExUS...)
I am a bit confused as to what you mean by CalTrans needing to "add signage letting folks know where the next exit is." Are interchange sequence signs and/or advance guide signs insufficient?
Quote from: roadfro on December 29, 2011, 08:04:54 PM
Adding exit numbers is much more useful for navigational purposes than mileposts would be. (Although, I think CalTrans did miss an opportunity to implement both exit numbers and conventional mileposts with CalNExUS...)
CalNexus sounds like a weird border patrol program...
California missed the opportunity to implement exit numbers in 1971 when they randomly tried out a few in the LA area.
QuoteI am a bit confused as to what you mean by CalTrans needing to "add signage letting folks know where the next exit is." Are interchange sequence signs and/or advance guide signs insufficient?
those are sufficient to me, but he does have a very valid point that services signs are sorely lacking. My least favorite part of the drive to San Francisco from San Diego is that I just plain do not know where to get gas between San Diego and the grapevine (170 miles or so) and then from 152 to the city on 101 (another 90 miles).
I can find some but I really hate the hit-or-miss nature of the arterials.
at the very least, commercial establishments should invest in some high posts that are visible from well before the decision point for taking the exit vs. staying on the freeway.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on December 29, 2011, 10:04:58 AM
Overall, hope you had a decent trip despite a few traffic observations. Hopefully the weather was to your liking! :-)
The weather was fine, dry, but fine. However, it did strike me as a bit odd to be in shorts and a T-shirt in 75 degree weather on December 26th. :-D
Quote from: roadfro on December 29, 2011, 08:04:54 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 28, 2011, 11:16:58 PM
A few other observations: Jake, I'm sorry, but those old button copy signs have got to go. They're completely illegible at night. Dangerously illegible. I couldn't discern even with the lights shining on them. CalTrans needs mileposts in the worst way, and needs to add signage letting folks know where the next exit is.
I used to agree on the old signs, but now I find them quite charming and appreciate the historical insight and intrigue they provide. Many of them could stand a good power wash or something to get rid of the rust from bolts and such. CalTrans does need to be better about maintaining the lighting on their older signs until they get replaced...
I'm not quite sure why CalTrans *needs* mileposts. Besides, CalTrans has their postmile system which doubles for the same purpose as mileposts for maintenance and motorist aid purposes. The typical driver doesn't really use mileposts all that much anyway. Adding exit numbers is much more useful for navigational purposes than mileposts would be. (Although, I think CalTrans did miss an opportunity to implement both exit numbers and conventional mileposts with CalNExUS...)
I am a bit confused as to what you mean by CalTrans needing to "add signage letting folks know where the next exit is." Are interchange sequence signs and/or advance guide signs insufficient?
CalTrans does not seem to put up signs letting you know the distance to the next exit at most interchanges from what I saw. Here, around Chicago, IDOT and ISTHA usually put up two or three signs on a gantry. One is for this exit with an arrow. The middle one is for the very next exit regardless of distance, and the third is for the exit after that with a distance. Even WisDOT and InDOT with similar signs in the median to CalTrans use the system described above.
Also, in my experience, drivers to indeed use mileposts to navigate in distance-based exit numbering systems. It's a quick way to figure out how far you are from your exit and the next exit. California sorely needs them, IMHO. Postmiles that reset at county lines don't cut it.
Quote from: Brandon on December 29, 2011, 09:33:22 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 29, 2011, 08:04:54 PM
I am a bit confused as to what you mean by CalTrans needing to "add signage letting folks know where the next exit is." Are interchange sequence signs and/or advance guide signs insufficient?
CalTrans does not seem to put up signs letting you know the distance to the next exit at most interchanges from what I saw. Here, around Chicago, IDOT and ISTHA usually put up two or three signs on a gantry. One is for this exit with an arrow. The middle one is for the very next exit regardless of distance, and the third is for the exit after that with a distance. Even WisDOT and InDOT with similar signs in the median to CalTrans use the system described above.
What it sounds like you're describing is having one or two advance guide signs (i.e. "Main St / Exit 1 Mile") adjacent to the the exit direction sign for each exit. I was interpreting your comment as something akin to a sign stating "Next exit 14 miles".
CalTrans does tend to rely more on the interchange sequence signs in urban areas (these are the ones mounted in the median with distance to the next 3 exits), but does typically use one advance guide sign at the previous interchange. In rural areas, that first advance sign is not always at the previous exit due to increased spacing but closer to 1-mile or 2-miles out. Both practices follow pretty closely with national MUTCD guidance. Two advance guide signs is a bit overkill, IMO.
EDIT: Fixed quotes.
Quote from: Brandon on December 29, 2011, 09:33:22 PM
CalTrans does not seem to put up signs letting you know the distance to the next exit at most interchanges from what I saw. Here, around Chicago, IDOT and ISTHA usually put up two or three signs on a gantry. One is for this exit with an arrow. The middle one is for the very next exit regardless of distance, and the third is for the exit after that with a distance. Even WisDOT and InDOT with similar signs in the median to CalTrans use the system described above.
Wait, so you want CalTrans to sign rural exits like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-43_ohs.png&hash=823e7021f479218fb87425a8f38c91b0e9a66070)
Edit: I think I got the exit numbers reversed on this sign but you get the point.
Like roadfro said, in urban areas there are plenty of interchange sequence signs to list exits and distances. Newer sign installations up here in the Bay Area, are pretty good about including an advance guide sign for the next exit on the same sign bridge as the exit direction sign.
Quote from: Brandon on December 29, 2011, 09:33:22 PM
Also, in my experience, drivers do indeed use mileposts to navigate in distance-based exit numbering systems. It's a quick way to figure out how far you are from your exit and the next exit. California sorely needs them, IMHO. Postmiles that reset at county lines don't cut it.
While it would be nice to have mileposts, I don't find them to be an absolute necessity. I'd rather have Caltrans spend what money they have repaving our freeways instead of installing mileposts. Besides, a 1-mile advance guide sign or an interchange sequence sign should give you more than enough time to make your way to the right lane and exit the freeway.
^^ Exactly. That's rather common around here. ISTHA uses it all the time, even if the next exit is 22 miles away.
Some states use a "Next Exit plaque": http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#figure2E23
Quote from: Brandon on December 30, 2011, 10:36:08 PM
^^ Exactly. That's rather common around here. ISTHA uses it all the time, even if the next exit is 22 miles away.
Sounds like a waste to me. What advantage does a 7 1/2 mile advance guide sign have over a 1 mile advance guide sign. [sarcasm]Do drivers where you live need 7 1/2 miles (or 22 in your post) to merge into the right lane to exit the freeway?[/sarcasm]
Seriously, since I grew up in a state that didn't have exit numbers until the past 10 years or so, I learned to navigate primarily by road name and route numbers so I, personally, have little use for exit numbers. They're nice for people unfamiliar with the area but if you ask a local for directions, I highly doubt you'll get "take 99 north to exit 46". Instead you'll get "take 99 north to Golden State Blvd"
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 31, 2011, 01:35:38 AM
They're nice for people unfamiliar with the area but if you ask a local for directions, I highly doubt you'll get "take 99 north to exit 46". Instead you'll get "take 99 north to Golden State Blvd"
"But make sure you stay on 99 until the Golden State Boulevard exit in Fresno. Don't get off at any of the other Golden State Boulevard exits."
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2011, 01:43:03 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 31, 2011, 01:35:38 AM
They're nice for people unfamiliar with the area but if you ask a local for directions, I highly doubt you'll get "take 99 north to exit 46". Instead you'll get "take 99 north to Golden State Blvd"
"But make sure you stay on 99 until the Golden State Boulevard exit in Fresno. Don't get off at any of the other Golden State Boulevard exits."
Agreed, NE2. Some fraternity brothers and I got tripped up in SoCal a few years ago on our way to a service event--we exited some freeway a few miles too early and got onto the wrong Mission Boulevard resulting in us getting lost. Having an exit number to reference certainly would have given me more confidence to stay on the highway.
My bad! :banghead:
Using Golden State Blvd wasn't the best road to use in my last post but there aren't a whole lot of examples of a road intersecting a freeway multiple times.
With regards to Mission Blvd in Fremont, yeah, that can be a tad confusing. Traveling south on 680, the first Mission Blvd exit is also signed as CA-238 and is locally known as the "North" Mission exit. The second exit is signed as CA-262/TO I-880 and is locally known as the "South" Mission exit. Of course, this probably doesn't help an out-of-towner. At least the southbound signs for these exits were replaced and now include exit numbers (but not the northbound signs).
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 31, 2011, 11:39:20 AM
With regards to Mission Blvd in Fremont, yeah, that can be a tad confusing. Traveling south on 680, the first Mission Blvd exit is also signed as CA-238 and is locally known as the "North" Mission exit. The second exit is signed as CA-262/TO I-880 and is locally known as the "South" Mission exit. Of course, this probably doesn't help an out-of-towner. At least the southbound signs for these exits were replaced and now include exit numbers (but not the northbound signs).
I actually think the Mission Boulevard being referred to here is the former US 60 near Riverside...which has two distinct, non-continuous segments nowadays due to the Pomona Freeway/current Route 60.
"Mission Street" and "El Camino Real" all pop up repeatedly to some degree off US 101 from LA to SF as well.
Oh yeah, didn't see the part of roadfro's post that says he was in southern Californa.
My bad (again!) :banghead: :banghead:
Actually, in thinking about it, I misstated that we were in southern California... myosh's explanation reminded me of where we were and that the camp we were going to wasn't that far south. I just remember it being an incredibly long drive and taking waaaaay longer than it should have, but that was because we hit snow and were stopped for well nearly two hours on I-80 east heading toward Donner Pass on the way back to Reno.
Quote from: Brandon on December 28, 2011, 11:16:58 PM
Noticed that the CalNEXUS programs is either half-assed or half finished. Some signs had exit numbers while others were devoid of them. They're damned useless without proper mileposts.
Most numbers are only being installed when signs are replaced due to being knocked down or because of a construction project. As someone else noted, many exits in Los Angeles County are not numbered. The portion of I-5 in Kern County from the 99 junction southward is well numbered. Mileposts have been deemed to expensive to install, given the extensive amount of freeways we have here. A couple of "test sections" of mileposts may be found on Route 58 near Mojave, and also on Route 14 north of Mojave.
Quote from: Brandon on December 28, 2011, 11:16:58 PM
Driving around Bakersfield was an adventure. Every flipping left turn is protected only. If there was a signal, the left had no permitted phase. Rather silly, IMHO. If it's clear, then you should be able to go.
California is the home of the protected left turn. Very few urban areas have permissive left turns. Los Angeles has quite a few, but it seems like they are just about the only city that does.
Quote from: Brandon on December 28, 2011, 11:16:58 PM
The revenue..er..red light cameras have no advance warning signs (required in Illinois).
There is supposed to be a regulatory sign at the major entry points to each city that uses red light cameras. This sign shows a graphic of a signal and the words "PHOTO ENFORCED".
Quote from: Brandon on December 28, 2011, 11:16:58 PM
One thing I noticed about California, as compared to the Midwest, is that population seems every concentrated. You have one place with a lot of people, and then miles upon miles of nothing in between. Here, people seem a bit more spread out.
But even where the population is concentrated, it's not very dense. San Francisco is about the only place where the density is high. It's also why transit works far better there than any place else in California.
Quote from: Brandon on December 28, 2011, 11:16:58 PM
What is the point of the border patrol crappola..er..station north of San Diego? All it seemed to do was stop up traffic for no really good reason.
You'll find one of those on every major route leaving San Diego.
Quote from: Brandon on December 28, 2011, 11:16:58 PM
A few other observations: Jake, I'm sorry, but those old button copy signs have got to go. They're completely illegible at night. Dangerously illegible. I couldn't discern even with the lights shining on them. CalTrans needs mileposts in the worst way, and needs to add signage letting folks know where the next exit is. They also need more services signage between LA and San Diego. Had to guess at an exit for a gas station in Carlsbad and got lucky. IMHO, CalTrans is way behind the times and needs to catchup to where the Midwest is. It's hard to believe they were an innovator at one time. I do; however, like the separate truck lanes at major interchanges. It's a good idea; would not mind seeing it implemented here, especially along I-80.
I agree that our button copy signs are pretty bad, particularly when they are not lit. There are just so many of them out there that it will take years to get rid of them all.
Other people have already commented on the use of signing identifying the distance to the next exit. The Caltrans district in the San Francisco Bay Area is good at identifying the next exit and the distance to it at each offramp. The district that covers Sacramento is starting to get into the practice of using both the "exit sequence" signs (the G23(CA) sign) as well as the signs identifying the next exit and the distance (the G83(CA) sign). In Southern California they seem to depend heavily on the G23(CA) signs.
As for the services signing, unfortunately, those signs can only be used in rural areas, and not on urban freeways.
It would be interesting to get your take on northern California freeways, if you ever get up that way.
I went on a driving vacation with a friend of mine through Southern California (centred around L.A.) a few years ago. I found driving in Cali to be a lot of fun. The freeways are pretty cool, though a lot of them are pretty beaten up. I love the button copy signage, though a lot of it probably should be replaced. Button copy is, however, one of those things that is distinctly Californian.
Some of the mountain roads in eastern San Bernardino and San Diego Counties are amazing. I attempted Hwy 173 with a rented Toyota Camry. I made it about halfway down the mountain before reality set in, and I turned around and drove back to Lake Arrowhead.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FCA%2FCA%2F173%2FCA173_Camry_aaforum.jpg&hash=0b98632a288d74050797750465570e2de4b0e461)
Aside from the awesome LA freeways, I think my favourite drive was CA-78 from Julian easterly into Imperial County. Beautiful scenery, and you could fly down that road (even in a gutless Camry).
I put a little California Roads page up on my site after my vacation. I am actually working on a Hollywood Freeway page for it as I write this. If you can handle Canadian spellings, and frequent references to the metric system, check it out:
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/ (http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/)
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 06, 2012, 09:07:08 PM
I went on a driving vacation with a friend of mine through Southern California (centred around L.A.) a few years ago. I found driving in Cali to be a lot of fun. The freeways are pretty cool, though a lot of them are pretty beaten up. I love the button copy signage, though a lot of it probably should be replaced. Button copy is, however, one of those things that is distinctly Californian.
Button copy is not distinctly Californian. Indiana and Ohio were big users of it, as was IDOT (IL) District 1 in the 1980s and 1990s. The main difference, I found, is that we tend to use reflectorized backgrounds that allow for easier, IMHO, reading of the signs.
Sure, every state used button copy at one point or another, but no state still has the distinct (read: old) signage stock that California does.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 06, 2012, 09:19:27 PM
Sure, every state used button copy at one point or another, but no state still has the distinct (read: old) signage stock that California does.
True, but that stems more from neglect and lack of replacement than anything else. I'd say, and this may sting a bit, that the neglect is distinctly Californian.
In some areas, Caltrans redone the most of the signage, but they inevitably miss a few old button copy signs here and there. (Perhaps their inventory records are incomplete?)
Another thing I've noticed about the SF Bay Area is that Caltrans generally avoids using Big Green Signs for major interchanges until you are right up on the junction. Other states will usually have a BGS a mile or so ahead, especially if there is dedicated lanes. I've been with a number of people who missed their exit in unfamiliar areas, and I suspect it's somewhat due to the lack of signing.
Quote from: flowmotion on January 08, 2012, 03:24:02 AM
Another thing I've noticed about the SF Bay Area is that Caltrans generally avoids using Big Green Signs for major interchanges until you are right up on the junction. Other states will usually have a BGS a mile or so ahead, especially if there is dedicated lanes. I've been with a number of people who missed their exit in unfamiliar areas, and I suspect it's somewhat due to the lack of signing.
Hmm, examples? The signage for I-80 isn't the greatest off of US 101 north past Army Street, but it is there. (Honestly, just like the distance-to-major-junction signs on I-280 south in Santa Clara County, the Skyway/Central Freeway split where 80 begins really should be signed as far south as the 3rd Street exit.)
I recall plenty of signage for the 880/580 ramps from 80 east and west towards the MacArthur Maze
There's the awkward "US 101 San Jose/Golden Gate Bridge" signage on I-80 west after the Bay Bridge (when in the 1980s I-80 had been on the BGSes, as opposed to only one reassurance shield now). I actually got confused several weeks ago in SF along 4th Street for the exact opposite reason: ramp for I-80 west to US 101 south was marked as US 101 south on BGS, but an I-80 (not I-80 to US 101) shield only at the Freeway Entrance assembly, so I ended up taking 280 south instead when I could've used that ramp and been fine.
The US 101/Route 1 split in the Presidio isn't signed all that well going southbound at all, and historically wasn't northbound along Doyle Drive (though this might change once the modern limited-access Presidio Parkway is completed and replaces the original Doyle structure).
I read the recent California Highways update and it asppears the major money was approved for a large scale BGS replacement in San Diego. All the signs on da 8 east are replaced after 2nd street in ElCajon, what annoys me it that out here they put up brand new signs that are word for word the same as the old ones, and hence do not meet current standards: 3 consecutive exits out here have as their next to last sign before exit: "exit 1/4 mile" then the next exit is "right lane" followed by "next right" on the exit after, no consistancy whatsoever. My exit has a brand new auxilllary control sign of "Boulevard/Manzanita" even though niether were incorporated, Manzanita dissapeared around 1980 making the sign unneeded since the main exit signs all have Campo/Boulevard anyway.
Here is the specific verbage frm Californias highways:
In San Diego County, on I-5, I-8, I-15, Route 163 and I-805. Replace overhead and roadside signs at 53 locations to update access point information that has changed since relinquishment of two former routes; to upgrade sign panel materials for increased visibility and legibility; and to provide exit numbering information.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on January 08, 2012, 10:06:57 AM
Here is the specific verbage frm Californias highways:
In San Diego County, on I-5, I-8, I-15, Route 163 and I-805. Replace overhead and roadside signs at 53 locations to update access point information that has changed since relinquishment of two former routes; to upgrade sign panel materials for increased visibility and legibility; and to provide exit numbering information.
The two routes being referenced are Route 209 and Route 274...no freeway signage for 209 anymore as of my two trips in San Diego in 2011, though I recall some street blade signs still containing a shield.
One side effect of this sign updating project: I don't think I've seen it in NorCal, a sign style with center-justified text, i.e.
"SOUTH
Rosecrans St
1/4 mile"
all centered, as opposed to, say...
"Watt Ave
South
1/4 mile"
Quote from: TheStranger on January 08, 2012, 05:21:26 AM
Hmm, examples?
US101 going south from San Francisco to San Jose has very few advanced BGSs for I-280, I-380, CA-92, CA-237, CA-87, I-880. There's a few here & there (perhaps more going North), but mostly the junctions don't get a dedicated sign until right before the exit. I-880 and other freeways similar.
Hmmm...
Not sure what you're looking for in an advance guide sign but if you're looking for an advance guide sign with down arrows *and* a distance, forget about it. Caltrans does not post such signs, in general.
I find the signs on 101 consistent with the way Caltrans handles advance guide signs. The problem is, in urban areas, exits are pretty close together (1/2 mile or so apart) which I'll admit does limit how much advance warning drivers get but interchange sequence signs are plentiful so as long as you pay attention, you should have sufficient notice of intersecting highways.
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 09, 2012, 12:52:50 AM
Hmmm...
Not sure what you're looking for in an advance guide sign but if you're looking for an advance guide sign with down arrows *and* a distance, forget about it. Caltrans does not post such signs, in general.
I find the signs on 101 consistent with the way Caltrans handles advance guide signs. The problem is, in urban areas, exits are pretty close together (1/2 mile or so apart) which I'll admit does limit how much advance warning drivers get but interchange sequence signs are plentiful so as long as you pay attention, you should have sufficient notice of intersecting highways.
I think this ties in with something I brought up before (how some Bay Area VMSes refer to destinations, rather than specific interchanges, in their time calculations)...
If going on I-280 south, I recall you get signage for 17 AND 85 on a roadside sign approximately 4 or 5 miles in advance, independent of intermediate (minor) interchanges...why not do that more often for all major highway junctions?
So for instance, at the Cow Palace interchange on 101 north, you'd already get a roadside sign measuring the distance to the Alemany Maze (I-280) and the Central Freeway & Skyway (I-80) split...and then continue to have anticipatory signage to I-80 every few miles.
Quote from: TheStranger on January 08, 2012, 03:54:37 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on January 08, 2012, 10:06:57 AM
Here is the specific verbage frm Californias highways:
In San Diego County, on I-5, I-8, I-15, Route 163 and I-805. Replace overhead and roadside signs at 53 locations to update access point information that has changed since relinquishment of two former routes; to upgrade sign panel materials for increased visibility and legibility; and to provide exit numbering information.
The two routes being referenced are Route 209 and Route 274...no freeway signage for 209 anymore as of my two trips in San Diego in 2011, though I recall some street blade signs still containing a shield.
209 still has enough signage to get by.
Quote from: TheStranger on January 08, 2012, 03:54:37 PM
One side effect of this sign updating project: I don't think I've seen it in NorCal, a sign style with center-justified text, i.e.
"SOUTH
Rosecrans St
1/4 mile"
all centered, as opposed to, say...
"Watt Ave
South
1/4 mile"
I hate that type of thing. There is no access to a northbound direction of Rosecrans. It begins at the interchange. Leaving the cardinal direction will only confuse people more. When you remove the shield, take the cardinal direction down too!
Quote from: TheStranger on January 08, 2012, 03:54:37 PM
"SOUTH
Rosecrans St
1/4 mile"
that is a carbon-copy of the old "209 SOUTH - Rosecrans St - 1/4 mile" sign which had the 209 shield removed.
the worst example I can think of is 5 northbound at 52, which has a similar WEST for La Jolla Parkway, which was at one point 52 west. now 52 (east only) and La Jolla Parkway (west only) start at 5.
it gets extra confusing because there is a single exit-only lane to serve them both, and before the split, you get signs which say "La Jolla Parkway/52", leaving it ambiguous as to whether the two are two designations for the same stretch of road, or they refer to different stretches. then, the exit-only lane
splits in two, yielding "WEST La Jolla Parkway" to the right, and "52 EAST" to the left.
so we have several separate problems of varying degrees of egregiousness:
1) given the existence of many, many named freeways in California, it is logical to expect that "52" and "La Jolla Parkway" refer to precisely the same length of road. This is incorrect - at no point do they overlap, as one is on one side of 5 and one is on the other.
2) no control cities: 52 EAST does not, by name, go anywhere (Santee or El Cajon would be the correct control city). La Jolla Parkway is implied to go to La Jolla - maybe? It needs to be made explicit as well. This absence of control cities just enhances point "1".
3) the floating WEST banner for La Jolla Parkway is definitely a mistake which needs to be patched out. Here, we do not give banners to street names. Certainly not all-caps ones.
4) a/b exits (where the exit-only lane splits in two before it has detached from the freeway) are sufficiently rare in California that they require much more precise signage. The driver's instinct is to assume that the EXIT ONLY implies a single exit, consisting of a single ramp, and if one bears right to make the right-hand exit, he will be led towards his destination, which is "La Jolla Parkway - 52" - and later, when one has detached from I-5, he may make the decision on the correct direction of 52 he wishes to take. This is not the case. There are three gantries for this exit: the first two are "La Jolla Parkway - 52" and only the third - when the exit lane has just about completely split and correcting one's lane choice is getting dicey - mentions that "52" and "La Jolla Parkway" are, in fact, discrete entities going in opposite directions.
5) another flaw in the exit design - the flyover lane. The right fork of the ramp (WEST La Jolla Parkway) swings left. Therefore, to make a correct, instinctive right curve to go from 5 northbound to 52 eastbound, one has to bear left-and-then-right. This certainly needs to be signed in advance much more elaborately than a single sign at the split where the driver is suddenly shown a scrambled flyover maze.
yep, you can guess how many times I ended up on La Jolla Parkway, instead of 52, before I figured this one out.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 18, 2012, 05:06:22 PM
(2) no control cities: 52 EAST does not, by name, go anywhere (Santee or El Cajon would be the correct control city). La Jolla Parkway is implied to go to La Jolla - maybe? It needs to be made explicit as well. This absence of control cities just enhances point "1".
I've only seen 52-related control cities in one spot: 125 NB gives Santee for 52 EB, and....
San Diego for 52 WB.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 18, 2012, 05:06:22 PM
4) a/b exits (where the exit-only lane splits in two before it has detached from the freeway) are sufficiently rare in California that they require much more precise signage. The driver's instinct is to assume that the EXIT ONLY implies a single exit, consisting of a single ramp, and if one bears right to make the right-hand exit, he will be led towards his destination, which is "La Jolla Parkway - 52" - and later, when one has detached from I-5, he may make the decision on the correct direction of 52 he wishes to take. This is not the case. There are three gantries for this exit: the first two are "La Jolla Parkway - 52" and only the third - when the exit lane has just about completely split and correcting one's lane choice is getting dicey - mentions that "52" and "La Jolla Parkway" are, in fact, discrete entities going in opposite directions.
See also: 5 SB at Washington St and the airport exit. There's a nice BGS saying "Exit Only" for the airport, even though Washington St exits first. Actually, the airport exit is bad on its own, because it's marked as "San Diego Airport" on some signs, "Sassafras St" on at least one, and "Kettner Blvd" on yet a third version. All for the same exit! A friend was dropping me off one time and got angry at me for giving me bad directions... "so which one of those exits is it?"
Quote from: citrus on January 19, 2012, 12:11:22 AM
See also: 5 SB at Washington St and the airport exit. There's a nice BGS saying "Exit Only" for the airport, even though Washington St exits first.
there's something about Washington St. 163 southbound at Washington St is an a/b exit as well. Yep, gotten lost there as well.
there's something very unintuitive about this style of exit design: when one sees "exit only", it reasonable to expect that by following the curve of the exit, he may access all of the destinations shown on the "exit only" sign - as opposed to having to make a decision while still on the freeway.
this is compounded, again, by the fact that there usually is just a single sign at the gore point to warn that things are not as they seem.
I wonder if there is a signage-only change that can alleviate this situation.
maybe take the "exit only" status of the lane away until the second exit? sign the first exit as a standard exit, and then the second as "exit only". I don't know if this allows traffic which wants to stay on the mainline enough time to leave the "exit only" lane.
one example which we could potentially use as a model is the non-exit-only a/b exit at Laval Road on I-5 southbound just north of the Grapevine. that does not feature any lane drops, and therefore needs no "exit only" signage. it is signed well in advance as having two separate exits - one for west, and then one for east, Laval Road.
(that exit is horrible for other reasons, but they are not relevant to this discussion.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 18, 2012, 05:06:22 PM
so we have several separate problems of varying degrees of egregiousness:
2) no control cities: 52 EAST does not, by name, go anywhere (Santee or El Cajon would be the correct control city). La Jolla Parkway is implied to go to La Jolla - maybe? It needs to be made explicit as well. This absence of control cities just enhances point "1".
Didn't it use to say "San Clemente Canyon"?
Control cities are not very prevalent on a lot of the freeways in San Diego.
Hey Brandon, you came to notice California's love of its roads and a high affinity for cars. :nod: But the state dept. of transportation (CalTrans) are underfunded and in need of an overhaul. Roads may be fun, but they need regular maintainence or we let our infrastructure go into decline or despair. We need more funds to keep our roads in shape and repair (hey...it rhymes). :rolleyes: I still recall when the current I-15 freeway from Devore/I-215 to Temecula/I-215 was the "proposed 15-west" and at first was the "California State Route 31/71" meant to replace the older then-rural highways.
Actually, Mike, California's love of roads and high affinity for cars isn't really any different than what you'd find in Michigan, particularly Metro Detroit.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on January 08, 2012, 10:06:57 AMHere is the specific verbage frm Californias highways:
In San Diego County, on I-5, I-8, I-15, Route 163 and I-805. Replace overhead and roadside signs at 53 locations to update access point information that has changed since relinquishment of two former routes; to upgrade sign panel materials for increased visibility and legibility; and to provide exit numbering information.
This contract has now been advertised under contract number 11-291704 (link remains good for this contract until 9 AM next Monday):
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/weekly_ads/attach_a.php
(As an aside, $660,000 has been budgeted for this contract, which is hardly "major money" as signing contracts go. Major money would be somewhere in the $2 million range.) As TheStranger says, the relinquished routes are SR 209 and SR 274, and the contract calls just for SR 209 and SR 274 shields to be patched over (with "greenout") on existing guide signs. Including approach road signage as well as guide signs on freeway mainlines, this contract has just 13 sign panel detail sheets.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 23, 2012, 01:25:00 PMthe contract calls just for SR 209 and SR 274 shields to be patched over (with "greenout") on existing guide signs.
retroreflective greenout on old porcelain is fairly hideous... but it beats a full sign replacement.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 23, 2012, 01:30:30 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 23, 2012, 01:25:00 PMthe contract calls just for SR 209 and SR 274 shields to be patched over (with "greenout") on existing guide signs.
retroreflective greenout on old porcelain is fairly hideous... but it beats a full sign replacement.
One creative way CalTrans has done this in Norcal:
Route 84 used to go through downtown Livermore until about 4-5 years ago, when it was moved to the Isabel Avenue bypass. On the signage on 580, the space where the 84 shield (on the original exit) originally sat has been replaced with...exit number square!
Quote from: TheStranger on January 23, 2012, 03:18:27 PM
One creative way CalTrans has done this in Norcal:
Route 84 used to go through downtown Livermore until about 4-5 years ago, when it was moved to the Isabel Avenue bypass. On the signage on 580, the space where the 84 shield (on the original exit) originally sat has been replaced with...exit number square!
Heh, that's a pretty creative way of covering up a route shield and adding an exit number. Here is one of the signs TheStranger is referring to...
First, the before picture...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images580/i-580_wb_exit_054_01.jpg)
Then the after picture...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images580/i-580_wb_exit_054_01a.jpg)
Would have been nicer if the colors matched, though. Seems newer sign installations are using a much brighter green than before. The MUTCD approximates it as Pantone value 342.
Quote from: Quillz on January 23, 2012, 05:16:30 PM
Would have been nicer if the colors matched, though. Seems newer sign installations are using a much brighter green than before. The MUTCD approximates it as Pantone value 342.
In the signs I posted above, the color will *never* match. Older California guide signs that use button-copy used a non-retroreflective sheeting. All new signs will be the same color as the exit number overlay.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 23, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
This contract has now been advertised under contract number 11-291704 (link remains good for this contract until 9 AM next Monday):
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/weekly_ads/attach_a.php
(As an aside, $660,000 has been budgeted for this contract, which is hardly "major money" as signing contracts go. Major money would be somewhere in the $2 million range.) As TheStranger says, the relinquished routes are SR 209 and SR 274, and the contract calls just for SR 209 and SR 274 shields to be patched over (with "greenout") on existing guide signs. Including approach road signage as well as guide signs on freeway mainlines, this contract has just 13 sign panel detail sheets.
In looking at these plans, I see where they called for preserving the cardinal direction of SOUTH on some of the signs for Rosecrans Street (former State Route 209). The cardinal direction is being preserved because the I-5 route shield will remain. On the subsequent sign that is just for the ramp to Rosecrans Street, there is no cardinal direction. You might recall I complained about the practice of leaving the cardinal direction in an earlier post, but that clearly is not the case here.
WTF was wrong with puting the exit tab on top of the sign?
Quote from: Brandon on January 29, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
WTF was wrong with puting the exit tab on top of the sign?
What's wrong with it the way it is?
Quote from: blawp on January 29, 2012, 11:09:07 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 29, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
WTF was wrong with puting the exit tab on top of the sign?
What's wrong with it the way it is?
It's called the MUTCd.
Quote from: Upside down frog in a triangle on January 29, 2012, 11:17:32 PM
Quote from: blawp on January 29, 2012, 11:09:07 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 29, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
WTF was wrong with puting the exit tab on top of the sign?
What's wrong with it the way it is?
It's called the MUTCd.
California has their own marked up version of the MUTCD, and this sign is compliant.
Quote from: blawp on January 30, 2012, 08:37:25 AM
Quote from: Upside down frog in a triangle on January 29, 2012, 11:17:32 PM
Quote from: blawp on January 29, 2012, 11:09:07 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 29, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
WTF was wrong with puting the exit tab on top of the sign?
What's wrong with it the way it is?
It's called the MUTCd.
California has their own marked up version of the MUTCD, and this sign is compliant.
CA has so many people, it gets to bend things mercilessly. The exit tabs inside the sign should never have been allowed on any new sign, only as a temporary fix until signs are replaced.
As I have a said a number of times, California's reasoning for putting the exit tab inside the sign panel was due to existing wind-loading requirements that precluded Caltrans from using "regular" tabs. Simply put, the sign structures (sign bridges, mounting hardware, etc) cannot handle external tabs as currently designed. I read somewhere that Caltrans has developed or updated some of this hardware to accommodate external tabs but I suspect existing hardware is going to be used until the supply has been exhausted. Perhaps, jrouse can clarify this issue as he is a Caltrans employee.
I'd suggest visiting Daniel Faigin's cahighways.org site for a more indepth explanation on this issue (http://www.cahighways.org/num-exitnum.html).
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 31, 2012, 01:41:33 AM
As I have a said a number of times, California's reasoning for putting the exit tab inside the sign panel was due to existing wind-loading requirements that precluded Caltrans from using "regular" tabs. Simply put, the sign structures (sign bridges, mounting hardware, etc) cannot handle external tabs as currently designed. I read somewhere that Caltrans has developed or updated some of this hardware to accommodate external tabs but I suspect existing hardware is going to be used until the supply has been exhausted. Perhaps, jrouse can clarify this issue as he is a Caltrans employee.
I'd suggest visiting Daniel Faigin's cahighways.org site for a more indepth explanation on this issue (http://www.cahighways.org/num-exitnum.html).
I'm convinced it's a CalTrans cop-out. Nevada uses the same sign bridges with external tabs, and I suspect, similar wind loading stresses.
Quote from: Brandon on January 31, 2012, 07:19:29 AM
I'm convinced it's a CalTrans cop-out. Nevada uses the same sign bridges with external tabs, and I suspect, similar wind loading stresses.
But IIRC, the method of fabricating sign panels is different between Nevada and California and it's also possible the mounting hardware is different. While these differences are not visually apparent, they could be the reason why California is doing what it's doing.
It's incorrect. I don't know how they do their structure design, but if the sign were 18" shorter, the exit tab would cause less wind loading than existing. A lot of these signs have greenouts and non-MUTCD compliant destinations that can be eliminated. Exit tabs should be the standard, period.
Quote from: Steve on January 31, 2012, 08:06:15 PM
It's incorrect. I don't know how they do their structure design, but if the sign were 18" shorter, the exit tab would cause less wind loading than existing. A lot of these signs have greenouts and non-MUTCD compliant destinations that can be eliminated. Exit tabs should be the standard, period.
Then why aren't you ragging on Washington's full width tabs? Or Oregon's centered tabs?
If the way California is trying to add exit numbers annoys so many out-of-staters, then maybe Caltrans should abandon exit numbering all together. X-( I know that won't happen but frankly I don't think a majority of Californians care about exit numbering.
Finally, remember that the FHWA signed off on California's 2012 MUTCD which includes provisions for both internal and external tabs.
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 31, 2012, 09:12:24 PM
Quote from: Steve on January 31, 2012, 08:06:15 PM
It's incorrect. I don't know how they do their structure design, but if the sign were 18" shorter, the exit tab would cause less wind loading than existing. A lot of these signs have greenouts and non-MUTCD compliant destinations that can be eliminated. Exit tabs should be the standard, period.
Then why aren't you ragging on Washington's full width tabs? Or Oregon's centered tabs?
If the way California is trying to add exit numbers annoys so many out-of-staters, then maybe Caltrans should abandon exit numbering all together. X-( I know that won't happen but frankly I don't think a majority of Californians care about exit numbering.
Finally, remember that the FHWA signed off on California's 2012 MUTCD which includes provisions for both internal and external tabs.
Damn, dude, you think because I don't name every single instance that I support them all? Shoddy arguing skills, there. I know FHWA signed off on it, but I think it's because of California's significant influence. They tend to get their way because they're a) populous and b) pioneers when it comes to standards, even though many of the standards have been improved by the other 49 states since.
The internal tabs look cleaner, and maintain the even sign height requirements Caltrans has always had.
Quote from: Steve on January 31, 2012, 09:59:52 PM
Damn, dude, you think because I don't name every single instance that I support them all? Shoddy arguing skills, there. I know FHWA signed off on it, but I think it's because of California's significant influence. They tend to get their way because they're a) populous and b) pioneers when it comes to standards, even though many of the standards have been improved by the other 49 states since.
Either that, or you know, because of the fact that the position of an exit tab within a freeway sign really isn't all that important.
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 31, 2012, 12:18:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 31, 2012, 07:19:29 AM
I'm convinced it's a CalTrans cop-out. Nevada uses the same sign bridges with external tabs, and I suspect, similar wind loading stresses.
But IIRC, the method of fabricating sign panels is different between Nevada and California and it's also possible the mounting hardware is different. While these differences are not visually apparent, they could be the reason why California is doing what it's doing.
I kinda understand CalTrans' wind loading explanation for certain types of sign structures, especially older assemblies such as monotubes and box beam sign supports. But the open truss designs which are visually similar to Nevada's standard overhead sign structure...I'm sorry, but I just don't think their wind loading explanation holds water with that kind of reinforced truss. I'd love to see some calcs on it though.
Granted, the sign fabrication and mounting is different between the two states. But NDOT often has larger panel signs that extend above the top of the truss by a foot or two, then the exit tab on top of that... it seems very odd that CalTrans would have such different standards.
But you can also count me in the camp that doesn't mind too terribly California's internal exit number tabs... I am just happy to see exit numbers at all...
Quote from: Steve on January 31, 2012, 09:59:52 PMI know FHWA signed off on it, but I think it's because of California's significant influence. They tend to get their way because they're a) populous and b) pioneers when it comes to standards, even though many of the standards have been improved by the other 49 states since.
I don't think it is influence as such. FHWA has an interest in securing some degree of local buy-in to what are supposed to be uniform national standards. Also, California has so much invested in sign panel designs (such as formed panels in removable sign panel frames) which make exit tabs difficult to do that if FHWA stuck to its guns and insisted that exit numbering had to be carried out solely by means of tabs, Caltrans could plausibly argue that FHWA was inflicting high costs on California for no added benefit, which would attract Congressional action. By bending the rules to accept the California MUTCD as is, FHWA saves both itself and Caltrans from joining a battle neither agency can win.
Quote from: blawp on January 31, 2012, 11:22:52 PM
The internal tabs look cleaner, and maintain the even sign height requirements Caltrans has always had.
They could do the same thing with full-width Illinois-style tabs (and IDOT District 1 does exactly that - having the same height signs across the gantry).
Quote from: blawp on January 31, 2012, 11:22:52 PM
The internal tabs look cleaner, and maintain the even sign height requirements Caltrans has always had.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 31, 2012, 11:40:08 PM
Either that, or you know, because of the fact that the position of an exit tab within a freeway sign really isn't all that important.
But it IS important. The whole idea is to stick out so that it's noticeable when you're looking for your exit. It's a lot harder to see when it blends in with the rest of the sign. If that weren't the case, the MUTCD would allow it within the sign. I think it looks a LOT cleaner to keep it outside of the sign body, and let the sign be symmetrically balanced.
Quote from: Steve on February 01, 2012, 06:53:32 PM
But it IS important. The whole idea is to stick out so that it's noticeable when you're looking for your exit. It's a lot harder to see when it blends in with the rest of the sign. If that weren't the case, the MUTCD would allow it within the sign. I think it looks a LOT cleaner to keep it outside of the sign body, and let the sign be symmetrically balanced.
Can you cite the human factors study that backs up your position? Or are you just supplanting your opinion for the truth. Quebec uses integrated exit tabs for all of its freeway guide signage, and to my knowledge, Quebecers aren't inadvertently driving into fleuve Saint Laurent out of exit number confusion.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 01, 2012, 08:56:22 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 01, 2012, 06:53:32 PM
But it IS important. The whole idea is to stick out so that it's noticeable when you're looking for your exit. It's a lot harder to see when it blends in with the rest of the sign. If that weren't the case, the MUTCD would allow it within the sign. I think it looks a LOT cleaner to keep it outside of the sign body, and let the sign be symmetrically balanced.
Can you cite the human factors study that backs up your position? Or are you just supplanting your opinion for the truth. Quebec uses integrated exit tabs for all of its freeway guide signage, and to my knowledge, Quebecers aren't inadvertently driving into fleuve Saint Laurent out of exit number confusion.
I really like quebec's integrated exit tabs. They have an interesting yellow cutout design.
Quote from: Quillz on February 01, 2012, 10:08:33 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 01, 2012, 08:56:22 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 01, 2012, 06:53:32 PM
But it IS important. The whole idea is to stick out so that it's noticeable when you're looking for your exit. It's a lot harder to see when it blends in with the rest of the sign. If that weren't the case, the MUTCD would allow it within the sign. I think it looks a LOT cleaner to keep it outside of the sign body, and let the sign be symmetrically balanced.
Can you cite the human factors study that backs up your position? Or are you just supplanting your opinion for the truth. Quebec uses integrated exit tabs for all of its freeway guide signage, and to my knowledge, Quebecers aren't inadvertently driving into fleuve Saint Laurent out of exit number confusion.
I really like quebec's integrated exit tabs. They have an interesting yellow cutout design.
And if our exit tabs were similarly a different color, I wouldn't have a problem. Green on green just doesn't contrast. Mr. Asphalt Planet, to accuse me of being subjective implies that your opinion is objective, which it isn't. At least I'm informed by being a traffic engineer in addition to an enthusiast.
Quote from: Steve on February 01, 2012, 10:33:50 PM
And if our exit tabs were similarly a different color, I wouldn't have a problem. Green on green just doesn't contrast. Mr. Asphalt Planet, to accuse me of being subjective implies that your opinion is objective, which it isn't. At least I'm informed by being a traffic engineer in addition to an enthusiast.
I asked you to cite your position to verify its validity. Given that you didn't it's probably fair to infer you can't.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 01, 2012, 10:42:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 01, 2012, 10:33:50 PM
And if our exit tabs were similarly a different color, I wouldn't have a problem. Green on green just doesn't contrast. Mr. Asphalt Planet, to accuse me of being subjective implies that your opinion is objective, which it isn't. At least I'm informed by being a traffic engineer in addition to an enthusiast.
I asked you to cite your position to verify its validity. Given that you didn't it's probably fair to infer you can't.
And I said I'm an engineer, so I'm using engineering judgment and experience. That's a perfectly valid position to hold.
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 31, 2012, 09:12:24 PM
Quote from: Steve on January 31, 2012, 08:06:15 PM
It's incorrect. I don't know how they do their structure design, but if the sign were 18" shorter, the exit tab would cause less wind loading than existing. A lot of these signs have greenouts and non-MUTCD compliant destinations that can be eliminated. Exit tabs should be the standard, period.
Then why aren't you ragging on Washington's full width tabs? Or Oregon's centered tabs?
If the way California is trying to add exit numbers annoys so many out-of-staters, then maybe Caltrans should abandon exit numbering all together. X-( I know that won't happen but frankly I don't think a majority of Californians care about exit numbering.
Finally, remember that the FHWA signed off on California's 2012 MUTCD which includes provisions for both internal and external tabs.
So true, as a California person I got used to no exit numbers. Personally I could care less either way. I always thought it was wierd to drive into other states and see exit numbers. I know in California it used to be we refer to the exit by the road name, not number.
I'm kinda sad to see the older green signs dissapearing, to the new style.
I find exit numbers useful if I know how long a highway is within the state. For example, I-5 is just under 800 miles, so when I'm at "Exit 790," I know I'm almost at the Oregon border and likely some roadside services.
Quote from: Steve on February 01, 2012, 11:39:06 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 01, 2012, 10:42:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 01, 2012, 10:33:50 PMAnd if our exit tabs were similarly a different color, I wouldn't have a problem. Green on green just doesn't contrast. Mr. Asphalt Planet, to accuse me of being subjective implies that your opinion is objective, which it isn't. At least I'm informed by being a traffic engineer in addition to an enthusiast.
I asked you to cite your position to verify its validity. Given that you didn't it's probably fair to infer you can't.
And I said I'm an engineer, so I'm using engineering judgment and experience. That's a perfectly valid position to hold.
But this is not a venue where simple invocation of engineering judgment wins arguments. Strictly speaking, engineering judgment has meaning only in contexts regulated by engineering practice legislation.
For what it is worth, I think there is something in the conspicuity argument for exit tabs, but I know of no study which has investigated tab placement and formatting specifically. Perhaps this is something that could be done through the TCD pooled-fund study.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2012, 05:34:50 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 01, 2012, 11:39:06 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 01, 2012, 10:42:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 01, 2012, 10:33:50 PMAnd if our exit tabs were similarly a different color, I wouldn't have a problem. Green on green just doesn't contrast. Mr. Asphalt Planet, to accuse me of being subjective implies that your opinion is objective, which it isn't. At least I'm informed by being a traffic engineer in addition to an enthusiast.
I asked you to cite your position to verify its validity. Given that you didn't it's probably fair to infer you can't.
And I said I'm an engineer, so I'm using engineering judgment and experience. That's a perfectly valid position to hold.
But this is not a venue where simple invocation of engineering judgment wins arguments. Strictly speaking, engineering judgment has meaning only in contexts regulated by engineering practice legislation.
For what it is worth, I think there is something in the conspicuity argument for exit tabs, but I know of no study which has investigated tab placement and formatting specifically. Perhaps this is something that could be done through the TCD pooled-fund study.
I know of no such study offhand, but the FHWA has considerable archives. I trust that the MUTCD has put considerable thought into its rulemaking.
Quote from: Steve on February 06, 2012, 08:16:45 PMI know of no such study offhand, but the FHWA has considerable archives. I trust that the MUTCD has put considerable thought into its rulemaking.
Having had some experience with the
MUTCD rulemaking process, it is evident to me that the research support for individual provisions of the
MUTCD is uneven. For example, the stippled-arrow diagrammatics (part of the
MUTCD since the 1970's) were the result of a major study incorporating both tachistoscope work and real-world test signs (including the famous 70S/Democracy Blvd. sign). In comparison, the recent addition of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics was based entirely on tachistoscope work. The
MUTCD also now has a fair number of warning signs whose research origin appears to be a synthesis of existing practice among state DOTs, which did not and was not intended to investigate the effectiveness of those signs (this is the same study that was eventually discovered by MTR denizens and found to have many unattributed road enthusiast photos).
The FHWA
MUTCD team has very good access to research work, including work done by state DOTs and universities which has not yet entered a formal publications process. However, I am skeptical that there is a major study into exit tab design which is hidden from TRIS and similar search engines.
It is certainly true that the
MUTCD does specify that exit numbers should be put on a "separate plaque at the top of the Advance Guide or Exit Direction sign," but this language has not changed between the 2003 and 2009 editions of the
MUTCD (in 2003 it appears at § 2E.28; in 2009 it appears at § 2E.31). While the illustrations have invariably shown part-width tabs which are not part of the main sign panel, I see little evidence that this particular provision has ever been interpreted (either by FHWA or a state DOT) to prohibit full-width tabs which are structurally part of the main sign panel, as used in Illinois DOT District 1 and in Washington state. It could even be argued (rather jesuitically) that the California bitten-out tabs comply since they are bordered overlays on one part of the sign panel (thus visually separate from the main panel legend) and their top edges coincide with the top edge of the sign.
In my view, the real problem with Caltrans exit tabs has less to do with their format and more to do with the fact that they are substandard in terms of letter and digit height (and can force legend on the main sign panel to substandard heights if designed to accord with Caltrans TOPS circular 02-04). But this is something for which Caltrans civil engineers have collectively accepted responsibility through the exercise of engineering judgment. You may not agree with it, I may not agree with it, and even California FHWA staffers may find it hard to swallow, but in view of the fact that implementing a pure vanilla approach to tab placement and format in California would entail significant added hardware costs, I can see why they settled for half a loaf.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 07, 2012, 04:18:38 AM
In my view, the real problem with Caltrans exit tabs has less to do with their format and more to do with the fact that they are substandard in terms of letter and digit height (and can force legend on the main sign panel to substandard heights if designed to accord with Caltrans TOPS circular 02-04).
I'm sure the 120-inch maximum sign panel height also played a role in determining the size of the exit "tabs" (24" tabs, 8" EXIT, 12" numerals) and the if needed reduction of the main legend from 16/12 to 13.3/10 (or smaller).
There's also a note in the California Coded Sign Specifications page that new sign specs (or changes to existing sign specs) relating to changes made in the 2012 California MUTCD are due shortly. It will be interesting to see what's added or deleted and what gets changed.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 07, 2012, 04:18:38 AM
Quote from: Steve on February 06, 2012, 08:16:45 PMI know of no such study offhand, but the FHWA has considerable archives. I trust that the MUTCD has put considerable thought into its rulemaking.
Having had some experience with the MUTCD rulemaking process, it is evident to me that the research support for individual provisions of the MUTCD is uneven. For example, the stippled-arrow diagrammatics (part of the MUTCD since the 1970's) were the result of a major study incorporating both tachistoscope work and real-world test signs (including the famous 70S/Democracy Blvd. sign). In comparison, the recent addition of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics was based entirely on tachistoscope work.
Not really - Canada has used arrow-per-lane signs for a long time. If someone else has already done field tests, why duplicate?
QuoteThe MUTCD also now has a fair number of warning signs whose research origin appears to be a synthesis of existing practice among state DOTs, which did not and was not intended to investigate the effectiveness of those signs (this is the same study that was eventually discovered by MTR denizens and found to have many unattributed road enthusiast photos).
Individual DOTs get to apply to try out certain symbol signs. Others, such as PA's "EXCEPT RIGHT TURN" under stop signs, are all-text and thus pass right by the FHWA trial process. In either case, only if they have success at the state level would they be applied Federally.
Quote
The FHWA MUTCD team has very good access to research work, including work done by state DOTs and universities which has not yet entered a formal publications process. However, I am skeptical that there is a major study into exit tab design which is hidden from TRIS and similar search engines.
The early days of exit numbers were inside the sign - see Merritt Parkway, NJ Turnpike, PA Turnpike, and others. The exit number plaque at some point won out. I have to think that in the course of this evolution, something determined that the separate plaque is superior. Otherwise, why would everyone be changing?
Quote
It is certainly true that the MUTCD does specify that exit numbers should be put on a "separate plaque at the top of the Advance Guide or Exit Direction sign," but this language has not changed between the 2003 and 2009 editions of the MUTCD (in 2003 it appears at § 2E.28; in 2009 it appears at § 2E.31). While the illustrations have invariably shown part-width tabs which are not part of the main sign panel, I see little evidence that this particular provision has ever been interpreted (either by FHWA or a state DOT) to prohibit full-width tabs which are structurally part of the main sign panel, as used in Illinois DOT District 1 and in Washington state. It could even be argued (rather jesuitically) that the California bitten-out tabs comply since they are bordered overlays on one part of the sign panel (thus visually separate from the main panel legend) and their top edges coincide with the top edge of the sign.
Exit number plaques have a certain minimum width, one that will go up in the forthcoming Standard Highway Signs. However, there is nothing prohibiting full-width exit tabs
to my offhand knowledge. I could go back and check if there's any "MAX" cap on certain clearances within the sign, but I'm pretty sure there aren't (or otherwise EXIT 1 would create a contradiction between MAXes and MINs). What is undeniably certain is that these are separate plaques, and therefore cannot be included in part of the other sign. And the shape of the other sign MUST be rectangular per the MUTCD, as must the shape of the exit number plaque. The California practice violates these requirements.
Quote from: Steve on February 07, 2012, 07:44:33 PM
The early days of exit numbers were inside the sign - see Merritt Parkway, NJ Turnpike, PA Turnpike, and others. The exit number plaque at some point won out. I have to think that in the course of this evolution, something determined that the separate plaque is superior. Otherwise, why would everyone be changing?
To nitpick, early NJ Turnpike exits were on "tabs" at the bottom of the sign. Texas did something similar at the top: http://www.texasfreeway.com/Houston/historic/photos/images/i45_safety_barrier_july_1956.jpg
Have any photos been found of the early NYC parkway exit numbers from 1938?
Quote from: Steve on February 07, 2012, 07:44:33 PMExit number plaques have a certain minimum width, one that will go up in the forthcoming Standard Highway Signs. However, there is nothing prohibiting full-width exit tabs to my offhand knowledge. I could go back and check if there's any "MAX" cap on certain clearances within the sign, but I'm pretty sure there aren't (or otherwise EXIT 1 would create a contradiction between MAXes and MINs). What is undeniably certain is that these are separate plaques, and therefore cannot be included in part of the other sign. And the shape of the other sign MUST be rectangular per the MUTCD, as must the shape of the exit number plaque. The California practice violates these requirements.
If you are saying full width tabs like those used in Washington are OK, then may I present the following illustration...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fwsdot_v_caltrans.png&hash=6b83b76f4bd0b78d3f750718370514d793f213cf)
If full width tabs are OK, then why would the California method of adding exit numbers shown above violate the FHWA MUTCD's requirements? I will concede that the height of tab, the legend and numerals are undersized but I would argue that this particular California method is better than the WSDOT full width tab simply because the tab would be justified for a right or left exit.
Quote from: Steve on February 07, 2012, 07:44:33 PMQuoteFor example, the stippled-arrow diagrammatics (part of the MUTCD since the 1970's) were the result of a major study incorporating both tachistoscope work and real-world test signs (including the famous 70S/Democracy Blvd. sign). In comparison, the recent addition of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics was based entirely on tachistoscope work.
Not really - Canada has used arrow-per-lane signs for a long time. If someone else has already done field tests, why duplicate?
Be specific. Which Canadian province? If you are talking about the option-lane diagrammatics which were introduced in Ontario around the time that province went bilingual (mid-1990's), then yes, those were based on a human-factors study Bob Dewar carried out (which I believe is now downloadable from the MTO Library website as a scanned PDF). But the design criteria are different and the
MUTCD makes no attempt to imitate Canadian practice as regards provision of these signs (for example, the Canadian signs don't attempt to get straight-ahead and exit information on the same sign panel). I am not aware that the Katz tachistoscope study, which gave rise to the
MUTCD arrow-per-lane diagrammatics, even cites Dewar's previous study.
QuoteQuoteThe MUTCD also now has a fair number of warning signs whose research origin appears to be a synthesis of existing practice among state DOTs, which did not and was not intended to investigate the effectiveness of those signs (this is the same study that was eventually discovered by MTR denizens and found to have many unattributed road enthusiast photos).
Individual DOTs get to apply to try out certain symbol signs. Others, such as PA's "EXCEPT RIGHT TURN" under stop signs, are all-text and thus pass right by the FHWA trial process. In either case, only if they have success at the state level would they be applied Federally.
That synthesis study does not attempt to evaluate effectiveness. It does note that the symbol signs use graphics not covered by the FHWA experimentation process.
QuoteThe early days of exit numbers were inside the sign - see Merritt Parkway, NJ Turnpike, PA Turnpike, and others. The exit number plaque at some point won out. I have to think that in the course of this evolution, something determined that the separate plaque is superior. Otherwise, why would everyone be changing?
"Everyone" is not changing. The British still have junction numbers toward the bottom left of the sign panel, well within the sign panel border. Bottom placement of exit number information is also used in Sweden and Finland, albeit as structurally distinct tabs. France puts exit numbering information on separate sign panels toward the top of signing assemblies, but these panels are the same width as the main sign panel, so the overall effect is similar to Washington state/Illinois DOT District 1. Spain uses part-width exit number cartouches at the top which are however structurally part of the main sign panel and are not prominent as tabs because distance-to-exit is ranged to the left (for right exits) or to the right (for left exits).
So the contention that the separate part-width tab "won out" because it was superior does not survive scrutiny of international experience. This is important because it suggests that any advantages of the vanilla
MUTCD approach, compared to other approaches which are visually different but technically comply with the
MUTCD verbiage, are slight at most.
I can think of many reasons agencies have chosen to adopt or not to adopt the vanilla
MUTCD approach to tab placement and format, most having to do with substrate technology, sign mounting practices, and the perceived aesthetic felicity of equal-height sign panels. You can expect to see plenty of strip-style tabs among agencies which use laminated sign panels (not just Caltrans, but also PennDOT); Caltrans uses bitten-out tabs because that style is most easily accommodated by formed panels in RSPFs; etc. States which have gone for the vanilla
MUTCD approach tend to use extruded aluminum or sheet aluminum with stiffeners combined with provision for securing structurally separate exit tabs to the stiffening assembly for the main sign panel. Some Western states accomplish the same with plywood substrates for both tab and main sign panel. In the US these approaches are very common (accounting, at a guess, for well over 80% of state DOTs) but are by no means universal.
QuoteWhat is undeniably certain is that these are separate plaques, and therefore cannot be included in part of the other sign. And the shape of the other sign MUST be rectangular per the MUTCD, as must the shape of the exit number plaque. The California practice violates these requirements.
You are assuming that this requirement entails
structural separateness, and cannot be met by using overlays or a format which separates the exit number information from the main sign legend by one or more ruled lines. I do not think it is the intent of the
MUTCD authors to require this and, more importantly, I don't think FHWA would insist on such an interpretation in view of the cost implications for large state DOTs like Caltrans.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 08, 2012, 02:39:59 AM
If full width tabs are OK, then why would the California method of adding exit numbers shown above violate the FHWA MUTCD's requirements? I will concede that the height of tab, the legend and numerals are undersized but I would argue that this particular California method is better than the WSDOT full width tab simply because the tab would be justified for a right or left exit.
Use Illinois's and Michigan's method for full width tabs. These are right or left aligned with the side the exit ramp is on.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 08, 2012, 02:39:59 AM
Quote from: Steve on February 07, 2012, 07:44:33 PMExit number plaques have a certain minimum width, one that will go up in the forthcoming Standard Highway Signs. However, there is nothing prohibiting full-width exit tabs to my offhand knowledge. I could go back and check if there's any "MAX" cap on certain clearances within the sign, but I'm pretty sure there aren't (or otherwise EXIT 1 would create a contradiction between MAXes and MINs). What is undeniably certain is that these are separate plaques, and therefore cannot be included in part of the other sign. And the shape of the other sign MUST be rectangular per the MUTCD, as must the shape of the exit number plaque. The California practice violates these requirements.
If you are saying full width tabs like those used in Washington are OK, then may I present the following illustration...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fwsdot_v_caltrans.png&hash=6b83b76f4bd0b78d3f750718370514d793f213cf)
If full width tabs are OK, then why would the California method of adding exit numbers shown above violate the FHWA MUTCD's requirements? I will concede that the height of tab, the legend and numerals are undersized but I would argue that this particular California method is better than the WSDOT full width tab simply because the tab would be justified for a right or left exit.
The one on the right is noncompliant because the border is required to be at the edge of the sign. The one on the left is noncompliant because the exit number is centered instead of right-justified. Both should have Type A arrows instead of Type B.
Quote from: Steve on February 08, 2012, 09:03:41 PM
Both should have Type A arrows instead of Type B.
Is that a FHWA MUTCD requirement or is it a recommendation? California uses the Type A (longer shaft) arrows only if there are two lines of text like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F2-line-arrow-example.png&hash=0ae2735f17d10d74c5574e6bd44e55b067f2b89e)
The shorter shaft Type B arrows are used when there is only one line of text or if the arrows appear at the bottom of the sign. Examples...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F1-line-arrow-example.png&hash=e3ed470e549f36e2134ad04e58de57dc0d705ffc)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F405-22-new-alt.png&hash=1cc1d0fc2410144b6e55745f9e83cb1c1e2e62d4)
FWIW, that WSDOT sign I drew is based on the actual sign found on I-5 in Vancouver, WA...
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/washington005/i-005_nb_exit_001_02.jpg)
From the AARoads Gallery.
Also, I do believe Nevada uses the shorter shaft Type B arrows extensively on guide signs.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 09, 2012, 02:22:11 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 08, 2012, 09:03:41 PM
Both should have Type A arrows instead of Type B.
Is that a FHWA MUTCD requirement or is it a recommendation? California uses the Type A (longer shaft) arrows only if there are two lines of text like this...
The shorter shaft Type B arrows are used when there is only one line of text or if the arrows appear at the bottom of the sign.
Also, I do believe Nevada uses the shorter shaft Type B arrows extensively on guide signs.
The MUTCD has guidelines for one or the other - yes, one-line signs can have Type B, but my general rule is, if the sign design allows a Type A without adding to the sign size, use a Type A. Type B should be reserved for constrained signs, especially ground-mounts, because it's a stubbier looking arrow that can be harder to make out from a distance. That said, it's not a critical error.
Quote from: Steve on February 08, 2012, 09:03:41 PM
The one on the right is noncompliant because the border is required to be at the edge of the sign. The one on the left is noncompliant because the exit number is centered instead of right-justified.
So if California went with full-width tabs but justified the exit number like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffw_ca_tab_ex.png&hash=70dd97dd576dc09650cfcf63bafbaa0a508d9a36)
...that would be OK in your opinion?
How about this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_nb_exit_367_04.jpg)
The only difference is the additional
horizontal vertical :banghead: line that sort of forms a "tab" for the exit number. This sign was one of the first ones installed in the state to kick off the exit numbering project.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 09, 2012, 02:22:11 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 08, 2012, 09:03:41 PM
Both should have Type A arrows instead of Type B.
Is that a FHWA MUTCD requirement or is it a recommendation?
(...)
Also, I do believe Nevada uses the shorter shaft Type B arrows extensively on guide signs.
Nevada only uses the shorter Type B arrow for arrows found on the bottom of a sign. Generally, these are on exit direction signs of multi-lane exits, or on guidance signs on ramp terminals and approaching interchanges where there is an arrow per lane for guidance.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 10, 2012, 02:49:50 AM
Quote from: Steve on February 08, 2012, 09:03:41 PM
The one on the right is noncompliant because the border is required to be at the edge of the sign. The one on the left is noncompliant because the exit number is centered instead of right-justified.
So if California went with full-width tabs but justified the exit number like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffw_ca_tab_ex.png&hash=70dd97dd576dc09650cfcf63bafbaa0a508d9a36)
...that would be OK in your opinion?
How about this...
{Image}
The only difference is the additional horizontal line that sort of forms a "tab" for the exit number. This sign was one of the first ones installed in the state to kick off the exit numbering project.
Actually, your drawing looks great. That is exactly what we use here in IDOT District 1 (which tends to make the signs the same height across the sign bridge). Now if CalTrans can just remove that unsightly vertical line...
An IDOT example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1430.jpg&hash=796a4fcacf36504ee045bfcfac4837e8cd2987f6)
It seems to me that a lot of people just like to pick on California and the way things are done here, despite the fact our methods are typically no better or worse than most other places.
Sure, we might do exit tabs funny. I don't call out most of the rest of the nation for using span wire signals with no backplates and incandescent luminaries, or that no other state puts staggered loop detection at all signalized intersections on the major and minor approaches like we do to minimize the yellow light trap.
And, in general, our freeway landscaping is far superior to other states'.
Quote from: blawp on February 11, 2012, 03:55:34 PM
It seems to me that a lot of people just like to pick on California and the way things are done here, despite the fact our methods are typically no better or worse than most other places.
Sure, we might do exit tabs funny. I don't call out most of the rest of the nation for using span wire signals with no backplates and incandescent luminaries, or that no other state puts staggered loop detection at all signalized intersections on the major and minor approaches like we do to minimize the yellow light trap.
And, in general, our freeway landscaping is far superior to other states'.
I don't have a problem with the way exit tabs are done by Caltrans. The process makes better use of the entire sign panel, which should be helpful should Caltrans ever decide to test-drive Clearview on its signs (San Diego will be the guinea pig on this one).
Quote from: blawp on February 11, 2012, 03:55:34 PM
It seems to me that a lot of people just like to pick on California and the way things are done here, despite the fact our methods are typically no better or worse than most other places.
Sure, we might do exit tabs funny. I don't call out most of the rest of the nation for using span wire signals with no backplates and incandescent luminaries, or that no other state puts staggered loop detection at all signalized intersections on the major and minor approaches like we do to minimize the yellow light trap.
And, in general, our freeway landscaping is far superior to other states'.
I completely agree with ywhat your saying.
@brad2971 ... how have you learned that Clearview will be test-driven in San Diego? While I know Caltrans has approval to use the font, I'd not seen anything indicating a planned roll out for usage. A link or reference would be helpful!
Thanks,
Andy
Quote from: andy3175 on February 12, 2012, 11:45:11 AM
@brad2971 ... how have you learned that Clearview will be test-driven in San Diego? While I know Caltrans has approval to use the font, I'd not seen anything indicating a planned roll out for usage. A link or reference would be helpful!
Thanks,
Andy
I've never seen any plans to go to Clearview in CA. I'm just...taking a guess :)
Quote from: brad2971 on February 11, 2012, 07:24:50 PM
The process makes better use of the entire sign panel, which should be helpful should Caltrans ever decide to test-drive Clearview on its signs (San Diego will be the guinea pig on this one).
Oh dear god, I DO NOT want to see signs that might look like this popping up in California...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fcv-in-calif.png&hash=061f89c937f79b5a74f57f3c1f7aa9ab9d55abd2)
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 10, 2012, 02:49:50 AM
Quote from: Steve on February 08, 2012, 09:03:41 PM
The one on the right is noncompliant because the border is required to be at the edge of the sign. The one on the left is noncompliant because the exit number is centered instead of right-justified.
So if California went with full-width tabs but justified the exit number like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Ffw_ca_tab_ex.png&hash=70dd97dd576dc09650cfcf63bafbaa0a508d9a36)
...that would be OK in your opinion?
How about this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_nb_exit_367_04.jpg)
The only difference is the additional horizontal vertical :banghead: line that sort of forms a "tab" for the exit number. This sign was one of the first ones installed in the state to kick off the exit numbering project.
Interesting. I suppose I can't find fault with the second one because the border does go all the way around. So, yes, both would be okay.
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 31, 2012, 01:41:33 AM
As I have a said a number of times, California's reasoning for putting the exit tab inside the sign panel was due to existing wind-loading requirements that precluded Caltrans from using "regular" tabs. Simply put, the sign structures (sign bridges, mounting hardware, etc) cannot handle external tabs as currently designed. I read somewhere that Caltrans has developed or updated some of this hardware to accommodate external tabs but I suspect existing hardware is going to be used until the supply has been exhausted. Perhaps, jrouse can clarify this issue as he is a Caltrans employee.
Sorry, just logged onto here after a few weeks' absence and saw this.
The Caltrans sign truss standards were significantly revised in early 2005. At that time, it was noted that the new structures could accommodate exit number tabs. However, to this day, there has not been a detail made available for mounting tabs. I have spoken with the engineer who is responsible for the sign structure standard plans, and he has told me that he knows there is a need for such a detail, but it is not a high priority.
I have the plan sheets for the 1971 exit numbering experiment in San Diego. It shows mounting details for the tabs for different types of sign structures. I don't see why those details could not be incorporated onto a 2005 truss structure. But that's just me...there may be more to it.
Fear not on the clearview in San Diego. I was on WB I-8, and new overheads for CA 125 have been installed for both the exit split and the advance signage. It is well done, neat, consistant and uses the standard fonts.
Any pictures of the Clearview in California? I know some cities are using them, but I have yet to see a BGS with one.
I noticed one Clearview sign last summer in the Inland Empire. It is a truck scales sign located along I-10 east between Banning and Cabazon.
I unfortunately didn't take a picture, so here's (http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.924211,-116.861755&spn=0.001841,0.002411&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.924221,-116.862103&panoid=M2RaGQVBYLJInI9MGk1dzw&cbp=12,109.57,,0,4.71) the GSV image.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 24, 2012, 10:33:59 PM
Any pictures of the Clearview in California? I know some cities are using them, but I have yet to see a BGS with one.
Here's one of the few clearview signs in California. I'm sure ADOT probably installed this one though.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2311%2F2495683409_38e804e8fb.jpg&hash=af291838616ad05bad7d059048e6a2e174be875f) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmikelakers/2495683409/)
Interstate 10 Eastbound and US 95 Southbound in Blythe (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmikelakers/2495683409/) by bigmikelakers (http://www.flickr.com/people/bigmikelakers/), on Flickr
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on May 08, 2012, 04:25:47 PM
I'm sure ADOT probably installed this one though.
you are correct. the sign is completely made to Arizona standards.
that said, on the Arizona side approaching the Blythe exits in California ... those are Arizona signs too!
How does Caltrans handle the "embedded" exit number tab with a left handed exit? In most states(that I've been to) a left exit number tab is labeled as "left exit" and has a yellow background with black lettering, similar to "exit only" labels.
I just joined the forum, hope to learn more about how roads/highways are designed/built etc.
Thanks
Quote from: pctech on May 14, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
How does Caltrans handle the "embedded" exit number tab with a left handed exit? In most states(that I've been to) a left exit number tab is labeled as "left exit" and has a yellow background with black lettering, similar to "exit only" labels.
They rarely put them on the left side of the sign, but when they do, it's exactly the same as if it were on the right. The only reference to a "left" exit will be on interchange sequence signs, where they will usually include the just the word "left" on a yellow background with black lettering.
http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.231674,-117.418871&spn=0.018095,0.084543&t=m&layer=c&cbll=34.231684,-117.418891&panoid=2J-scv_lzQ5p1xYNz_Qlng&cbp=11,122.44,,0,-9.69&z=14 (http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.231674,-117.418871&spn=0.018095,0.084543&t=m&layer=c&cbll=34.231684,-117.418891&panoid=2J-scv_lzQ5p1xYNz_Qlng&cbp=11,122.44,,0,-9.69&z=14)
Quote from: pctech on May 14, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
How does Caltrans handle the "embedded" exit number tab with a left handed exit? In most states(that I've been to) a left exit number tab is labeled as "left exit" and has a yellow background with black lettering, similar to "exit only" labels.
I just joined the forum, hope to learn more about how roads/highways are designed/built etc.
Thanks
Simple... the exit "tab"
should goes on the left side of the sign instead of the right (I believe Occidental Tourist pointed that out
but is not always the case). Anyways, there are not that many true left-exits in California although there are situations where a freeway changes route numbers at an interchange (i.e. I-280 & I-680 @ US 101 and I-880 & CA-17 @ I-280 in San Jose). In the case of I-880 southbound turning into CA-17, technically the mainline freeway becomes an exit (possibly a left exit) as all 4 through lanes "exit" from I-880 to CA-17. The exit numbering for I-880 south... Bascom Ave is Exit 1D, Stevens Creek Blvd is Exit 1C, I-280 is Exit 1B and the mainline freeway is Exit 1A. Will this ever be signed as an exit and get an exit number? I doubt it.
Thanks guys! Here in Louisiana left handed exits abound. LADODT seems to be in love with them. They tend to cause lots of issues too.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 15, 2012, 02:16:03 AM
Quote from: pctech on May 14, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
How does Caltrans handle the "embedded" exit number tab with a left handed exit? In most states(that I've been to) a left exit number tab is labeled as "left exit" and has a yellow background with black lettering, similar to "exit only" labels.
I just joined the forum, hope to learn more about how roads/highways are designed/built etc.
Thanks
Simple... the exit "tab" goes on the left side of the sign instead of the right (I believe Occidental Tourist pointed that out).
Interestingly, I can already think of one Bay Area example in which this is not correct: the 680/780 split in Benicia, where 780 exits off of the left BUT is given a right-hand tab:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=benicia,+ca&hl=en&ll=38.04804,-122.125826&spn=0.01215,0.016093&sll=37.769856,-122.417106&sspn=0.001533,0.002012&hnear=Benicia,+Solano,+California&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.04826,-122.126&panoid=NYhvwmFi6r8-mY0ON12v3w&cbp=12,330.36,,0,-5.4
While pre-1976, the left hand lanes and 780 were all part of the 680 mainline (while today's 680 was the last remnant of its predecessor route, Route 21)...the ramp and bridge here date to only a few years back, when the new Benicia Bridge was built.
Quote from: myosh_tinothere are situations where a freeway changes route numbers at an interchange (i.e. I-280 & I-680 @ US 101 and I-880 & CA-17 @ I-280 in San Jose). In the case of I-880 southbound turning into CA-17, technically the mainline freeway becomes an exit (possibly a left exit) as all 4 through lanes "exit" from I-880 to CA-17. The exit numbering for I-880 south... Bascom Ave is Exit 1D, Stevens Creek Blvd is Exit 1C, I-280 is Exit 1B and the mainline freeway is Exit 1A. Will this ever be signed as an exit and get an exit number? I doubt it.
Likewise, in a 2008-era sign installation, the 50/80 split in West Sacramento (where 80 once continued along what is now 50, until 1982) was not given ANY exit numbers; neither was the eastbound 50/Business 80 separation in Sacramento's Oak Park neighborhood.
I've noticed in several Cal. freeway photos and videos that I've viewed of late, that the famous "dot" pavement markings are no longer being used. Are they being phased out? or are budget problems forcing it?
Mark
Quote from: pctech on May 15, 2012, 01:57:21 PM
I've noticed in several Cal. freeway photos and videos that I've viewed of late, that the famous "dot" pavement markings are no longer being used. Are they being phased out? or are budget problems forcing it?
Mark
You mean botts dots?
I know they're not being phased out up here in northern California. Most repaved freeways are getting a combination of botts dots and thermoplastic striping. I seem to recall that some stretches of I-5 in the central valley have switched to all paint lane markings.
Oops, yeah I should have specified Bott's Dots. I've seem similar "dots" used in Texas and Alabama.
Here in Louisiana DODT likes the the square type payment reflectors, used with stripping. They will arrange in them 4 or 5 in a row like Bott's Dots on busy sections of freeway. Those dots always made the freeways in CA. stand out.
Mark
The 210 was recently repaved and restriped and botts dots were used. Same with the 101 through west Los Angeles and Ventura County. They ARE NOT being phased out. Whoever told you that sold you a crock of shit.
Botts Dots caught my attention when I first went to California in 1974. I wondered why we did not have such a good setup in Oregon, given our wet roads at night had all the visibility of obsidian in a fog a seen by a blind man...LOL! Nowadays they're on a good part of Oregon roads.
One of my favorite night time things to do was go find a quiet 8-lane freeway (yes, they existed back in the day!) and hit the brights so as many dots as possible would light up. That was a better visual than any driving video game I have ever seen in my life and it looks even cooler when you're going 80 MPH!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 16, 2012, 12:31:39 PM
Botts Dots caught my attention when I first went to California in 1974. I wondered why we did not have such a good setup in Oregon, given our wet roads at night had all the visibility of obsidian in a fog a seen by a blind man...LOL! Nowadays they're on a good part of Oregon roads.
One of my favorite night time things to do was go find a quiet 8-lane freeway (yes, they existed back in the day!) and hit the brights so as many dots as possible would light up. That was a better visual than any driving video game I have ever seen in my life and it looks even cooler when you're going 80 MPH!
Rick
Wouldn't the higher likelihood of snowfall discourage the use of botts dots (they would get scraped off whenever the roads are plowed)? While California likes it's botts dots, you will not see them on I-80 east of Auburn (about 2000 ft) and on I-5 north of Redding.
Thanks for the info Myosh.
Rick
Sometimes Caltrans will place the exit number in the upper left corner even for non-left exits. A good example is at I-5 south at CA 22, where the exit numbers appear in both the left and right corner of the sign, even though both directions to CA 22 exit to the right from the freeway.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 16, 2012, 01:16:16 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on May 16, 2012, 12:31:39 PM
Botts Dots caught my attention when I first went to California in 1974. I wondered why we did not have such a good setup in Oregon, given our wet roads at night had all the visibility of obsidian in a fog a seen by a blind man...LOL! Nowadays they're on a good part of Oregon roads.
One of my favorite night time things to do was go find a quiet 8-lane freeway (yes, they existed back in the day!) and hit the brights so as many dots as possible would light up. That was a better visual than any driving video game I have ever seen in my life and it looks even cooler when you're going 80 MPH!
Rick
Wouldn't the higher likelihood of snowfall discourage the use of botts dots (they would get scraped off whenever the roads are plowed)? While California likes it's botts dots, you will not see them on I-80 east of Auburn (about 2000 ft) and on I-5 north of Redding.
That would be my thought, and the reason why we don't use Bott's Dots or any other raised pavement reflector in the Upper Midwest. We do use embedded reflectors a lot.
Quote from: Brandon on May 17, 2012, 05:38:00 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 16, 2012, 01:16:16 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on May 16, 2012, 12:31:39 PM
Botts Dots caught my attention when I first went to California in 1974. I wondered why we did not have such a good setup in Oregon, given our wet roads at night had all the visibility of obsidian in a fog a seen by a blind man...LOL! Nowadays they're on a good part of Oregon roads.
One of my favorite night time things to do was go find a quiet 8-lane freeway (yes, they existed back in the day!) and hit the brights so as many dots as possible would light up. That was a better visual than any driving video game I have ever seen in my life and it looks even cooler when you're going 80 MPH!
Rick
Wouldn't the higher likelihood of snowfall discourage the use of botts dots (they would get scraped off whenever the roads are plowed)? While California likes it's botts dots, you will not see them on I-80 east of Auburn (about 2000 ft) and on I-5 north of Redding.
That would be my thought, and the reason why we don't use Bott's Dots or any other raised pavement reflector in the Upper Midwest. We do use embedded reflectors a lot.
WisDOT *did* make extensive use of embedded reflectors on freeways and 'expressways' about a decade or so ago, but they did not live long in their 'real world' use. I wish that they would have lived longer because I did like them while they lasted.
Mike
Here in Louisiana we don't have snow issues,(not often anyway) but the reflectors do wear out.
LA DODT never removes the old ones when they replace them, so you are left with strips of "car vibrators" in places.
I've notice in several Calif. freeway videos that I've watched that lots of the freeways seem to be getting pretty rough. We are used to that here as Louisiana is not noted for good roads/highways, I'm guessing that Calif. budget problems are leading to less repairs/maintenance on the freeways there.
Mark
Mark,
Not true. Caltrans is continuously repaving freeways. The budget troubles are overblown.
Quote from: blawp on May 18, 2012, 12:27:27 PM
Mark,
Not true. Caltrans is continuously repaving freeways. The budget troubles are overblown.
No, budget troubles ARE a problem. On my last trip to L.A., I-5 from the Grapevine to downtown Los Angeles was in pretty rough shape. Up here in northern California, I-280 was recently rehabilitated (note I said re-habed, NOT repaved) but within a couple of years, the potholes have returned. CA-85 north of I-280 is finally getting re-habed after almost 50 years. I-580 over the Altamont Pass is in horrible shape with no current plans for repaving due to lack of funding. :no:
With California facing another $16 billion deficit for next year, I don't know how you can say the poor condition of our roads is not budget-related. :hmm:
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 18, 2012, 01:11:10 PMOn my last trip to L.A., I-5 from the Grapevine to downtown Los Angeles was in pretty rough shape.
nah, it's in great shape! new Parkway signs! fuck yeah!
:ded:
For what it's worth, Caltrans District 7 has done some extensive repaving on I-5 between Castaic grade/Violin Summit and the water information center exit; I saw what appeared to be the finished product in April while passing through there. This work was mostly necessitated by efforts to control a landslide issue that was exacerbated in the 2004-5 winter rains. But as a result, this section of 5 is in much better shape than adjacent sections. I'm not sure how this work was funded, possibly locally or maybe by the state. To that area's credit, there are active construction projects elsewhere on the route. To the south, I-5 has major work underway for the 5/14 HOV link (Measure M funding). To the immediate north the road was being worked on/repaved from around the LA-Kern County line north into the Grapevine itself, which is just north of Exit 210 Fort Tejon (not sure who's paying, maybe ARRA?). Further north, more repaving on the flat section of I-5 in Kern County/southern Central Valley was underway when I last went through there in April (around the California 43 interchange; no widening). All of this is significantly more work than I've seen on this stretch in the past 15-20 years.
Andy
Also the widening from the OC line to Commerce.
Quote from: pctech on May 18, 2012, 11:17:35 AM
Here in Louisiana we don't have snow issues,(not often anyway) but the reflectors do wear out.
LA DODT never removes the old ones when they replace them, so you are left with strips of "car vibrators" in places.
I've notice in several Calif. freeway videos that I've watched that lots of the freeways seem to be getting pretty rough. We are used to that here as Louisiana is not noted for good roads/highways, I'm guessing that Calif. budget problems are leading to less repairs/maintenance on the freeways there.
Mark
The freeways in southern California have been deteriorating for years and years.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 15, 2012, 02:16:03 AM
Quote from: pctech on May 14, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
How does Caltrans handle the "embedded" exit number tab with a left handed exit? In most states(that I've been to) a left exit number tab is labeled as "left exit" and has a yellow background with black lettering, similar to "exit only" labels.
I just joined the forum, hope to learn more about how roads/highways are designed/built etc.
Thanks
Simple... the exit "tab" should goes on the left side of the sign instead of the right...
Downtown Los Angeles and vicinity still has a bunch of left exits. Here's a cool mix of a left-tab and a not-quite-center tab:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1218.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd402%2Ft3h_r0cko%2F101_south_exit_1E.png&hash=f88c5b71f251d98cc1d971db0b326f22ae8e7263)
Snapped a pic of this yesterday while coming back from Hollywood. It's in the area where the 1971 exit numbering experiment took place, so while not exactly a carbon-copy, the use of external tabs is highly intriguing (and on old structures, nonetheless!).
That's a nice gantry on the "Mission Street" sign behind the featured signs. Just like my Valley View pic I posted in the "Best of Road Signs" thread.
Here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8004%2F7179190206_dd4514347e_c.jpg&hash=dab0414dd5b19c0730546596d1432a426d35526f)
Quote from: andy3175 on May 20, 2012, 08:43:59 PM
For what it's worth, Caltrans District 7 has done some extensive repaving on I-5 between Castaic grade/Violin Summit and the water information center exit; I saw what appeared to be the finished product in April while passing through there. This work was mostly necessitated by efforts to control a landslide issue that was exacerbated in the 2004-5 winter rains. But as a result, this section of 5 is in much better shape than adjacent sections. I'm not sure how this work was funded, possibly locally or maybe by the state. To that area's credit, there are active construction projects elsewhere on the route. To the south, I-5 has major work underway for the 5/14 HOV link (Measure M funding). To the immediate north the road was being worked on/repaved from around the LA-Kern County line north into the Grapevine itself, which is just north of Exit 210 Fort Tejon (not sure who's paying, maybe ARRA?). Further north, more repaving on the flat section of I-5 in Kern County/southern Central Valley was underway when I last went through there in April (around the California 43 interchange; no widening). All of this is significantly more work than I've seen on this stretch in the past 15-20 years.
Thanks for the explanation, Andy. I wondered why there was so much construction on I-5 on our way to Magic Mountain on Saturday. I-5 in the Central Valley sure is bumpy. It was hard to use the restroom on the bus because of this.
ur supposed to sit down in a bus bathroom. lOl
Quote from: blawp on May 24, 2012, 09:37:17 PM
ur supposed to sit down in a bus bathroom. lOl
dude, in this reality, text-speak kiddies are not viewed as deities. fuck off.
It doesn't seem that Caltrans has any consistent plan for freeway signage. I prefer the embedded exit tabs over the little tabs on the above freeway sign.
Mark
Quote from: luokou on May 23, 2012, 06:08:07 PM
Downtown Los Angeles and vicinity still has a bunch of left exits. Here's a cool mix of a left-tab and a not-quite-center tab:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1218.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd402%2Ft3h_r0cko%2F101_south_exit_1E.png&hash=f88c5b71f251d98cc1d971db0b326f22ae8e7263)
Snapped a pic of this yesterday while coming back from Hollywood. It's in the area where the 1971 exit numbering experiment took place, so while not exactly a carbon-copy, the use of external tabs is highly intriguing (and on old structures, nonetheless!).
Actually, the old signs did not sport exit numbers (see this photo (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images100/us-101_sb_exit_001e_02.jpg) from the AARoads Gallery) and I prefer the old signs to these newer ones. I'm not entirely sure why Caltrans added CA-60 shields to the Mission Road exit and US 101 pull through signs but it certainly did clutter things up.
Anyways, I made an attempt to clean up this gantry but my drawing seems to be a bit wider than the actual signs. Are the lanes on this particular stretch of 101 narrower than the standard 12 ft?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F101_1d-e.png&hash=8d5207e529ed5ceacf24fb2126c5b825f200ac92)
Why does Caltrans sign an alternate route to I-5, I-10 and CA 60 from Mission Rd?
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 26, 2012, 05:48:29 AM
Why does Caltrans sign an alternate route to I-5, I-10 and CA 60 from Mission Rd?
I agree, those 'alts' make the sign look needlessly cluttered and confusing (at least make the 'alt' shields smaller).
Also, the new federal MUTCD requires up-pointing arrows for each lane.
:-P
Mike
They forgot the Santa Ana control city. Shame on them.
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 26, 2012, 05:48:29 AM
Why does Caltrans sign an alternate route to I-5, I-10 and CA 60 from Mission Rd?
Looking at a map, it appears drivers can take the Mission Rd exit and connect to I-5 north of the I-5/I-10 interchange. The original signs did not include a CA-60 shield and I''m not sure why it was added to the new signs. IMO all the CA-60 shield does is clutter up the signs.
Quote from: mgk920 on May 26, 2012, 01:26:00 PM
Also, the new federal MUTCD requires up-pointing arrows for each lane.
Ummm... only in certain signing conditions (multi-lane exit at a major interchange where there's an option lane) are up-pointing arrows (arrow-per-lane signs) required.
Anyways, good luck with that one. I am still of the belief that you will never see a plain vanilla FHWA MUTCD arrow-per-lane (APL) sign in California although it wouldn't surprise me if Caltrans develops some sort of strange hybrid that sort of looks like an APL sign.
Quote from: blawp on May 26, 2012, 02:22:34 PM
They forgot the Santa Ana control city. Shame on them.
On the actual signs, there's no room for a control city because of all the shields being used (US-101, I-5 and CA-60). On my drawing,I could make room for "Santa Ana" by shifting the shields to the top part of the sign.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 26, 2012, 03:38:18 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 26, 2012, 05:48:29 AM
Why does Caltrans sign an alternate route to I-5, I-10 and CA 60 from Mission Rd?
Looking at a map, it appears drivers can take the Mission Rd exit and connect to I-5 north of the I-5/I-10 interchange. The original signs did not include a CA-60 shield and I''m not sure why it was added to the new signs. IMO all the CA-60 shield does is clutter up the signs.
Looking at the map myself, it appears Mission Road can act as a reasonable alternative access to I-5 south and I-10 east. However, I would not have signed that as an alternative route to CA 60 east...that doesn't appear to be an easily-recognizable alt route. I do see logic in putting the CA 60 east on the pull-through though.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 26, 2012, 02:48:59 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F101_1d-e.png&hash=8d5207e529ed5ceacf24fb2126c5b825f200ac92)
Here's an updated drawing that matches more closely the actual signs photographed by luokou. First the current signs...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F101s_1e-d.png&hash=701a70641d72012606f3ac1cb2d6b17a4b1ab31b)
Note: According to my approximations, the current signs are 120 inches tall and they appear to be mounted to a larger truss. My trusses were drawn to current Caltrans spec.
And here's how I would like the signs on this gantry to look like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F101s_1e-d_alt.png&hash=e9892bc64f9767db6462eedbd611f0db1f1cc202)
Myosh, I like your final layout! Now when will Caltrans bring you on board?
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 28, 2012, 01:04:42 AM
Myosh, I like your final layout! Now when will Caltrans bring you on board?
Rick
Heh, thanks for the kind words but it does bring up an interesting point that I don't know the answer to... who is doing the sign designs and layouts... Caltrans HQ or at the district level?
I do like the uniform sign size that Caltrans uses on BGS. Here they are "all over the place". (louisiana) I'm learning to like the embedded exit# tabs too.
Mark
Quote from: roadfro on May 27, 2012, 05:21:52 PM
Looking at the map myself, it appears Mission Road can act as a reasonable alternative access to I-5 south and I-10 east. However, I would not have signed that as an alternative route to CA 60 east...that doesn't appear to be an easily-recognizable alt route. I do see logic in putting the CA 60 east on the pull-through though.
I *think* it's a throwback to the days when the Los Angeles Street onramp and the Alameda Street onramp and offramp were closer together. Before the Gold Line bridge went in, the Alameda onramp and offramp were about 100 yards to the east of their current location. There was also no protected merge lane for Alameda onramp traffic like there is now, but the Alameda onramp merged into the same lane used by Los Angeles Street onramp traffic. This meant that Alameda onramp traffic would sometimes have to stop (or not!) before entering the freeway to yield to the Los Angeles Street onramp traffic. Also, the Los Angeles onramp traffic would itself get slowed down by vehicles slowing down quickly and entering the lane to exit the rather short Alameda offramp or Alameda onramp vehicles barging their way in. So that whole onramp/offramp/Mission Street collector lane would become a slow mess.
I surmise that the thought behind the "alt" access via Mission Street was that the onramp traffic from Alameda and Los Angeles might not be able to get up to speed in time to merge out of the collector lane at a safe speed, and so the collector lane was posted as an Alt to encourage Alameda onramp traffic not to freak out and try to force their way over one lane (or in the case of the 10 interchange, three lanes) at too slow a speed.
Quote from: mgk920 on May 26, 2012, 01:26:00 PM
Also, the new federal MUTCD requires up-pointing arrows for each lane.
Ummm... only in certain signing conditions (multi-lane exit at a major interchange where there's an option lane) are up-pointing arrows (arrow-per-lane signs) required.
Anyways, good luck with that one. I am still of the belief that you will never see a plain vanilla FHWA MUTCD arrow-per-lane (APL) sign in California although it wouldn't surprise me if Caltrans develops some sort of strange hybrid that sort of looks like an APL sign.
[/quote]
The APL sign is proving to be difficult to implement in California. I believe panel height and sign truss length are the two main issues...have not been directly involved in any of the discussions. There are plans to put APL signs on I-5 at the junction with CA-1 near San Clemente. I also know that there are some hybrid alternatives that were going to be explored.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 28, 2012, 01:36:22 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on May 28, 2012, 01:04:42 AM
Myosh, I like your final layout! Now when will Caltrans bring you on board?
Rick
Heh, thanks for the kind words but it does bring up an interesting point that I don't know the answer to... who is doing the sign designs and layouts... Caltrans HQ or at the district level?
Sign designs and layouts are performed by engineers at the district level or by consultants with district oversight. HQ is responsible for developing general sign specifications and addressing issues with layouts, etc.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 26, 2012, 03:38:18 PMUmmm... only in certain signing conditions (multi-lane exit at a major interchange where there's an option lane) are up-pointing arrows (arrow-per-lane signs) required.
The requirement is actually more limited than that--it applies only when all the conditions you list are met,
and the through route TOTSOs. In all other circumstances with option lane, an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic is optional.
Quote from: jrouse on May 29, 2012, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 28, 2012, 01:36:22 AM
Heh, thanks for the kind words but it does bring up an interesting point that I don't know the answer to... who is doing the sign designs and layouts... Caltrans HQ or at the district level?
Sign designs and layouts are performed by engineers at the district level or by consultants with district oversight. HQ is responsible for developing general sign specifications and addressing issues with layouts, etc.
So signs like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7112%2F6890984302_f1ef12e98b_c.jpg&hash=2f1f73b21d41269828bf19e34e6f93bb69b99434)
or this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F80-12_new.png&hash=60f1c3d1a27b249ccdf3bd63fef2f36146858bc3)
(drawn based on sign plans for the new Cordelia weigh station project on I-80 just west of Fairfield)
...were designed either by a consultant or an engineer in District 4. Shouldn't the left down arrow on the Tully Road sign be a white-on-green down arrow instead of black-on-yellow? I did mention this sign to Gary Richards during one of his weekly chat sessions on the Mercury News and he said he would look into it. The layout of the I-80 pull through is one I have never seen before. It looked like the sign designer was going to add down arrows to the I-80 sign but then realized he/she couldn't because of the interchange sequence sign. For whatever reason, that layout looks weird.
Speaking of the Tully Road sign, I've noticed last Friday that a new exit sign has been installed behind this sign (https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.322349,-121.83552&spn=0.001765,0.002411&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.322349,-121.83552&panoid=gIxWdL4n5xdph17K6QB5bg&cbp=12,147.39,,0,-1.8) (which is most likely to be removed soon), without the black-on-yellow arrow, but with strange fat-looking arrows. This would've been easier to explain if I had a picture, but unfortunately, I don't.
Off topic, I noticed that in my Street View link, someone got pulled over the behind sign.
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 29, 2012, 05:26:30 PM
Speaking of the Tully Road sign, I've noticed last Friday that a new exit sign has been installed behind the original (which is most likely to be removed soon), without the black-on-yellow arrow, but with strange fat-looking arrows. This would've been easier to explain if I had a picture, but unfortunately, I don't.
These arrows you speak of are pointing up and angled to the right? I suspect those are down-arrows that being used in place of the normal up-and-right exit arrow. It's a practice that's become increasingly common in the S.F. Bay Area (I-580 at Isabel Avenue/CA-84 comes immediately to mind).
Yes, the arrows I'm trying to describe are indeed pointing to the upper right.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 29, 2012, 05:34:29 PM
These arrows you speak of are pointing up and angled to the right? I suspect those are down-arrows that being used in place of the normal up-and-right exit arrow. It's a practice that's become increasingly common in the S.F. Bay Area (I-580 at Isabel Avenue/CA-84 comes immediately to mind).
Do you have any pictures? GSV doesn't seem to show me, as the Isabel Ave intersection is shown as under construction.
Quote from: jrouse on May 29, 2012, 03:39:30 PM
The APL sign is proving to be difficult to implement in California. I believe panel height and sign truss length are the two main issues...have not been directly involved in any of the discussions. There are plans to put APL signs on I-5 at the junction with CA-1 near San Clemente. I also know that there are some hybrid alternatives that were going to be explored.
I took a look at the I-5/CA-1 junction in San Clemente and the existing box-beam sign bridge is very wide and could accommodate an arrow-per-lane sign that might look like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-1_apl.png&hash=6625eae278458a241ca13e67c8067ebff2272cec)
The sign in my drawing is the standard 120" tall guide sign that is the max allowable under current Caltrans guidelines. There is just enough room, vertically, on the pull-through section to place the route marker, cardinal direction and control city. The extra area to the right of the existing CA-1 exit sign is where I put the control city and street name for CA-1.
Of course, that would be much more doable with shorter arrows. I mean, come one, they don't really need to be that long, and we all know it.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 29, 2012, 07:19:03 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-1_apl.png&hash=6625eae278458a241ca13e67c8067ebff2272cec)
The sign in my drawing is the standard 120" tall guide sign that is the max allowable under current Caltrans guidelines. There is just enough room, vertically, on the pull-through section to place the route marker, cardinal direction and control city. The extra area to the right of the existing CA-1 exit sign is where I put the control city and street name for CA-1.
Don't you know that District 12 has a massive inferiority complex, and resultantly they are now signing (or greening over) Santa Ana as the control city both ways on pull throughs within OC?
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 29, 2012, 07:37:23 PM
Don't you know that District 12 has a massive inferiority complex, and resultantly they are now signing (or greening over) Santa Ana as the control city both ways on BGSs within OC?
So the new control city is LA? How about southbound?
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 29, 2012, 07:39:19 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 29, 2012, 07:37:23 PM
Don't you know that District 12 has a massive inferiority complex, and resultantly they are now signing (or greening over) Santa Ana as the control city both ways on BGSs within OC?
So the new control city is LA? How about southbound?
No, I was imprecise with my wording. Northbound, the old control city was LA. The new control city northbound, as of a few years ago, is now Santa Ana.
E.g., http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.739472,-117.830086&spn=0.060383,0.132093&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=33.739578,-117.830461&panoid=ySjxTwzDaOhKZno5-n9dJw&cbp=12,269.94,,0,0 (http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.739472,-117.830086&spn=0.060383,0.132093&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=33.739578,-117.830461&panoid=ySjxTwzDaOhKZno5-n9dJw&cbp=12,269.94,,0,0) and
http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.733548,-117.833519&spn=0.060387,0.132093&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=33.733645,-117.833527&panoid=4yiIDEADPR1qpbXPCWzW_Q&cbp=12,31.04,,0,-7.57 (http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.733548,-117.833519&spn=0.060387,0.132093&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=33.733645,-117.833527&panoid=4yiIDEADPR1qpbXPCWzW_Q&cbp=12,31.04,,0,-7.57)
But . . . Santa Ana as the control city is only used on pull throughs and BGSs, not on signs on adjacent streets. They don't want to spend the money to green over the original "Los Angeles" all of the appurtenant signs (which is good, because there are still a fair number of unspoiled button copy on the adjacent arterials).
E.g., http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.630415,-117.719107&spn=0.060745,0.132093&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=33.628857,-117.717763&panoid=WTGdUwGIRLWdpN1o1G4Xuw&cbp=12,270.02,,0,0 (http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.630415,-117.719107&spn=0.060745,0.132093&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=33.628857,-117.717763&panoid=WTGdUwGIRLWdpN1o1G4Xuw&cbp=12,270.02,,0,0) and
http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.638132,-117.729492&spn=0.06074,0.132093&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=33.637918,-117.72937&panoid=7Olz4WhwwwP41nWd0nMf-w&cbp=12,328.37,,1,-4.46 (http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.638132,-117.729492&spn=0.06074,0.132093&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=33.637918,-117.72937&panoid=7Olz4WhwwwP41nWd0nMf-w&cbp=12,328.37,,1,-4.46)
Southbound the control city was always Santa Ana, except for about a 10-year period in the late 90s when they were widening the 5 between Buena Park and Santa Ana, at which point they started signing all of the pull throughs and adjacent street signs with San Diego as a control city from Buena Park through Santa Ana. A few years ago, when they started replacing signs in conjunction with CalNEXUS, they suddenly reversed policy again and started putting Santa Ana back up as the control city southbound.
So here's the state of things: You can get on the 5 northbound in South OC with an onramp sign that shows Los Angeles at the control city, and immediately encounter a pull through on the mainline that shows Santa Ana as the control city. You can then turnaround in Anaheim and get on the 5 southbound, see an onramp sign that shows San Diego as a control city, and immediately encounter a pull through that shows Santa Ana as a control city. E.g., http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.832467,-117.934359&spn=0.007575,0.016512&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.832438,-117.934195&panoid=8Dao0b8_H_l0hwAspXWvXg&cbp=12,307.16,,0,1.11 (http://maps.google.com/?ll=33.832467,-117.934359&spn=0.007575,0.016512&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.832438,-117.934195&panoid=8Dao0b8_H_l0hwAspXWvXg&cbp=12,307.16,,0,1.11)
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 29, 2012, 07:19:03 PM
Quote from: jrouse on May 29, 2012, 03:39:30 PM
The APL sign is proving to be difficult to implement in California. I believe panel height and sign truss length are the two main issues...have not been directly involved in any of the discussions. There are plans to put APL signs on I-5 at the junction with CA-1 near San Clemente. I also know that there are some hybrid alternatives that were going to be explored.
I took a look at the I-5/CA-1 junction in San Clemente and the existing box-beam sign bridge is very wide and could accommodate an arrow-per-lane sign that might look like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-1_apl.png&hash=6625eae278458a241ca13e67c8067ebff2272cec)
The sign in my drawing is the standard 120" tall guide sign that is the max allowable under current Caltrans guidelines. There is just enough room, vertically, on the pull-through section to place the route marker, cardinal direction and control city. The extra area to the right of the existing CA-1 exit sign is where I put the control city and street name for CA-1.
To me, that sign with upward arrows looks ugly. I am so used to the downward arrows that if I drove to SoCal and saw the arrows reversed, I would wonder what kind of alternate universe I had entered...LOL!
To OC:How does one lose Santa Ana as a control city on the Santa Ana Freeway for chrissakes? That's it's name and me being a traditionalist, it had better stay that way until the Day Of The Big One hits and wipes SoCal off the map a la the movie "2012"!
Rick
My mistake on that arrow-per-lane sign for northbound I-5. The existing sign does show Santa Ana as the control city so there is an error in my drawing. I made an assumption (a bad one apparently) that the control city for I-5 north of San Diego would be L.A. My bad!
Edit: Apparently the specs for the new arrow-per-lane arrows is also incorrect on the FHWA website. Their "draft" spec calls for a 66-inch up and option arrows and a 45-inch exit arrow but the MUTCD specifies these arrows are to be 72 and 48 inches tall. Fitting 72-inch arrows in a 120-inch tall guide sign does present a much greater challenge.
Here is the corrected I-5/CA-1 arrow-per-lane exit sign with the correct control city (Santa Ana per the existing sign) and the 72-inch arrows (things are definitely more cramped in this version)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-1_apl_v2.png&hash=b673f82b1f923015412d264c8aee5215f330bb29)
In this drawing, I reduced the arrow height from 72 inches down to 54 inches...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-1_apl_v2_alt.png&hash=72168ef061dcdbb409b7f568da8181c504f4f687)
... but to get the exit arrow to clear the "ONLY" panel, I had to extend the vertical portion of the arrow shaft. I like this version because things seem to be in better proportion and not nearly as cramped.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 29, 2012, 04:42:06 PM
Quote from: jrouse on May 29, 2012, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 28, 2012, 01:36:22 AM
Heh, thanks for the kind words but it does bring up an interesting point that I don't know the answer to... who is doing the sign designs and layouts... Caltrans HQ or at the district level?
Sign designs and layouts are performed by engineers at the district level or by consultants with district oversight. HQ is responsible for developing general sign specifications and addressing issues with layouts, etc.
So signs like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7112%2F6890984302_f1ef12e98b_c.jpg&hash=2f1f73b21d41269828bf19e34e6f93bb69b99434)
or this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F80-12_new.png&hash=60f1c3d1a27b249ccdf3bd63fef2f36146858bc3)
(drawn based on sign plans for the new Cordelia weigh station project on I-80 just west of Fairfield)
...were designed either by a consultant or an engineer in District 4. Shouldn't the left down arrow on the Tully Road sign be a white-on-green down arrow instead of black-on-yellow? I did mention this sign to Gary Richards during one of his weekly chat sessions on the Mercury News and he said he would look into it. The layout of the I-80 pull through is one I have never seen before. It looked like the sign designer was going to add down arrows to the I-80 sign but then realized he/she couldn't because of the interchange sequence sign. For whatever reason, that layout looks weird.
Moving back a bit...
The left arrow on the Tully Road sign should indeed be white on green. However, if you go by the 2009 National MUTCD, you couldn't have the left down arrow at all since it's an option lane.
The whole bridge assembly in the second picture is an awkward layout. Generally speaking, interchange sequence signs shouldn't be intermingled with pull throughs and advance exit signs like this--they're also supposed to be mounted on the far left. I think the wide I-80 pull-through is not really necessary either...they could make a smaller sign if they're not going to use down arrows. Also, I am not a fan of putting two control cities on one line in this manner unless it's being used distinctly to indicate certain lanes head certain directions.
So I take it that Tully road is a double lane exit? Far right lane must exit, next lane in can exit or continue on the freeway. (hence the left arrow should be white)
Mark
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 30, 2012, 01:25:16 AM
My mistake on that arrow-per-lane sign for northbound I-5. The existing sign does show Santa Ana as the control city so there is an error in my drawing. I made an assumption (a bad one apparently) that the control city for I-5 north of San Diego would be L.A. My bad!
You're in good company. District 11 (San Diego) still uses LA as the control city northbound.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 30, 2012, 10:39:56 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 30, 2012, 01:25:16 AM
My mistake on that arrow-per-lane sign for northbound I-5. The existing sign does show Santa Ana as the control city so there is an error in my drawing. I made an assumption (a bad one apparently) that the control city for I-5 north of San Diego would be L.A. My bad!
You're in good company. District 11 (San Diego) still uses LA as the control city northbound.
I actually can see the logic in this - San Jose (the 10th largest city in the US) is rarely used as a control city for 101 north until Salinas, while San Francisco (which was larger until the late 1980s than SJ, and is more well-known) is a control city from Ventura northward.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2012, 11:13:09 AM
I actually can see the logic in this - San Jose (the 10th largest city in the US) is rarely used as a control city for 101 north until Salinas, while San Francisco (which was larger until the late 1980s than SJ, and is more well-known) is a control city from Ventura northward.
and San Jose is the 10th largest city in the US, while Santa Ana is ... well, it really isn't much of anything. it's just another faceless geographical entity in Orange County, no different from Anaheim or Irvine or what have you.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2012, 11:34:33 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2012, 11:13:09 AM
I actually can see the logic in this - San Jose (the 10th largest city in the US) is rarely used as a control city for 101 north until Salinas, while San Francisco (which was larger until the late 1980s than SJ, and is more well-known) is a control city from Ventura northward.
and San Jose is the 10th largest city in the US, while Santa Ana is ... well, it really isn't much of anything. it's just another faceless geographical entity in Orange County, no different from Anaheim or Irvine or what have you.
Santa Ana is the county seat, the named destination for that segment of I-5, and the largest city in the county. Though I have never understood why Anaheim never got upgraded to control city status for that freeway - Disneyland is obviously the major destination for most out-of-towners passing through.
The SF Bay Area's trio of nationally-important cities makes "San Francisco" I guess a better shorthand for the region than "SF Bay Area", though at times (i.e. Route 120 in Manteca) the usage of SF as a control city is nothing short of absurd.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2012, 12:37:45 PM
Disneyland is obviously the major destination for most out-of-towners passing through.
then that should be the control city.
also solves California's budget crisis nicely.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2012, 11:34:33 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2012, 11:13:09 AM
I actually can see the logic in this - San Jose (the 10th largest city in the US) is rarely used as a control city for 101 north until Salinas, while San Francisco (which was larger until the late 1980s than SJ, and is more well-known) is a control city from Ventura northward.
and San Jose is the 10th largest city in the US, while Santa Ana is ... well, it really isn't much of anything. it's just another faceless geographical entity in Orange County, no different from Anaheim or Irvine or what have you.
It is the county seat, where the courts and most county services are located, which criteria may have prompted its use as a southbound control city in the first place. It is also still a *largish city, second biggest in the county at 325,000. I have no problem with keeping it as a control city, but the damned inconsistency drives me crazy. I thought the purpose of control cities was to help out-of-towners. Imagine driving between San Diego and LA for the first time, following the signs to LA, and 60 miles from LA, LA disappears as a control city and Santa Ana appears. Did you miss some turn off to LA back in Oceanside?
My preference on major interstates would be, however, to keep the major destinations as the sole control cities, e.g. Tijuana, San Diego, Los Angeles, Stockton, Sacramento, Redding, Medford.
But a good point is raised. Why is Ventura still a control city when it is much smaller than Oxnard (unless it is for the aforementioned county seat issue)? Why aren't Stockton and San Jose control cities? Either the 101 should have destination cities like Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Salinas and San Jose as control cities, or north of Los Angeles, San Jose should be the only control city.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2012, 12:41:15 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2012, 12:37:45 PM
Disneyland is obviously the major destination for most out-of-towners passing through.
then that should be the control city.
also solves California's budget crisis nicely.
Don't you know? District 12 fixed that issue. They began signing the 55 from John Wayne Airport northward with the control city of "Anaheim/Riverside".
But . . . they didn't stop signing it after the 5 interchange; the 5 north is what you would take from the 55 to get to Disneyland (or Downtown Anaheim, for that matter). So imagine you're a fresh-faced family off the plane, you're in your rental car, following the signs to Anaheim and Disneyland! Suddenly, you find yourself sitting in dead-stopped traffic on the 91, heading for Corona, in the exact opposite direction of Anaheim.
E.g., 55 terminus, showing Anaheim as a control city for the 91 east (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=33.839564,-117.833379&spn=0.007539,0.016512&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.839564,-117.833379&panoid=DDnKvorObbKJFgxI5_CqqQ&cbp=12,28.03,,0,-1.35)
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 30, 2012, 12:46:39 PM
My preference on major interstates would be, however, to keep the major destinations as the sole control cities, e.g. Tijuana, San Diego, Los Angeles, Stockton, Sacramento, Redding, Medford.
As Jake and I both unfortunately remember, Tijuana is not a control city at any point on 5 or 805. Not even the border district of San Ysidro (which is somehow part of San Diego due to a "land" annexation through San Diego Bay) is used, leaving drivers with no southbound control destination to the border crossing.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 30, 2012, 12:46:39 PM
But a good point is raised. Why is Ventura still a control city when it is much smaller than Oxnard (unless it is for the aforementioned county seat issue)? Why aren't Stockton and San Jose control cities? Either the 101 should have destination cities like Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Salinas and San Jose as control cities, or north of Los Angeles, San Jose should be the only control city.
Ventura's at 100K or so, so half the size of Oxnard - but not super-tiny.
Stockton is used as an I-5 control city past the 580 split going northbound, but that's a pretty brief distance for it. Interestingly, in downtown Sacramento, neither 5 nor 99 south are signed for Stockton!! (I think 99 south is signed for Stockton off of local streets starting in South Sacramento)
As for 101 north, all the cities you listed in that final sentence ARE used, but with San Francisco as the primary control city every time. In fact, I think the very first 101 north sign mentioning SF, in Ventura...doesn't list Santa Barbara at all!
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 30, 2012, 12:46:39 PM
It is the county seat, where the courts and most county services are located, which criteria may have prompted its use as a southbound control city in the first place. It is also still a *largish city, second biggest in the county at 325,000.
still doesn't make it anywhere near as important as San Diego, Los Angeles... or even Disneyland, if you factor in road usage multiplied by driver unfamiliarity, which is what control cities serve to address.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2012, 01:30:40 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 30, 2012, 12:46:39 PM
It is the county seat, where the courts and most county services are located, which criteria may have prompted its use as a southbound control city in the first place. It is also still a *largish city, second biggest in the county at 325,000.
still doesn't make it anywhere near as important as San Diego, Los Angeles... or even Disneyland, if you factor in road usage multiplied by driver unfamiliarity, which is what control cities serve to address.
I don't disagree.
I suspect the thinking was "It's called the Santa Ana Freeway, so the control city has to be Santa Ana."
Quote from: flowmotion on May 30, 2012, 03:55:34 PM
I suspect the thinking was "It's called the Santa Ana Freeway, so the control city has to be Santa Ana."
Perhaps. Is AASHTO involved in the designation of control cities for interstates? Maybe somebody knows if there was list of proposed control cities for the 5 submitted to and approved by AASHTO.
Quote from: flowmotion on May 30, 2012, 03:55:34 PM
I suspect the thinking was "It's called the Santa Ana Freeway, so the control city has to be Santa Ana."
the San Diego Freeway (I-405) has consistent Santa Monica and Long Beach control cities, as a reverse example: name is a more distant city than the control.
I would assume that Santa Ana was/is used for the control city because, as stated above, it is the county seat, but also at the time of the freeway's construction (early 1950s) Santa Ana was far and away the largest city in Orange County (the 1950 census had it about 45,000 vs. 15,000 for Anaheim, although both were around 100,000 by 1960). Disneyland didn't open until 1955.
QuoteDisneyland is obviously the major destination for most out-of-towners passing through.
I've long thought that SNA should drop the John Wayne and reap in some Disney dollars switching the name to OC/Disneyland Airport or maybe Orange County/Mickey Mouse Airport. :-P
MOD NOTE: Ensuing discussion about LAX and other Southern California airports was moved to the California Airports (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7273.0) thread. --roadfro
I was looking at a video of I-80 through Donner pass recently. It's an astonishing beautiful drive! I know that Caltrans is rebuilding this entire section as the pavement was worn out. I notice in the video (which is eastbound) that there warning signs for slippery when wet/frost on what appeared to be new concrete. Were there problems with new construction?
Mark
Quote from: pctech on June 14, 2012, 08:23:50 AM
I was looking at a video of I-80 through Donner pass recently. It's an astonishing beautiful drive! I know that Caltrans is rebuilding this entire section as the pavement was worn out. I notice in the video (which is eastbound) that there warning signs for slippery when wet/frost on what appeared to be new concrete. Were there problems with new construction?
Mark
I think the "Slippery When Wet/Frost" signs are intended for the winter months when there is ice and snow in the area. It doesn't matter if the pavement is new or 50 years old.
I have a question about welcome/visitor centers. I've read that CA. doesn't have them on it's interstates at the state borders?
It seems the in a state that has a large tourism economy they would be a good idea. Why are they not in CA. system? Cost? Remote barren areas at state line?
Mark
Quote from: pctech on July 17, 2012, 09:59:02 AM
I have a question about welcome/visitor centers. I've read that CA. doesn't have them on it's interstates at the state borders?
It seems the in a state that has a large tourism economy they would be a good idea. Why are they not in CA. system? Cost? Remote barren areas at state line?
Mark
Yeah, this confuses me too. Maybe they wanted to put welcome centers in their tourist regions instead. And I think there would be significantly fewer welcome centers than there are in this state today.
On a similar topic, the Salinas and Buena Park welcome centers opened at around the same time last year. However, when driving to Disneyland for vacation, I noticed that there were already signage for the welcome center in Buena Park well within a month of its opening, whereas the Salinas one went through its first few months without a welcome center sign on the freeway. Proof that OC puts signs up faster than other districts....
How many miles of freeway/interstate standard highways does CA. currently have?
Mark
Quote from: pctech on August 15, 2012, 09:44:38 AM
How many miles of freeway/interstate standard highways does CA. currently have?
Mark
the only bit of info I could find is "over 4000".
The figure I remember is a little over five thousand.
The only exciting observation I've found so far (besides button-copy) is the Millbrae exit on US 101 is signed with two different numbers. Exit 420 for SB and 421 for NB.
And it's amusing to find a very tiny amount of doghouses out here.
Quote from: florida on August 15, 2012, 09:26:15 PM
The only exciting observation I've found so far (besides button-copy) is the Millbrae exit on US 101 is signed with two different numbers. Exit 420 for SB and 421 for NB.
And it's amusing to find a very tiny amount of doghouses out here.
Yeah, that's actually a sign goof (but a good catch... I never noticed that before and I drive that section of US 101 somewhat regularly too). The Millbrae Avenue exit is exit 420 per the Caltrans website.
You won't find too many doghouse signals out here. Cities would rather have dedicated left-turn signals on the mast arms instead of installing the combo doghouse signals. Also, as some have pointed out, almost all left turns are protected here in California. Permissive left turns are generally allowed where there isn't a protected left. In most cases, the signal will just show a green ball indicating all movements (left, straight, right) are permitted.
I thought I've noticed a few interchanges with two different exit numbers, because one of the ramps fell within the next exit number's range.
Quote from: florida on August 15, 2012, 09:26:15 PM
The only exciting observation I've found so far (besides button-copy) is the Millbrae exit on US 101 is signed with two different numbers. Exit 420 for SB and 421 for NB.
And it's amusing to find a very tiny amount of doghouses out here.
I believe the "exit 420" tab is the only button copy exit tab on a retroreflective sign. It might be a different exit number, but it is definitely in that range. they cobbled together an exit tab using surplus button copy.
Quote from: florida on August 15, 2012, 09:26:15 PM
The only exciting observation I've found so far (besides button-copy) is the Millbrae exit on US 101 is signed with two different numbers. Exit 420 for SB and 421 for NB.
And it's amusing to find a very tiny amount of doghouses out here.
CalTrans ran out of 420...LOL!
My best friend has a wife who drives a minivan with the plate being 421 DUD, which isn't as good as 420 BUD of course!
Rick
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2012, 12:04:57 PM
I believe the "exit 420" tab is the only button copy exit tab on a retroreflective sign. It might be a different exit number, but it is definitely in that range. they cobbled together an exit tab using surplus button copy.
I believe this is the sign you are talking about...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_sb_exit_420_04.jpg)
While the exit "tab" is button copy, the sign itself is not retroreflective.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 14, 2012, 01:07:18 PM
Quote from: pctech on June 14, 2012, 08:23:50 AM
I was looking at a video of I-80 through Donner pass recently. It's an astonishing beautiful drive! I know that Caltrans is rebuilding this entire section as the pavement was worn out. I notice in the video (which is eastbound) that there warning signs for slippery when wet/frost on what appeared to be new concrete. Were there problems with new construction?
Mark
I think the "Slippery When Wet/Frost" signs are intended for the winter months when there is ice and snow in the area. It doesn't matter if the pavement is new or 50 years old.
I once heard that Slippery When Wet signs are erected in locations that have a history of weather-related accidents. Is that true? At any rate, do they ever take them down?
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 16, 2012, 02:45:55 PM
I believe this is the sign you are talking about...
nope. It might be further north. southbound, and the tab is a square - EXIT on one line, 4XX below it. 426 maybe?
the main sign is definitely retroreflective.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2012, 04:33:41 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 16, 2012, 02:45:55 PM
I believe this is the sign you are talking about...
nope. It might be further north. southbound, and the tab is a square - EXIT on one line, 4XX below it. 426 maybe?
the main sign is definitely retroreflective.
Are you thinking of Sierra Point Parkway exit off of 101, where the ramps are about a mile apart in each direction?
Does Caltrans "patch"(exit# tabs, arrows,etc) the BGS in order to save money? extend sign life? both?
Mark
Quote from: TheStranger on August 16, 2012, 06:07:09 PM
Are you thinking of Sierra Point Parkway exit off of 101, where the ramps are about a mile apart in each direction?
I honestly do not remember, other than that it is southbound, and in the northern reaches of Silicon Valley.
Mark pctech: to save money.
I've been racking my brain trying to figure out what guide sign on southbound US 101 has a button copy exit "tab" on a reflective sign. The only button copy exit tab I know of is the Millbrae Ave sign. All signs on US 101 within San Mateo county (except for the Millbrae Ave sign) were replaced within the past 5 years or so with new reflective signs.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110929/ARTICLES/110929401
I found this interesting. Here in Louisiana we allow permissive left turns, (yield on green ball) this might work here in congested urban areas.
I assume that the system uses the signal control cameras to determine that intersection is clear and activate the flashing yellow arrow mode.
Mark
Quote from: pctech on August 21, 2012, 08:23:16 AM
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110929/ARTICLES/110929401
I found this interesting. Here in Louisiana we allow permissive left turns, (yield on green ball) this might work here in congested urban areas.
I assume that the system uses the signal control cameras to determine that intersection is clear and activate the flashing yellow arrow mode.
Mark
No. In FYA mode the yellow arrow will flash whenever
oncoming traffic has a green. At a given intersection it's either full-time or is replaced with a protected-only mode during pre-programmed peak traffic periods.
Quote from: pctech on August 21, 2012, 08:23:16 AM
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110929/ARTICLES/110929401
I found this interesting. Here in Louisiana we allow permissive left turns, (yield on green ball) this might work here in congested urban areas.
I assume that the system uses the signal control cameras to determine that intersection is clear and activate the flashing yellow arrow mode.
Mark
The Traffic Control child board of General Highway Talk has a few threads discussing operation and purpose of flashing yellow arrows. You should check those out.
I've been watching a few more California video freeway videos.I noticed that in the S.F. bay area that some of the BGS signs there have a "line" thru the top with the exit# tab in that surrounded by the typical CA. "number bubble". Are these unique to that part of the state? Is it up to each division of Calrans? I haven't seen them in videos of southern CA. freeways. Also noticed that as I-40 leaves CA. into AZ. there are "regular type" exit# tabs on the advanced approach signs for AZ. I thought Caltrans was worried about them blowing off in the wind?
Mark
Quote from: pctech on September 07, 2012, 08:27:02 AMI've been watching a few more California video freeway videos. I noticed that in the S.F. bay area that some of the BGS signs there have a "line" thru the top with the exit# tab in that surrounded by the typical CA. "number bubble". Are these unique to that part of the state?
I think District 4 (which covers the SF Bay Area) is probably the only Caltrans district in which the "strip style" (which is what you describe) is used on overhead guide signs. District 6 does use them for ground-mounted signs, such as near Tehachapi.
QuoteIs it up to each division of Caltrans?
It is up to the individual engineer. Caltrans has sign specs covering all three tab styles (regular, bitten-out, strip).
QuoteAlso noticed that as I-40 leaves CA. into AZ. there are "regular type" exit# tabs on the advanced approach signs for AZ. I thought Caltrans was worried about them blowing off in the wind?
Those signs (as well as the advance guide signs for Arizona exits on I-10 and I-8) are actually installed by Arizona DOT on California soil. Caltrans agrees to allow them to design and fabricate them to their standards, and the ADOT construction plans include special details for California-specific elements such as the miner's spade shield.
Caltrans has used regular tabs on ground-mounted signs, especially as retrofits (as on I-5 near the Oregon state line), but for all-new sign panels the preferred solution is generally to use strip-style or bitten-out tabs. Caltrans generally uses laminated panels instead of aluminum extrusions for ground-mounted guide signs, so attaching a regular exit tab means driving bolts through the front of the main sign panel instead of through extrusion flanges, since laminated panels are not pre-fabricated with mounting points for exit tabs. Other state DOTs which use laminated panels, like PennDOT, have the same problem and use strip-style tabs just like Caltrans does. (I think bitten-out tabs are unique to Caltrans, however.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 07, 2012, 10:44:20 AM
Other state DOTs which use laminated panels, like PennDOT, have the same problem and use strip-style tabs just like Caltrans does. (I think bitten-out tabs are unique to Caltrans, however.)
You forgot about this sign...
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania300/i-376_wb_exit_002b_01.jpg)
I've seen the new 101 shields around Tully Road in San Jose, and I've noticed that the "NORTH" and "SOUTH" have the first letter in them raised, which really isn't that common in California.
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on September 08, 2012, 07:17:28 PM
I've seen the new 101 shields around Tully Road in San Jose, and I've noticed that the "NORTH" and "SOUTH" have the first letter in them raised, which really isn't that common in California.
It's not common now but expect it to become common soon. Caltrans updated their sign specs for the directional banners (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/specupdates.htm) (i.e. NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST... California sign codes G47, G48, G49 and G50) in January of 2012 to include the raised first letter. I've seen these newer banners on the FREEWAY ENTRANCE assemblies at the on-ramp from Stevens Creek Blvd to I-280 northbound.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 09, 2012, 02:27:02 AMIt's not common now but expect it to become common soon. Caltrans updated their sign specs for the directional banners (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/specupdates.htm) (i.e. NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST... California sign codes G47, G48, G49 and G50) in January of 2012 to include the raised first letter. I've seen these newer banners on the FREEWAY ENTRANCE assemblies at the on-ramp from Stevens Creek Blvd to I-280 northbound.
I have been seeing the raised initial letter in cardinal direction words in recent Caltrans signing plans as well. I haven't checked to see whether the G-series specs for large panel signs have been revised accordingly.
The Caltrans embedded exit# tab does save money on the signs I would imagine. There are a lot of freeway BGS in CA. I wonder how much a typical BGS cost and how much of the cost is the exit# tab?
Mark
I don't think the bitten-out or strip-style tabs result in a cheaper sign panel. If you have a separate exit tab, you pay just for sheeting plus substrate for a tab which is no wider than needed and for sheeting plus substrate for a main sign panel which is closely drawn around the legend. This keeps your sheeting costs to a minimum. Whether it keeps your substrate costs to a minimum depends on how much cheaper it is to use a form of substrate construction (such as laminated-panel or formed-panel) that requires that the entire sign message (main sign legend plus exit tab information) fit into a rectangular envelope.
My suspicion is that with newer microprismatic sheetings, the cost per unit area of the sheeting is now several times the cost per unit area of the substrate, whatever type of substrate is used. Assuming that this is true, then I think the real reason Caltrans isn't chucking money out the window using strip-style and bitten-out tabs is that it is overcommitted to sign structures which require that the complete sign message be in a rectangular format. This made economic sense decades ago when sign backgrounds were not retroreflectorized and sign panels had a typical service life of over 50 years, but standards have now changed and Caltrans has a problem of excess durability.
Keep in mind that Caltrans exit tabs are smaller than the MUTCD requires. (The MUTCD calls for 30" tab height, with many states using 36" instead; 15" exit number; and 10" word "EXIT." Caltrans uses 24" tab height, 12" exit number, and 8" word "EXIT.") So Caltrans already relies on substandard provision to shave the cost. TOPS circular 02-04, which I think is still in effect, also allows designers to reduce the letter height of the main sign panel legend when it is necessary to fit in an exit tab.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 10, 2012, 12:38:19 PM
Keep in mind that Caltrans exit tabs are smaller than the MUTCD requires. (The MUTCD calls for 30" tab height, with many states using 36" instead; 15" exit number; and 10" word "EXIT." Caltrans uses 24" tab height, 12" exit number, and 8" word "EXIT.") So Caltrans already relies on substandard provision to shave the cost. TOPS circular 02-04, which I think is still in effect, also allows designers to reduce the letter height of the main sign panel legend when it is necessary to fit in an exit tab.
That came as a surprise to me. What other states, besides Arizona, use an exit tab larger than the MUTCD-specified 30 inches? As for Caltrans allowing sign designers to use reduced letter heights on signs to fit in an exit tab, as far as I know, is still being allowed with the most common practice I've seen is using 13.33/10 letter heights for the main legend (reduced from 16/12). Here's a photo someone posted in another thread of signs on I-5 near Stockton that appear to use reduced letter heights...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7088%2F7168404740_d61320f88b_c.jpg&hash=4ace35e4e45dcbaf36324a625cf002b2346bb071)
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 10, 2012, 03:31:08 PMWhat other states, besides Arizona, use an exit tab larger than the MUTCD-specified 30 inches?
A partial list:
* Indiana DOT (verified by inspecting contract plans for project 30111)
* Idaho Transportation Department (verified by inspecting contract plans for key number 12865)
"Many" is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration--in a cursory check of my signing plans from various state DOTs, the only other state I found with an unusual exit tab sizing policy was Wyoming DOT (24" tab height). (I think NCDOT used to use 24" but has changed to 30" now.)
How does California get all these exemptions to MUTCD standards?
Mark
Quote from: pctech on September 11, 2012, 10:11:25 AM
How does California get all these exemptions to MUTCD standards?
Many (
all?) states publish their own MUTCD supplement. The states have the right to strike and add things in the federal MUTCD, as long as they follow a process of allowing for some comment and review (and I think the state supplements must be approved by the FHWA before they are considered final, though I understand that's pretty
pro-
forma).
The California MUTCD is online here (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/).
For some comparison, the Maryland MUTCD is here (http://www.roads.maryland.gov/index.aspx?PageId=835).
Virginia MUTCD here (http://www.virginiadot.org/business/virginia_mutcd_supplement.asp).
California only has to publish a traffic manual which is in "substantial conformance" with the national MUTCD. FHWA's California division processes traffic manual approvals and has long had an explicit "low-hanging fruit first" policy--hence, exit tabs have been around since 2002 but nothing has been done about yellow crosswalks (unless something has happened in the last revision cycle).
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 11, 2012, 12:59:16 PM
California only has to publish a traffic manual which is in "substantial conformance" with the national MUTCD. FHWA's California division processes traffic manual approvals and has long had an explicit "low-hanging fruit first" policy--hence, exit tabs have been around since 2002 but nothing has been done about yellow crosswalks (unless something has happened in the last revision cycle).
From what I understand, yellow crosswalks are required per the California Vehicle Code section 21368 and since the federal MUTCD does not supersede state laws, there's not much the FHWA can do to force California to stop using yellow crosswalks unless a change is made to the CVC. Section 3B-18 of the 2012 California MUTCD does add a standard statement that requires the use of yellow crosswalks for school crossings.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 11, 2012, 04:29:44 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 11, 2012, 12:59:16 PM
California only has to publish a traffic manual which is in "substantial conformance" with the national MUTCD. FHWA's California division processes traffic manual approvals and has long had an explicit "low-hanging fruit first" policy--hence, exit tabs have been around since 2002 but nothing has been done about yellow crosswalks (unless something has happened in the last revision cycle).
From what I understand, yellow crosswalks are required per the California Vehicle Code section 21368 and since the federal MUTCD does not supersede state laws, there's not much the FHWA can do to force California to stop using yellow crosswalks unless a change is made to the CVC. Section 3B-18 of the 2012 California MUTCD does add a standard statement that requires the use of yellow crosswalks for school crossings.
Interesting. I saw the yellow crosswalks when I was out there, but I couldn't figure out why the heck they were yellow. There was no accompanying signage.
Quote from: Steve on September 11, 2012, 08:24:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2012, 12:29:03 PM
Quote from: pctech on September 11, 2012, 10:11:25 AM
How does California get all these exemptions to MUTCD standards?
Many (all?)
A few.
Enough that highways in California look quite different than those of any other state. In some ways, that's a good thing. In others, not so much.
Here's an observation made while in California.
I-8 WB and EB at the CA 15/I-15 changeover, both directions, all signs, have a greenout over SOMETHING before or after CA 15. It seems to only show up on the newer button copy (late 80s into 90s vintage) and is about 7 letters long give or take from I-8 WB, and about 9-10 letters from I-8 EB. What is this mystery destination, or... thing?
Perhaps 40th Street, which carried SR 15 until about 2000?
While we ponder that mystery, here's a second one - Exit 5 is for Mission Center Dr. and Auto Circle, and both names are tacked onto what appears to have been a formerly blank sign - EVERY time. So what's up with that?
The California 15 south sign covers up 40th St.
The Mission Center Rd/Auto Circle sign covers up Mission Center Road (Auto Circle was added later).
Qualcomm Way covers up Stadium Way (although most of the signs here were replaced rather than covered up).
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: NE2 on October 09, 2012, 11:41:12 PM
Perhaps 40th Street, which carried SR 15 until about 2000?
correct. I believe it is either I-5 or I-805 northbound which has some upcoming-exit signs for which the ghost of "40th Street" is visible since it had button copy elements removed, as opposed to covered up.
Quote from: andy3175 on October 10, 2012, 12:04:55 AM
The California 15 south sign covers up 40th St.
The Mission Center Rd/Auto Circle sign covers up Mission Center Road (Auto Circle was added later).
Qualcomm Way covers up Stadium Way (although most of the signs here were replaced rather than covered up).
Regards,
Andy
The last one I figured out. I learned more about 40th St. today so that makes some sense. My understanding is that CA 15 was still signed on it anyway, which goes with that part remaining on the original sign.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 10, 2012, 12:27:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 09, 2012, 11:41:12 PM
Perhaps 40th Street, which carried SR 15 until about 2000?
correct. I believe it is either I-5 or I-805 northbound which has some upcoming-exit signs for which the ghost of "40th Street" is visible since it had button copy elements removed, as opposed to covered up.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 10, 2012, 12:27:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 09, 2012, 11:41:12 PM
Perhaps 40th Street, which carried SR 15 until about 2000?
correct. I believe it is either I-5 or I-805 northbound which has some upcoming-exit signs for which the ghost of "40th Street" is visible since it had button copy elements removed, as opposed to covered up.
I believe it is I-805 NB where there's a very badly-done greenout that says "Junction" where it once said "40th Street." Which is odd because on CA 15 NB at 805 NB, it says "Riverside." Don't know why it wouldn't say likewise on 805 NB. And I don't think 40th Street was ever mentioned on I-5.
Quote from: JustDrive on October 11, 2012, 05:42:30 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 10, 2012, 12:27:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 09, 2012, 11:41:12 PM
Perhaps 40th Street, which carried SR 15 until about 2000?
correct. I believe it is either I-5 or I-805 northbound which has some upcoming-exit signs for which the ghost of "40th Street" is visible since it had button copy elements removed, as opposed to covered up.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 10, 2012, 12:27:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 09, 2012, 11:41:12 PM
Perhaps 40th Street, which carried SR 15 until about 2000?
correct. I believe it is either I-5 or I-805 northbound which has some upcoming-exit signs for which the ghost of "40th Street" is visible since it had button copy elements removed, as opposed to covered up.
I believe it is I-805 NB where there's a very badly-done greenout that says "Junction" where it once said "40th Street." Which is odd because on CA 15 NB at 805 NB, it says "Riverside." Don't know why it wouldn't say likewise on 805 NB. And I don't think 40th Street was ever mentioned on I-5.
I don't think it's 805 NB because I just checked my signs and while the greenouts aren't great, you can't see any traces of what was written beneath them.
Also, on a new observations note, the last BGS on CA 905 WB (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.567922,-117.067191&spn=0.004756,0.010965&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=36.367747,89.824219&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.567922,-117.067191&panoid=OTP-G_9tLI5Dj8BqMsHH0Q&cbp=12,254.18,,1,-11.41) is for Oro Vista Rd. The word "Vista" is patched over something - and then "Oro _____ Rd" is ITSELF patched over something else. Or so it appears. What's going on there?
Quote from: Steve on October 12, 2012, 02:22:45 AM
I don't think it's 805 NB because I just checked my signs and while the greenouts aren't great, you can't see any traces of what was written beneath them.
I remember it on two consecutive advance-exit signs. (up high in the median, shows next 3 exits) not at the actual exit. the actual exit has greenout; the advance signs have the button elements demounted, and you can see their "shadow".
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 12, 2012, 12:18:09 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 12, 2012, 02:22:45 AM
I don't think it's 805 NB because I just checked my signs and while the greenouts aren't great, you can't see any traces of what was written beneath them.
I remember it on two consecutive advance-exit signs. (up high in the median, shows next 3 exits) not at the actual exit. the actual exit has greenout; the advance signs have the button elements demounted, and you can see their "shadow".
If that's the case, it's possible that new greenout was applied, because it sure looks new in my photos.
To this day, I still don't understand this random Clearview "Truck Scales" sign on I-10 east near Banning. I spotted this last year, but I couldn't get a picture of it. Instead, here's a picture taken by Raymond Yu on Flickr. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/raymondyue/)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4064%2F4614219861_edc2b742c3_z.jpg&hash=466f46d30fe7267a1a452020a7f36e531863d149)
Could it possibly be a local sign installation?
Quote from: NE2 on October 09, 2012, 11:41:12 PM
Perhaps 40th Street, which carried SR 15 until about 2000?
It is indeed 40th Street, I have lived in SD since 1996, and remember the signs pre greenout. One of my first joyrides took me down 40th street.
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on November 25, 2012, 12:41:13 AM
To this day, I still don't understand this random Clearview "Truck Scales" sign on I-10 east near Banning. I spotted this last year, but I couldn't get a picture of it. Instead, here's a picture taken by Raymond Yu on Flickr. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/raymondyue/)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4064%2F4614219861_edc2b742c3_z.jpg&hash=466f46d30fe7267a1a452020a7f36e531863d149)
Could it possibly be a local sign installation?
It's been widely discussed in the "Worst of Road Signs" topic that any Raymond Yu sign photo on Flickr is bound to be a fake. It all starts on post #1130...
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3521.msg141398#msg141398
and is an interesting read as a number of us try to determine if the signs in his photos are real or fake and what lengths we went to to get the real answer.
Here's my post where I discuss the response I got from Raymond basically confessing that his photos are doctored...
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3521.msg141721#msg141721
With regards to that photo in the previous post, it's an obvious fake. Caltrans does not use "corrugated" sign panels for any of it's BGSes (I forgot what the technical term is for that type of sign construction) and as far as I know, Caltrans does not use Clearview on any of it's signs. Clearview is being used in some areas at the local level for street blades and locally installed signs.
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 25, 2012, 01:37:45 AM
With regards to that photo in the previous post, it's an obvious fake. Caltrans does not use "corrugated" sign panels for any of it's BGSes (I forgot what the technical term is for that type of sign construction) and as far as I know, Caltrans does not use Clearview on any of it's signs. Clearview is being used in some areas at the local level for street blades and locally installed signs.
It's legit...
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=33.924228,-116.861964&spn=0.002883,0.004128&gl=us&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.924223,-116.862072&panoid=4rJOAS-LipeVCtls2IBuwg&cbp=12,134.37,,2,-0.58
Quote from: NE2 on November 25, 2012, 02:13:32 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 25, 2012, 01:37:45 AM
With regards to that photo in the previous post, it's an obvious fake. Caltrans does not use "corrugated" sign panels for any of it's BGSes (I forgot what the technical term is for that type of sign construction) and as far as I know, Caltrans does not use Clearview on any of it's signs. Clearview is being used in some areas at the local level for street blades and locally installed signs.
It's legit...
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=33.924228,-116.861964&spn=0.002883,0.004128&gl=us&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.924223,-116.862072&panoid=4rJOAS-LipeVCtls2IBuwg&cbp=12,134.37,,2,-0.58
Wow! I stand corrected but given the source (Raymond Yu), you can't blame me for being skeptical. The GSV image doesn't show the horizontal lines that are prominently visible in the Raymond Yu photo. Maybe Caltrans borrowed/stole a sign from Arizona... :-D
Quote from: NE2 on November 25, 2012, 02:13:32 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 25, 2012, 01:37:45 AM
With regards to that photo in the previous post, it's an obvious fake. Caltrans does not use "corrugated" sign panels for any of it's BGSes (I forgot what the technical term is for that type of sign construction) and as far as I know, Caltrans does not use Clearview on any of it's signs. Clearview is being used in some areas at the local level for street blades and locally installed signs.
It's legit...
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=33.924228,-116.861964&spn=0.002883,0.004128&gl=us&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.924223,-116.862072&panoid=4rJOAS-LipeVCtls2IBuwg&cbp=12,134.37,,2,-0.58
That's Clearview, but it's not corrugated. Looks like plywood underneath.
Contractor installed signs?
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 25, 2012, 03:25:25 AMWow! I stand corrected but given the source (Raymond Yu), you can't blame me for being skeptical. The GSV image doesn't show the horizontal lines that are prominently visible in the Raymond Yu photo. Maybe Caltrans borrowed/stole a sign from Arizona... :-D
Myosh_tino, given our history with Raymond Yu, you were right to be suspicious. That sign is actually a fake, but this time the falsification is limited to substrate type, unlike other past fakes which have falsified legend typeface.
Looking at the back of the sign, it appears to be of extrusheet construction:
Google StreetView extract showing extrusheet "ribs" (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&gl=us&t=k&layer=c&cbll=33.924236,-116.861858&panoid=Xgf2EM8ocTK0bP9v1jFa_w&cbp=12,180.42,,0,3.96&ie=UTF8&ll=33.924226,-116.861964&spn=0.001583,0.002411&z=19&vpsrc=0)
Brandon's guess as to plywood substrate is otherwise a good one--the rippling and gaps in the sheeting are otherwise pretty typical of plywood signs. But a plywood sign this is not.
Caltrans' Standard Plans do not specify extrusheet construction for signs, so I think this sign is a double experiment: (1) Clearview (Caltrans-sponsored), and (2) extrusheet. This time Raymond Yu has faked the sign by making it look like it is of extruded aluminum construction. (It has been previously mentioned, I think in MTR, that Caltrans erected experimental Clearview signs on I-10 in the Inland Empire.)
As an aside, I really dislike the term "corrugated" for sign substrates, not just because it is not officially sanctioned, but because it is used without discrimination to refer both to extruded aluminum and extrusheet construction. The two are different and look different both from front and back. Extrusheet signs are flat metal panels riveted to horizontal stiffener ribs at close spacing, while extruded aluminum signs are heavier-gauge extruded aluminum strips with flanges that are placed on top of each other and then bolted together through the flanges. The height of each aluminum strip is generally higher than the spacing between each extrusheet rib, which is part of the way you tell the difference. Another is that, when the sign panel is not secured to posts, extruded aluminum signs have more rigidity and are less likely to bend along a vertical axis.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 25, 2012, 10:47:12 AM
As an aside, I really dislike the term "corrugated" for sign substrates, not just because it is not officially sanctioned, but because it is used without discrimination to refer both to extruded aluminum and extrusheet construction. The two are different and look different both from front and back. Extrusheet signs are flat metal panels riveted to horizontal stiffener ribs at close spacing, while extruded aluminum signs are heavier-gauge extruded aluminum strips with flanges that are placed on top of each other and then bolted together through the flanges. The height of each aluminum strip is generally higher than the spacing between each extrusheet rib, which is part of the way you tell the difference. Another is that, when the sign panel is not secured to posts, extruded aluminum signs have more rigidity and are less likely to bend along a vertical axis.
Furthering your aside... Would it be possible start a thread that shows in detail, via photos or plans sheets, the different types of large-scale sign construction methods? I'd love to get a better visual understanding of these different types.
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 25, 2012, 01:37:45 AM
With regards to that photo in the previous post, it's an obvious fake.
Looking at the photo again, and comparing to the Street View link... unless there's another similar sign somewhere, it's an obvious fake cause there's not nearly as much foliage in the background on the Street View.
Quote from: roadfro on November 26, 2012, 01:39:24 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 25, 2012, 01:37:45 AM
With regards to that photo in the previous post, it's an obvious fake.
Looking at the photo again, and comparing to the Street View link... unless there's another similar sign somewhere, it's an obvious fake cause there's not nearly as much foliage in the background on the Street View.
If you zoom out from the link NE2 provided you'll notice quite a bit of burnt shrubbery (presumably from a discarded cigarette butt) past the sign. I suspect the street view image was taken well after the overhead satellite image Google Maps is using.
For New Years' this year, we're going on a vacation in Los Angeles. I'm wondering if there is anything I should be wary about on the way (basically I-5 and US-101). The last time I went on I-5 was last July, so has anything changed since then? Anything north of Anaheim.
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on December 18, 2012, 05:04:22 PM
For New Years' this year, we're going on a vacation in Los Angeles. I'm wondering if there is anything I should be wary about on the way (basically I-5 and US-101). The last time I went on I-5 was last July, so has anything changed since then? Anything north of Anaheim.
between exits 179 and 213, civilization has collapsed completely. bring your own flamethrower.
I plan on visiting California, albeit to Disneyland. After reading about these things called "button" signs (which must be pretty small), lack of mileposts, and killing the Mexican Jesus, I think I'm better off using Amtrak.
All jokes aside, I do plan on taking Amtrak. Allows me to not use California terms (where I-10 is The 10 Freeway), and someone else does the driving... I can focus on scenery!
I recently watched a "road geek" video of Interstate 5 north of Reading CA recently. There were exit# tabs on the top corner of the signs just like the rest of us. What's up with that? I thought you guys were non-conformist. :D
Mark
Well, California DOES occasionally use exit tabs in rural LGSes (though I've seen one near CA-91 on I-5). I just don't know why...
In my observation, new exit tabs show up more on BGSs along the side of the road than on overhead signs.
Quote from: roadfro on January 07, 2013, 12:11:12 AM
In my observation, new exit tabs show up more on BGSs along the side of the road than on overhead signs.
That's been my observation too. External tabs on overhead signs are *very* rare but have been used on stretches of I-5 north of Sacramento.
Here's my favorite:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=redding,+ca&ll=33.666604,-117.89403&spn=0.030503,0.066047&hnear=Redding,+Shasta,+California&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=33.666488,-117.894153&panoid=Z01n2xSKuJmDeS1lH3kcxQ&cbp=12,43.68,,0,3.16
Kinda sad to say, but the last remaining outline 101 shield is in danger of being replaced. Currently, there is a large construction project on 101 on the Peninsula that includes the Rengstorff exit, where the outline 101 is. So to say, outline shields may be gone soon...
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on February 08, 2013, 09:38:04 PM
Kinda sad to say, but the last remaining outline 101 shield is in danger of being replaced. Currently, there is a large construction project on 101 on the Peninsula that includes the Rengstorff exit, where the outline 101 is. So to say, outline shields may be gone soon...
Not so. I have seen the construction plans for the US 101 Auxiliary Lane project and it appears the signs on the Rengstorff Avenue overpass are not being replaced. Here is a small snippit from the sign plans...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F101_aux_lane_plans.png&hash=626995a58ca5b1e893d7e32e871bbc4a756eb8f4)
If the signs in the above plan were replacing the existing signs, then the Rengstorff Avenue exit sign would have included an exit number "tab".
Note the dual diamond lane in myosh's post above. I saw a Palo Alto Weekly article where this was mentioned, but hadn't seen it anywhere else.
Also: "Rengstroff" in the diagram is a typo.
All this construction to add a 2nd carpool lane through the area...when what's really needed is to extend the existing one northward to San Francisco.
Quote from: citrus on February 10, 2013, 07:17:20 PM
All this construction to add a 2nd carpool lane through the area...when what's really needed is to extend the existing one northward to San Francisco.
And in a couple of years, the two diamond lanes will become express lanes where solo drivers can pay a toll to use them. There are plans to add a second HOV lane on the 1990's portion of CA-85 when express lanes are added.
QuoteThat's been my observation too. External tabs on overhead signs are *very* rare but have been used on stretches of I-5 north of Sacramento.
True, though on our last trip up to our house in central Oregon, I noticed one at the US 97 exit in Weed. I couldn't snap a picture, but here is one from Google Maps.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Weed,+CA&hl=en&ll=41.415237,-122.382076&spn=0.001128,0.002642&sll=41.988703,-122.607626&sspn=0.001126,0.002642&oq=weed&hnear=Weed,+Siskiyou,+California&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.415158,-122.382043&panoid=0lEG6eH0ZxtwHSnxYHXd2A&cbp=12,340.96,,0,-0.64
^ That's not an external exit tab though.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 21, 2013, 12:50:26 AM
QuoteThat's been my observation too. External tabs on overhead signs are *very* rare but have been used on stretches of I-5 north of Sacramento.
True, though on our last trip up to our house in central Oregon, I noticed one at the US 97 exit in Weed. I couldn't snap a picture, but here is one from Google Maps.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Weed,+CA&hl=en&ll=41.415237,-122.382076&spn=0.001128,0.002642&sll=41.988703,-122.607626&sspn=0.001126,0.002642&oq=weed&hnear=Weed,+Siskiyou,+California&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.415158,-122.382043&panoid=0lEG6eH0ZxtwHSnxYHXd2A&cbp=12,340.96,,0,-0.64
As on_wisconsin said, that sign does not have an external tab. Here is a photo of a sign from the AARoads Gallery that has an external exit tab...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_sb_exit_633_01.jpg)
I think this is the only external tab on a sign bridge.
http://goo.gl/maps/Jc55S
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 21, 2013, 03:49:09 AM
I think this is the only external tab on a sign bridge.
http://goo.gl/maps/Jc55S
Here's another, at the San Bernardino Split just past downtown Los Angeles:
http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.052326,-118.227305&spn=0.003966,0.00456&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=34.052688,-118.226859&panoid=bZrOMGxETK4jQ_LMvIPfQg&cbp=12,95.97,,1,-6.56
Quote from: TheStranger on February 21, 2013, 11:23:50 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 21, 2013, 03:49:09 AM
I think this is the only external tab on a sign bridge.
http://goo.gl/maps/Jc55S
Here's another, at the San Bernardino Split just past downtown Los Angeles:
http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.052326,-118.227305&spn=0.003966,0.00456&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=34.052688,-118.226859&panoid=bZrOMGxETK4jQ_LMvIPfQg&cbp=12,95.97,,1,-6.56
Forgot about those. There's a few more preceding that sign.
the "Exit 1D" at the East LA appears to be a replacement for a sign gantry that was put up in the 1971 exit-numbering experiment. a handful of those exit numbers remain, and they are all centered and external.
there are two tabs on I-5 at Exit 50 which have, in the last several years, switched between saying "Elm Ave." and "Exit 50". I believe they were originally installed at the request of the City of Carlsbad, as they are made of wood. very unusual.
I noticed yesterday that the city of Davis is pretty good at signing the routing of US-40. I saw several "Historic *US-40 shield*" signs there.
Quote from: roadfro on November 26, 2012, 01:33:00 AM
Furthering your aside... Would it be possible start a thread that shows in detail, via photos or plans sheets, the different types of large-scale sign construction methods? I'd love to get a better visual understanding of these different types.
As requested, there is such a thread now in General Highway Talk (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=12.0).
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8977.0
I don't know if it has been stated yet. But, yeah, the button copy signs are still there because California could not fund it unless its absolutely necessary.
Quote from: Lytton on March 19, 2013, 08:18:27 PM
I don't know if it has been stated yet. But, yeah, the button copy signs are still there because California could not fund it unless its absolutely necessary.
except for when they randomly do. see: "Arroyo Seco must be made a parkway, or else!"
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 19, 2013, 08:22:18 PM
Quote from: Lytton on March 19, 2013, 08:18:27 PM
I don't know if it has been stated yet. But, yeah, the button copy signs are still there because California could not fund it unless its absolutely necessary.
except for when they randomly do. see: "Arroyo Seco must be made a parkway, or else!"
Have you also noticed that California State Route 209 and 274 are not seen on the freeways anymore. I've just took a drive on I-5 and I-8, and the Route 209 shield would be either hidden with a green reflective square or the sign replaced altogether. I also noticed that Route 163 had Balboa Avenue (Route 274) being replaced with a green reflective sign.
Maybe California has enough of us roadgeeks awing over these deleted routes or something? Or maybe just some tourists got confused.
They were decommissioned at around the same time the exit numbers came into play and required sign replacements, so it's not surprising.
Quote from: rschen7754 on March 20, 2013, 05:08:18 PM
They were decommissioned at around the same time the exit numbers came into play and required sign replacements, so it's not surprising.
Well, it was surprising that they haven't even replaced them for 10 years till now.
Both Routes 209 and 274 were relinquished to the city of San Diego in May 2001. Signs along both routes started to be removed by 2004, although it took years for most of the signs to be removed. The freeway overhead signs for both routes were removed (or covered up) in Dec 2012. I'm not sure why more than 10 years elapsed between the legislative decommissioning of these routes and the removal of most signs; there were improvements made to Balboa Ave including several new segments of landscaped median after the state transferred control to the city. Now the city streets that were Routes 209 and 274 are now just that: city streets maintained by the city of San Diego. There are still a few 209 and 274 signs in the field (just saw a couple yesterday) ... you just have to know where to look.
More information:
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-209.html
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-274.html
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: Lytton on March 20, 2013, 05:14:34 PM
Quote from: rschen7754 on March 20, 2013, 05:08:18 PM
They were decommissioned at around the same time the exit numbers came into play and required sign replacements, so it's not surprising.
Well, it was surprising that they haven't even replaced them for 10 years till now.
Not as surprising if you see how many CA-42 signs are still about...
And, even when they do replace the signs they don't always get it right: the new sign on northbound I-405 at Artesia Boulevard still shows Artesia as CA-91 and Hawthorne Boulevard as CA-107, even though those portions were relinquished in 2003.
^ In some cases, California sign replacements have been a direct carbon copy of sign legend, just adding an exit number in the corner...
One thing I noticed during a roadtrip last September (Bay Area-Los Angeles-Las Vegas) that all the pole mounted signs (exit signs, single guide signs, Interstate shields, mileage signs, etc.) is that Caltrans use wooden posts instead of metal and I think that's just cheapening it. Louisiana only uses wooden posts as a temporary measure and eventually replaces them with metal posts on a concrete base with a breakaway point on the base of the posts bolted on.
Quote from: DTComposer on April 02, 2013, 02:21:01 AM
Not as surprising if you see how many CA-42 signs are still about...
the I-5/CA-42 ramp is closed. CLOSED orange and black signs slapped onto the 1965 porcelain green guide signs. those guide signs may be going away soon. there is a button copy 42 sign on the right that is kinda hidden by shrubbery; that one may survive.
Quote from: apjung on April 09, 2013, 04:33:12 AM
One thing I noticed during a roadtrip last September (Bay Area-Los Angeles-Las Vegas) that all the pole mounted signs (exit signs, single guide signs, Interstate shields, mileage signs, etc.) is that Caltrans use wooden posts instead of metal and I think that's just cheapening it. Louisiana only uses wooden posts as a temporary measure and eventually replaces them with metal posts on a concrete base with a breakaway point on the base of the posts bolted on.
I, for one, prefer the wood posts as opposed to metal ones given the natural beauty of California. Also, wood posts satisfy the "breakaway" requirement for sign posts without additional hardware needing to be installed to provide a specific breakaway point.
I too was wondering what the problem with wood posts was. I happen to like both wood and metal. Just not wood posts that are warped so much that the attached sign leans noticeably.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 09, 2013, 01:45:20 PM
Quote from: apjung on April 09, 2013, 04:33:12 AM
One thing I noticed during a roadtrip last September (Bay Area-Los Angeles-Las Vegas) that all the pole mounted signs (exit signs, single guide signs, Interstate shields, mileage signs, etc.) is that Caltrans use wooden posts instead of metal and I think that's just cheapening it. Louisiana only uses wooden posts as a temporary measure and eventually replaces them with metal posts on a concrete base with a breakaway point on the base of the posts bolted on.
I, for one, prefer the wood posts as opposed to metal ones given the natural beauty of California. Also, wood posts satisfy the "breakaway" requirement for sign posts without additional hardware needing to be installed to provide a specific breakaway point.
This may be a stupid question, or one that goes to Worst/Best/Erroneous Signs, but can anyone name a current example of a sign that does NOT meet the "breakaway" requirement? Either the poles are buried in the ground, or are mounted on a patch of concrete with the breakaway bolt at the base.
do freeway sign bridges have the breakaway requirement? because if not, I'll bet most of California's are out of spec by virtue of being very, very old.
Quote from: andy3175 on March 22, 2013, 01:11:16 AM
Both Routes 209 and 274 were relinquished to the city of San Diego in May 2001. Signs along both routes started to be removed by 2004, although it took years for most of the signs to be removed. The freeway overhead signs for both routes were removed (or covered up) in Dec 2012. I'm not sure why more than 10 years elapsed between the legislative decommissioning of these routes and the removal of most signs; there were improvements made to Balboa Ave including several new segments of landscaped median after the state transferred control to the city. Now the city streets that were Routes 209 and 274 are now just that: city streets maintained by the city of San Diego. There are still a few 209 and 274 signs in the field (just saw a couple yesterday) ... you just have to know where to look.
More information:
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-209.html
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-274.html
Regards,
Andy
I was in San Diego last Nov, and I still saw 274 shields on the Balboa Ave. exit off the 163. Have those been replaced? I know button copy in Caltrans Dist. 11 (San Diego) is getting rarer and rarer.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 07:44:02 PM
do freeway sign bridges have the breakaway requirement? because if not, I'll bet most of California's are out of spec by virtue of being very, very old.
I'm pretty sure freeway sign bridges don't have a "breakaway" connection but, at least in California, metal beam guardrails are placed around the post(s) to deflect vehicles away from the posts.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 09, 2013, 01:45:20 PM
Quote from: apjung on April 09, 2013, 04:33:12 AM
One thing I noticed during a roadtrip last September (Bay Area-Los Angeles-Las Vegas) that all the pole mounted signs (exit signs, single guide signs, Interstate shields, mileage signs, etc.) is that Caltrans use wooden posts instead of metal and I think that's just cheapening it. Louisiana only uses wooden posts as a temporary measure and eventually replaces them with metal posts on a concrete base with a breakaway point on the base of the posts bolted on.
I, for one, prefer the wood posts as opposed to metal ones given the natural beauty of California. Also, wood posts satisfy the "breakaway" requirement for sign posts without additional hardware needing to be installed to provide a specific breakaway point.
I have seen a hole drilled in the base of a wood signpost to enhance the breakaway characteristic. As far as geographic distribution, Wisconsin uses wood signposts extensively, and even Colorado uses them at times in lieu of the round, spin-in-the-wind steel signpost.
Idaho frequently uses wood sign posts as well.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 07:44:02 PM
do freeway sign bridges have the breakaway requirement? because if not, I'll bet most of California's are out of spec by virtue of being very, very old.
Everything within the clear zone (~30' for freeways, depending on conditions) must either be breakaway/frangible or positively protected by barrier (concrete or guiderail, typically).
Quote from: brad2971 on April 09, 2013, 07:44:22 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on March 22, 2013, 01:11:16 AM
Both Routes 209 and 274 were relinquished to the city of San Diego in May 2001. Signs along both routes started to be removed by 2004, although it took years for most of the signs to be removed. The freeway overhead signs for both routes were removed (or covered up) in Dec 2012. I'm not sure why more than 10 years elapsed between the legislative decommissioning of these routes and the removal of most signs; there were improvements made to Balboa Ave including several new segments of landscaped median after the state transferred control to the city. Now the city streets that were Routes 209 and 274 are now just that: city streets maintained by the city of San Diego. There are still a few 209 and 274 signs in the field (just saw a couple yesterday) ... you just have to know where to look.
More information:
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-209.html
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-274.html
Regards,
Andy
I was in San Diego last Nov, and I still saw 274 shields on the Balboa Ave. exit off the 163. Have those been replaced? I know button copy in Caltrans Dist. 11 (San Diego) is getting rarer and rarer.
Yup, the SR 274 signs on SR 163 are now gone, as of December 2012.
Regards,
Andy
There are a few wooden signs still floating around Louisiana. LADODT hasn't replaced all of them, they usually are the "blue info" type signs along interstates. (food & gas choices at exits, rest area, etc.) I have to admit that it looks "cheap", not belonging on a freeway.
Mark
Quote from: Steve on April 09, 2013, 10:50:06 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 07:44:02 PM
do freeway sign bridges have the breakaway requirement? because if not, I'll bet most of California's are out of spec by virtue of being very, very old.
Everything within the clear zone (~30' for freeways, depending on conditions) must either be breakaway/frangible or positively protected by barrier (concrete or guiderail, typically).
got it. in California urban settings, everything that I can think of is positively protected.
does this count as positive protection?
http://goo.gl/maps/RlqnK
this is a guard rail before a non-breakaway gantry, but it appears to me to not be particularly beefed up. I can see someone plowing this one at typical grapevine speed and receiving some pretty severe damage from everything.
In and around the Fresno area, there's several exits that use these MUTCD gore point signs instead of the regular California signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8112%2F8649822584_a1518be1e4_c.jpg&hash=2783f04d92623aa24ac9ce1229cc8f00110ee6fa)
I may have seen similar gore point signs to these elsewhere in California, but the ones I saw around Fresno were reminded me most of other states' (such as Arizona).
EDIT: Here's (http://goo.gl/maps/8H7kb) a better example on Google Streetview.
I'd hate to be resurrecting a thread that's been inactive for months, but another trip to Fresno today got me to notice something. Around the CA-41/CA-168/CA-180 interchange in Fresno, I noticed an APL sign put up on westbound 180. Here's a picture:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5333%2F10198267666_70f38404d7_c.jpg&hash=dccd2add10a057134da0bd7a4a56edeafe091744)
(Raised caps on the cardinal direction too!)
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on October 10, 2013, 08:16:22 PM
I'd hate to be resurrecting a thread that's been inactive for months, but another trip to Fresno today got me to notice something. Around the CA-41/CA-168/CA-180 interchange in Fresno, I noticed an APL sign put up on westbound 180. Here's a picture:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5333%2F10198267666_70f38404d7_c.jpg&hash=dccd2add10a057134da0bd7a4a56edeafe091744)
(Raised caps on the cardinal direction too!)
Well, I'll be darned!
Those signs appear to be standard 120" guide signs so those arrows must not be more than 36 inches tall (versus the 72-inch FHWA-standard). That exit "tab" looks to be 30 inches tall versus the more (California) standard of 24 inches.
As I think about it, the Fresno area was the first to experiment with the larger, FHWA-standard exit gore signs so I guess this really shouldn't have come as much of a surprise.
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on October 10, 2013, 08:16:22 PMI noticed an APL sign put up on westbound 180. Here's a picture:
[snip]
(Raised caps on the cardinal direction too!)
Pigs are flying and I'm sure hell is getting quite frosty as well. (CalTrans please, please don't let this be a one off...)
After seeing that photo of an APL in California, I had to take a whack at drawing it...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F180-41_ca-apl.png&hash=7afb8761f97a5af4d47f80a5d6dd70806d971fc9)
The through and option-lane arrows are 48 inches tall which is considerably shorter than the 72 (or 66) inch tall arrows prescribed by the 2009 MUTCD. Judging by the photo, it appears that the exit arrow might have an extended vertical shaft but it's late so in my haste to draw these arrows, I just used the curved arrow from the option-lane arrow.
If this is how Caltrans is going to handle arrow-per-lane signage, I think I can live with this implementation. There isn't a whole lot of wasted green space (one of my complaints about the APL signs) and everything fits within the 120" maximum height for guide signs. Whether this is a "one-off" remains to be seen but I seemed to recall jrouse, who works for Caltrans and is a member here, say Caltrans was looking at using an arrow-per-lane sign at the I-5/CA-1 junction in southern Orange County.
Note: The use of just an "ONLY" panel instead of an "EXIT" and an "ONLY" panel around the exit arrow is a long-standing California standard when there's a lane-drop on a freeway-to-freeway exit. This signing standard was included in the 2012 California MUTCD.
Have yet to see APL in Louisiana. Like the looks of that one, minus the exit# tab of course. :spin:
Myosh_tino, what is Caltrans' reason for not using exit only on its lane-drops? They seem to stubbornly insist on doing everything in their unique way, even while sort-of standardizing with the rest of the country.
California in some ways is almost like its own separate country. Interestingly, (though off-topic) emergency vehicle (Police-Fire-EMS) warning lights in Calif. have always followed a strict standard that did not exist in the rest of the country. And fire departments in Calif. have some practices that are unique to the west if not to California. (Send me a PM for more details if interested.)
Just recently went on another trip to California. I have yet to see a freeway signs with Clearview font. Has CA adopted the Clearview font like in Texas and Louisiana? I was hoping that I would see it on the new SF/Oakland Bay Bridge but all the new signs do not use the Clearview font.
Quote from: apjung on October 16, 2013, 11:05:08 AM
Just recently went on another trip to California. I have yet to see a freeway signs with Clearview font. Has CA adopted the Clearview font like in Texas and Louisiana? I was hoping that I would see it on the new SF/Oakland Bay Bridge but all the new signs does not use the Clearview font.
No, CalTrans continues to use the FHWA font as before on all new sign installations. Local entities may be different - Sacramento is now using a font that I'm not sure is Clearview, but isn't the traditional font either.
I know of one Clearview sign in CA: a weigh station sign on I-10 eastbound near Cabazon or so. (plus or minus 30 miles)
the infamous Santa Ana patch at the south end of CA-57 is not Clearview. it looks close but not quite.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 11, 2013, 09:25:10 PM
Myosh_tino, what is Caltrans' reason for not using exit only on its lane-drops?
I quite honestly don't know why Caltrans requires just an "ONLY" panel on exit signs that involve a freeway-to-freeway lane drop other than to say it was always done that way. I'll do a little digging when I get a chance.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 11, 2013, 09:25:10 PM
They seem to stubbornly insist on doing everything in their unique way, even while sort-of standardizing with the rest of the country.
You mean like using cutout US and state route shields? :-P
Quote from: apjung on October 16, 2013, 11:05:08 AM
Just recently went on another trip to California. I have yet to see a freeway signs with Clearview font. Has CA adopted the Clearview font like in Texas and Louisiana? I was hoping that I would see it on the new SF/Oakland Bay Bridge but all the new signs does not use the Clearview font.
Like others have said, Caltrans has not adopted Clearview and hopefully it stays that way. Certain cities have begun to use Clearview for things like streetblades (Santa Clara immediately comes to mind).
Actually, Myosh, I hadn't even been aware of the practice with the shields. I was thinking more (for example) of the standard height of all overhead signs in a display, with all the limitations on the legends. Calif. signs basically only allow 3 lines of standard size copy, resulting in the route shield commonly being to the side of the legend. In most of the country, especially in the East, every sign panel is custom made for the legend to be displayed. On one sign-bridge you might see 3 signs of all radically different heights, depending on the legend requirements, including the number of lines of wording. And the route shield is usually (but not always) shown on top of the legend. That's how the MUTCD mostly shows it too.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 16, 2013, 05:20:22 PM
Actually, Myosh, I hadn't even been aware of the practice with the shields. I was thinking more (for example) of the standard height of all overhead signs in a display, with all the limitations on the legends. Calif. signs basically only allow 3 lines of standard size copy, resulting in the route shield commonly being to the side of the legend. In most of the country, especially in the East, every sign panel is custom made for the legend to be displayed. On one sign-bridge you might see 3 signs of all radically different heights, depending on the legend requirements, including the number of lines of wording. And the route shield is usually (but not always) shown on top of the legend. That's how the MUTCD mostly shows it too.
Not always. Michigan is one of those states that keeps the shield to the left of the text on a very good percentage of their signage. MDOT does not have the self-imposed limitations of CalTrans, but still uses the convention anyway. MDOT also uses the CalTrans convention of multiple shields flanking a control city on wider pull through signage (i.e. {75} Detroit {75} (https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/michigan075/i-075_nb_exit_020_04.jpg)).
Some examples here on AARoads:
https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/michigan096/i-096_eb_exit_190b_02.jpg
https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/michigan075/i-075_nb_exit_344a_02.jpg
https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/michigan075/i-075_sb_exit_162b_01.jpg
V-e-r-y I-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g........... Yes, that 75-Detroit-75 sign is positively Californian. I'd never seen that done outside of California. Using the word only instead of exit only is straight out of Calif. too.
Actually New York DOT is using some exceptions to their usual practice too, with the shield to the side of the wording. Guess even they borrow a page from Calif. once in a while. But that's very recent.
I don't know if that is a California spec, or just a very old spec (that California hangs on to, as they do).
it may be an example of states aping each other to come up with efficient signage for freeways in the mid-50s, before interstate standards came out in 1957. I have seen an old black and white photo for 94/Milwaukee/94 which I believe was in Illinois.
I don't believe it is in my '57 interstate manual.
Could have initially been for symmetry when applying shields to existing signs.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2013, 01:30:59 PM
I know of one Clearview sign in CA: a weigh station sign on I-10 eastbound near Cabazon or so. (plus or minus 30 miles)
the infamous Santa Ana patch at the south end of CA-57 is not Clearview. it looks close but not quite.
There is, however, a Clearview sign installed in California by Arizona for the Ehrenburg/Parker exit across the Colorado River on I-10.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2844%2F9314500637_583698ab2d_c.jpg&hash=6b23b230a6f48a9430723d05ca6408a15bf273aa)
forgot about that. there's also some in Winterhaven on I-8 referencing Yuma.
I can't remember I-40, but my guess would be "probably". there are ADOT signs on the implied segment of AZ-95 in Needles, but they are older and thus not Clearview.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 16, 2013, 02:13:10 PM
Like others have said, Caltrans has not adopted Clearview and hopefully it stays that way. Certain cities have begun to use Clearview for things like streetblades (Santa Clara immediately comes to mind).
Yes, Clearview has been adopted by several municipalities for street blades, but it seems like the largest ones have not. In cities like Los Angeles and San Diego, some of the city street have large overhead guide signs that weren't erected by Caltrans. Examples include overheads along Pacific Highway in San Diego or along non-state maintained sections of Sepulveda Blvd, and these cities typically use FHWA fonts. As I recall, San Francisco's guide signs also do not use Clearview. So, the only Clearview I've seen in California (aside from the Arizona-placed examples on I-8 and I-10 and the occasional odd sign such as Exit 77 truck regulatory signage in both directions of I-5 or the sign Jake mentioned on I-10) is on street blades mostly in smaller cities (Folsom, Santa Clara, etc.) as Myosh_Tino indicated.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2013, 07:59:55 PM
I don't know if that is a California spec, or just a very old spec (that California hangs on to, as they do).
it may be an example of states aping each other to come up with efficient signage for freeways in the mid-50s, before interstate standards came out in 1957. I have seen an old black and white photo for 94/Milwaukee/94 which I believe was in Illinois.
I don't believe it is in my '57 interstate manual.
IIRC, though I forget if this was discussed previously on here or not...wasn't double-shielding in California a response to the 1964 renumbering, to cover up shields on pull-throughs of routes that had been truncated but previously co-signed on certain freeways? (notable examples: 5/99 on the Golden State Freeway, 5/101 on the Santa Ana Freeway, 10/70/99 on the San Bernardino Freeway)
Quote from: TheStranger on October 17, 2013, 12:22:38 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2013, 07:59:55 PM
I don't know if that is a California spec, or just a very old spec (that California hangs on to, as they do).
it may be an example of states aping each other to come up with efficient signage for freeways in the mid-50s, before interstate standards came out in 1957. I have seen an old black and white photo for 94/Milwaukee/94 which I believe was in Illinois.
I don't believe it is in my '57 interstate manual.
IIRC, though I forget if this was discussed previously on here or not...wasn't double-shielding in California a response to the 1964 renumbering, to cover up shields on pull-throughs of routes that had been truncated but previously co-signed on certain freeways? (notable examples: 5/99 on the Golden State Freeway, 5/101 on the Santa Ana Freeway, 10/70/99 on the San Bernardino Freeway)
There are double shield signs like this that exist where Interstate shields are covering up US shields, as Caltrans is notorious for re-using signs, but they've kept up the tradition and still use the double shields on brand new signs. The new Arroyo Seco Parkway (CA 110) exit signs on southbound I-5 are an example of this.
there are double-shields which predate the 1964 renumbering. here is a 1960 pair of US-99 shields, for example.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19640991i1.jpg)
(coincidentally, this got renumbered in 1964 to CA-99.)
I believe the oldest California double shields I have seen are 1958 specification... black signs with the layout identical to the 1959 revision to green background.
this is a 1957 spec sign (EM capitals as opposed to D, Div Hwys logo present) which implies that the double-shield would not exist:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19550111i1.jpg)
that is a context which would have received shields on either side of the wording in 1958, but 1957 had them to one side... the implication is, no double shields in the 1957 spec, or going back to 1954 which is the first year that overhead signs regularly received shields in the first place.
Quote from: andy3175 on October 16, 2013, 11:42:44 PMthe occasional odd sign such as Exit 77 truck regulatory signage in both directions of I-5
I had always thought this was furnished by the municipality which did not desire the trucks. (Costa Mesa?) and yes, being regulatory, it is white with black text... a Clearview no-no.
Quoteor the sign Jake mentioned on I-10
I don't think this one was put up by Caltrans. it is possible, but another possibility is that the previous sign got knocked down, and CHP (who runs the weigh station) quickly ordered a replacement - to keep their weigh station signed as correctly as they need - as opposed to going through the Caltrans requisition process.
That's a great old 1950's photo of the Harbor Fwy! Calif. really was far ahead of the rest of the nation re: early freeway signing. My native New York was still installing 1930's type signing in the mid-1950's on the then new Long Island Expwy.
Hard to believe that many of these roads nationwide were originally built with virtually no effective median protection. And they would soon become very bloodstained because of it. It took the highway engineering profession well into the 1960's to reluctantly start installing steel guide rails, Jersey walls, etc. on a large scale.
I've seen video of the opening of the San Diego Fwy. under Mulholland Dr. in the early 60's and that was apparently built with the California style chain-link fence in the median, so I guess Caltrans got the message after the first 10 years of carnage.
I would like to see photos of the 1950s Long Island Expressway. what is 1930s signage? like this, or even older?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1013.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf258%2FSteven197981%2F65675033340_002162_zps3d8c13ed.jpg&hash=dbdc7204d30126b1b1e391e36b328ee0b7eb7b3c)
that has modern fonts but a definite 1930s style.
and yes, I see that California has put up a barrier to protect its bridge abutment... but screw oncoming traffic.
Yes agentsteel53, that's exactly the type of signing I'm talking about. When the L.I. Expwy. was being built thru Queens in about 1956,57, this is the type of signing that was built. (Ditto, the Cross Bronx Expwy!)And (no kidding!) some of it lasted until about 1972, when New York State DOT did a massive resigning of all the highways in the 5 boroughs of NY City.
Strangely enough, that same L.I. Expwy. was built with steel guide rail in the middle even as other new highways were being built without it; go figure !!??
I'll edit the post later to add a photo, but it seems that the larger-number style of gore point exit number signage found everywhere BUT California is starting to become more prevalent in Madera and Fresno Counties...wonder where they got the sign spec & are sourcing the new installations.
Examples, both on Route 99 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10340482713/in/set-72157636676683316/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10340290904/in/set-72157636676683316
Quote from: SignBridge on October 17, 2013, 10:25:04 PMAnd (no kidding!) some of it lasted until about 1972, when New York State DOT did a massive resigning of all the highways in the 5 boroughs of NY City.
some of these gantries are still around, albeit with new green signs. I think the last white sign gantry on a side street disappeared around 2002. I remember them scattered about in the 80s.
there is one white porcelain sign left, as far as I know, but it is a different style.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Frockaway%2Fatl.jpg&hash=ec9fb95e4b16a5dd2e3c9158e786f6afd7a146ad)
it's on Seagirt Blvd as of 2010.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 18, 2013, 01:19:42 AM
I'll edit the post later to add a photo, but it seems that the larger-number style of gore point exit number signage found everywhere BUT California is starting to become more prevalent in Madera and Fresno Counties...wonder where they got the sign spec & are sourcing the new installations.
Examples, both on Route 99 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10340482713/in/set-72157636676683316/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10340290904/in/set-72157636676683316
This is a demonstration project being undertaken by Caltrans District 6.
Quote from: jrouse on October 18, 2013, 02:32:51 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on October 18, 2013, 01:19:42 AM
I'll edit the post later to add a photo, but it seems that the larger-number style of gore point exit number signage found everywhere BUT California is starting to become more prevalent in Madera and Fresno Counties...wonder where they got the sign spec & are sourcing the new installations.
Examples, both on Route 99 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10340482713/in/set-72157636676683316/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10340290904/in/set-72157636676683316
This is a demonstration project being undertaken by Caltrans District 6.
Is the arrow-per-lane sign on westbound CA-180 at the 180/41 interchange (see photo (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5842.msg252285#msg252285) and my drawing (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5842.msg252360#msg252360) earlier in this discussion) also a demonstration project?
They should make the MUTCD Standard mile markers more than a demonstration project - they do better than the old mile-by-county postmiles.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 17, 2013, 03:56:19 PM
That's a great old 1950's photo of the Harbor Fwy! Calif. really was far ahead of the rest of the nation re: early freeway signing. My native New York was still installing 1930's type signing in the mid-1950's on the then new Long Island Expwy.
Hard to believe that many of these roads nationwide were originally built with virtually no effective median protection. And they would soon become very bloodstained because of it. It took the highway engineering profession well into the 1960's to reluctantly start installing steel guide rails, Jersey walls, etc. on a large scale.
I've seen video of the opening of the San Diego Fwy. under Mulholland Dr. in the early 60's and that was apparently built with the California style chain-link fence in the median, so I guess Caltrans got the message after the first 10 years of carnage.
Growing up in the Los Angeles area, I remember many stretches of freeway divided merely by a chain-link fence.
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 19, 2013, 10:07:26 AM
They should make the MUTCD Standard mile markers more than a demonstration project - they do better than the old mile-by-county postmiles.
You've got to remember, the white postmiles are for maintenance purposes only and was never meant to be used by motorists for navigational purposes. Would I like to see mile markers? Sure! Would I like to see Caltrans spend money installing mile markers instead of on maintenance or other highway improvements? Absolutely not!
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 18, 2013, 03:02:32 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 18, 2013, 02:32:51 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on October 18, 2013, 01:19:42 AM
I'll edit the post later to add a photo, but it seems that the larger-number style of gore point exit number signage found everywhere BUT California is starting to become more prevalent in Madera and Fresno Counties...wonder where they got the sign spec & are sourcing the new installations.
Examples, both on Route 99 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10340482713/in/set-72157636676683316/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10340290904/in/set-72157636676683316
This is a demonstration project being undertaken by Caltrans District 6.
Is the arrow-per-lane sign on westbound CA-180 at the 180/41 interchange (see photo (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5842.msg252285#msg252285) and my drawing (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5842.msg252360#msg252360) earlier in this discussion) also a demonstration project?
No, California has adopted the arrow per lane sign but has modified it to conform to our sign truss sizes.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 18, 2013, 09:13:42 AM
there is one white porcelain sign left, as far as I know, but it is a different style.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Frockaway%2Fatl.jpg&hash=ec9fb95e4b16a5dd2e3c9158e786f6afd7a146ad)
it's on Seagirt Blvd as of 2013.
FTFY
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 16, 2013, 02:13:10 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 11, 2013, 09:25:10 PM
Myosh_tino, what is Caltrans' reason for not using exit only on its lane-drops?
I quite honestly don't know why Caltrans requires just an "ONLY" panel on exit signs that involve a freeway-to-freeway lane drop other than to say it was always done that way. I'll do a little digging when I get a chance.
I've always been curious by this also. In Nevada, for example, you usually only see an "ONLY" panel by itself on city street drop lanes (and even that is rare, since a combination of "FWY ONLY" or the erroneous "EXIT ONLY" are also used).
I wonder if it has to do with the fact that you are not exiting a freeway facility at this point, but just transitioning from one freeway facility to another... I only say this because California seemed to be an early adopter of the "Freeway Entrance" sign assemblies, so maybe there was some legal reasoning for the distinction?
Quote from: national highway 1 on October 16, 2013, 08:49:50 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2013, 01:30:59 PM
I know of one Clearview sign in CA: a weigh station sign on I-10 eastbound near Cabazon or so. (plus or minus 30 miles)
the infamous Santa Ana patch at the south end of CA-57 is not Clearview. it looks close but not quite.
There is, however, a Clearview sign installed in California by Arizona for the Ehrenburg/Parker exit across the Colorado River on I-10.
Is this sign (https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.818233,-118.071785&spn=0.1188,0.264187&t=h&layer=c&cbll=33.827002,-118.082184&panoid=zKQfKgQmsj0yO0J93WuxGQ&cbp=12,0,,0,0&z=13) on the 605 in Clearview?
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on October 22, 2013, 03:02:12 PM
Is this sign (https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.818233,-118.071785&spn=0.1188,0.264187&t=h&layer=c&cbll=33.827002,-118.082184&panoid=zKQfKgQmsj0yO0J93WuxGQ&cbp=12,0,,0,0&z=13) on the 605 in Clearview?
don't think so. looks to be D stretched to E width. or perhaps the same font as the Sabre Springs transit center sign on top of an overpass above I-15 near Escondido. there's a few wacky font signs there too.
Roadfro, interesting theory, but Caltrans uses the "only" designation at regular street exits too, not just freeway transition ramps. But any input on this question is welcome!
Quote from: SignBridge on October 22, 2013, 04:49:11 PM
Roadfro, interesting theory, but Caltrans uses the "only" designation at regular street exits too, not just freeway transition ramps. But any input on this question is welcome!
However, on the topic of freeway to freeway (or tollway to freeway/tollway), versus exiting the freeway system, ISTHA uses "RAMP" instead of "EXIT" for the gore signs in this case. The new gore signs along I-355 have "RAMP XX" with XX being the exit number at I-55 and I-88. It makes it interesting in that for northbound I-355, I-88 is RAMP 20A, and Odgen Av (US-34) is EXIT 20B.
speaking of RAMP - does anyone know California's rationale for using it? they are scattered about the state. I believe there is one on 163 southbound for either exit 2A or 2B (east and west Washington streets)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 22, 2013, 05:17:16 PM
speaking of RAMP - does anyone know California's rationale for using it? they are scattered about the state. I believe there is one on 163 southbound for either exit 2A or 2B (east and west Washington streets)
I think District 11 likes them a lot. I don't recall seeing them used much outside of San Diego.
They make more logical sense than using the Exit sign for freeways. If you want to sign, e.g., that Anaheim is the next 11 exits, you probably don't want motorists misapprehending that those 11 exits include a freeway interchange that may be sandwiched in between them.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 22, 2013, 05:17:16 PM
speaking of RAMP - does anyone know California's rationale for using it? they are scattered about the state. I believe there is one on 163 southbound for either exit 2A or 2B (east and west Washington streets)
I'm pretty sure there's a couple of RAMP gore signs on southbound I-680 at the I-580 interchange in Dublin.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 22, 2013, 04:49:11 PM
Roadfro, interesting theory, but Caltrans uses the "only" designation at regular street exits too, not just freeway transition ramps. But any input on this question is welcome!
I think those are the exception rather than the norm. I know the exit from southbound I-280 to Saratoga Avenue (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=37.317956,-121.98017&spn=0.000846,0.000862&t=k&z=20&layer=c&cbll=37.317958,-121.98024&panoid=SkoLpn6dhd9Hk7QlTff-Gw&cbp=12,102.94,,2,-5.81) has an "ONLY" plaque but that's because it was added to an existing sign and there wasn't sufficient room for an "EXIT ONLY" plaque. AFAIK, all new exit signs that involve a dropped lane on a non freeway-to-freeway exit has an "EXIT ONLY" plaque.
As I am prone to doing, I feel compelled to point out that the MUTCD (Sec. 2E-37) reads in part: The exit gore sign shall carry the word exit. So in using the word "ramp" once again we have various state DOT's screwing up the national consistency and standardization that the Manual tries to enforce.
This doesn't mean I always agree with everything in the MUTCD. But I don't understand why some states need to mess with something so simple and standard in freeway signing.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 22, 2013, 05:59:23 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 22, 2013, 05:17:16 PM
speaking of RAMP - does anyone know California's rationale for using it? they are scattered about the state. I believe there is one on 163 southbound for either exit 2A or 2B (east and west Washington streets)
I'm pretty sure there's a couple of RAMP gore signs on southbound I-680 at the I-580 interchange in Dublin.
Here's another example I photographed in 2011, I-5 southbound in National City at Route 54:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/5438283294/in/set-72157625897610841
"RAMP" was an alternate message for the G84(CA) "EXIT" sign. See http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/specs/G84.pdf. Looking at the 2012 California MUTCD, it looks like Caltrans has eliminated the G84(CA) but we still have the sign spec posted for it.
Myosh_tino:
This sign assembly that you drew a replica of last year, along I-80 in Fairfield, has finally been installed:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5842.msg151644#msg151644
It's as garish as you can imagine, and while I get that whoever came up with it at CalTrans was trying to match the I-80 pullthrough to the format of the Route 12 Rio Vista/Suisun City setup, it predictably looks awkward.
Quote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2013, 10:48:41 AM
Myosh_tino:
This sign assembly that you drew a replica of last year, along I-80 in Fairfield, has finally been installed:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5842.msg151644#msg151644
It's as garish as you can imagine, and while I get that whoever came up with it at CalTrans was trying to match the I-80 pullthrough to the format of the Route 12 Rio Vista/Suisun City setup, it predictably looks awkward.
I thought so because I noticed Caltrans had a full freeway closure of I-80 eastbound in that vicinity about a week ago. When I get a photo of it, I'll post it in the "Worst of Road Signs" thread even though it's a brand new sign! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 18, 2013, 03:00:10 PM
I thought so because I noticed Caltrans had a full freeway closure of I-80 eastbound in that vicinity about a week ago. When I get a photo of it, I'll post it in the "Worst of Road Signs" thread even though it's a brand new sign! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
If anything, it really highlights the district-to-district differences that exist within CalTrans - not sure it's as severe in other states!
About the only things consistent statewide are the shades of green on retroreflective signs, a general eschewing of Clearview, and the next-three-exits signs. Pullthroughs, route name signing practices, concurrency signage vary widely!
Quote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2013, 03:02:25 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 18, 2013, 03:00:10 PM
I thought so because I noticed Caltrans had a full freeway closure of I-80 eastbound in that vicinity about a week ago. When I get a photo of it, I'll post it in the "Worst of Road Signs" thread even though it's a brand new sign! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
If anything, it really highlights the district-to-district differences that exist within CalTrans - not sure it's as severe in other states!
Come to Illinois sometime. You can have nine different interpretations of signage, signalization, reflectorization, and striping (nine IDOT districts). One district uses FYAs, one likes to keep all the signs the same height (when possible) on a sign bridge, one uses supplemental signs for curve speed on the big right or left arrows, etc.
Quote from: Brandon on November 18, 2013, 05:53:22 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2013, 03:02:25 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 18, 2013, 03:00:10 PM
I thought so because I noticed Caltrans had a full freeway closure of I-80 eastbound in that vicinity about a week ago. When I get a photo of it, I'll post it in the "Worst of Road Signs" thread even though it's a brand new sign! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
If anything, it really highlights the district-to-district differences that exist within CalTrans - not sure it's as severe in other states!
Come to Illinois sometime. You can have nine different interpretations of signage, signalization, reflectorization, and striping (nine IDOT districts). One district uses FYAs, one likes to keep all the signs the same height (when possible) on a sign bridge, one uses supplemental signs for curve speed on the big right or left arrows, etc.
And I assume only Chicagoland has the tiny expressway name legend on its pullthroughs and overheads!
Quote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2013, 06:42:34 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 18, 2013, 05:53:22 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2013, 03:02:25 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 18, 2013, 03:00:10 PM
I thought so because I noticed Caltrans had a full freeway closure of I-80 eastbound in that vicinity about a week ago. When I get a photo of it, I'll post it in the "Worst of Road Signs" thread even though it's a brand new sign! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
If anything, it really highlights the district-to-district differences that exist within CalTrans - not sure it's as severe in other states!
Come to Illinois sometime. You can have nine different interpretations of signage, signalization, reflectorization, and striping (nine IDOT districts). One district uses FYAs, one likes to keep all the signs the same height (when possible) on a sign bridge, one uses supplemental signs for curve speed on the big right or left arrows, etc.
And I assume only Chicagoland has the tiny expressway name legend on its pullthroughs and overheads!
Yes. They are not used outside of District 1. We also have a tenth way of doing things in the state - the Tollway (ISTHA). This makes it very interesting around Chicagoland with two very different approaches on our expressway/tollway system.
I was noticing that on GSV for Katela Avenue in Anaheim, CA that since Disney added the California Adventure Theme Park, that is currently where the former parking lot was for the Disneyland Theme Park that was relocated, palm trees line the whole Avenue in front of the attraction.
I do, though, have a question to anyone who lives nearby or frequents Disneyland and it would be about the power lines I once remembered as a kid. I do remember that upon entering the parking lot from whatever street we used, that power lines were situated between the parking area and the street. These here were the truss type of towers and not the mast poles they use now. I could not find these at all on GSV, as I am trying to figure out where it was we entered the park back in the late 60's. I again was there back in 88, but forgot the layout even though I was 23 at that particular time as well. I know that I did enter off the side street through and unofficial entrance as I was lost and ended up in the lot without paying the toll to park. I was following some other tourist and before I knew it I was in the parking lot.
Anyway, I would probably assume that was Katela Avenue where the power lines once ran as I do see mast pole transmissions between it and the new theme park. However, does anyone know what the pre second them park layout was of the area?
Quote from: roadman65 on December 10, 2013, 01:02:07 PM
I was noticing that on GSV for Katela Avenue in Anaheim, CA that since Disney added the California Adventure Theme Park, that is currently where the former parking lot was for the Disneyland Theme Park that was relocated, palm trees line the whole Avenue in front of the attraction.
I do, though, have a question to anyone who lives nearby or frequents Disneyland and it would be about the power lines I once remembered as a kid. I do remember that upon entering the parking lot from whatever street we used, that power lines were situated between the parking area and the street. These here were the truss type of towers and not the mast poles they use now. I could not find these at all on GSV, as I am trying to figure out where it was we entered the park back in the late 60's. I again was there back in 88, but forgot the layout even though I was 23 at that particular time as well. I know that I did enter off the side street through and unofficial entrance as I was lost and ended up in the lot without paying the toll to park. I was following some other tourist and before I knew it I was in the parking lot.
Anyway, I would probably assume that was Katela Avenue where the power lines once ran as I do see mast pole transmissions between it and the new theme park. However, does anyone know what the pre second them park layout was of the area?
The main entrance to the park was located at what is now Harbor Blvd and Disney Way. This entrance remains but is now only for a service road that wraps around the south side of California Adventure. The main entrance to the Disneyland complex is now a little bit further north up Harbor Blvd. If you have Google Earth, you can track these changes using the historical imagery.
As you noted, the transmission lines used to run through the middle of the parking lot. There was a 220-kV line and a 110-kV line. When California Adventure and the Downtown Disney district were built, the lines were removed through that area. It appears the 110-kV line was simply undergrounded; you can see the transition structure just west of I-5 at the Disney Way/Anaheim Blvd interchange. The 220-KV line was rerouted onto the steel monopoles and relocated around the park south on Harbor, then south and west along the aforementioned service road, continuing west alongside Katella, then north on Walnut back to its original right of way. The other transition structure to bring the 110-kV line back above ground is located at that point.
Back in 88 I flew into Ontario Airport in Southern California. I distinctly remember that Vineland Avenue was the main road leading into the Airport Complex from I-10 and Holt Boulevard also was an alternate to and from the east on I-10.
Now I noticed that the terminals and entrance are now located further east of its location then. Now the airport is located at Archibald Avenue's southern terminus with a nice, what appears to be, brand new SPUI interchange over I-10. In addition braided ramps now exist between Holt and Archibald as before you could enter I-10 from EB Holt and then exit at Archibald. Now new flyovers take the EB exit for Archibald Avenue over the EB on ramp from Holt Boulevard on typical Caltrans reinforced concrete bridges.
It is interesting to see things change and that even in Southern California that SPUIs are making it there.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2014, 07:43:01 PM
Back in 88 I flew into Ontario Airport in Southern California. I distinctly remember that Vineland Avenue was the main road leading into the Airport Complex from I-10 and Hoyt Boulevard also was an alternate to and from the east on I-10.
Now I noticed that the terminals and entrance are now located further east of its location then. Now the airport is located at Archibald Avenue's southern terminus with a nice, what appears to be, brand new SPUI interchange over I-10. In addition braided ramps now exist between Hoyt and Archibald as before you could enter I-10 from EB Hoyt and then exit at Archibald. Now new flyovers take the EB exit for Archibald Avenue over the EB on ramp from Hoyt Boulevard on typical Caltrans reinforced concrete bridges.
It is interesting to see things change and that even in Southern California that SPUIs are making it there.
It's also cool to see how many TV shows and movies that old Ontario terminal makes it into: 24, Catch Me If You Can, Confidence . . .
BTW - It's HOLT not HOYT. Holt Blvd is also former US 70/99 in that area.
Quote from: sdmichael on February 21, 2014, 02:29:46 AM
BTW - It's HOLT not HOYT. Holt Blvd is also former US 70/99 in that area.
I fixed it in my original post.
Anyway, interesting as that means that Valley Boulevard is part of former US 70 & 99 into Colton as well as Ontario Mills Parkway as part of that historic routing?
Valley Blvd is also former US 70/99 from Colton to just east of Etiwanda Ave. Ontario Mills Pkwy is just another roadway.
Quote from: sdmichael on February 21, 2014, 11:23:40 AM
Valley Blvd is also former US 70/99 from Colton to just east of Etiwanda Ave. Ontario Mills Pkwy is just another roadway.
Is the Y interchange at I-10 Exit 59 the point where the San Bernardino Freeway subsumes old 70/99? Holt Boulevard doesn't start until Exit 55A.
The San Bernardino Freeway covers the "newest" old alignment of US 70/99 from Archibald to just east of Etiwanda Ave. There is an earlier alignment through Guasti meeting with the 10 halfway between Archibald and Haven.
Quote from: sdmichael on February 21, 2014, 12:20:40 PM
The San Bernardino Freeway covers the "newest" old alignment of US 70/99 from Archibald to just east of Etiwanda Ave. There is an earlier alignment through Guasti meeting with the 10 halfway between Archibald and Haven.
That would explain the slight bend just before Holt's eastern terminus. Obviously pre I-10 Holt Boulevard had two intersections at two different times with Archibald Avenue. The later one is now where the current SPUI is and the original is just to the south in line with Holt's E-W alignment after the curve.
It was a rather early realignment as well. There is still three-lane concrete where Holt Blvd curves toward the 10. It started as a two-lane section with a third lane added about 1929.
Driving down US-101 south in San Jose today and I noticed little numbers painted on the side of the concrete barriers in the median. I made a little sketch of what I saw:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2887/13228422493_8ea73c19d2_c.jpg)
Anyone know about these?
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on March 17, 2014, 05:44:37 PM
Driving down US-101 south in San Jose today and I noticed little numbers painted on the side of the concrete barriers in the median. I made a little sketch of what I saw:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2887/13228422493_8ea73c19d2_c.jpg)
Anyone know about these?
Yep, they're post-miles that are normally found on those little white paddle signs on the right shoulder. In the case of your drawing, you are 19.7 miles from the Santa Clara/San Benito county line.
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 17, 2014, 07:53:30 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on March 17, 2014, 05:44:37 PM
Driving down US-101 south in San Jose today and I noticed little numbers painted on the side of the concrete barriers in the median. I made a little sketch of what I saw:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2887/13228422493_8ea73c19d2_c.jpg)
Anyone know about these?
Yep, they're post-miles that are normally found on those little white paddle signs on the right shoulder. In the case of your drawing, you are 19.7 miles from the Santa Clara/San Benito county line.
Thanks! I figured it was those. Although it's quite a weird placement for them...
That's a really nice sketch. Sets a complete scene with clean, pleasing lines and colors.
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on March 17, 2014, 07:59:08 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 17, 2014, 07:53:30 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on March 17, 2014, 05:44:37 PM
Driving down US-101 south in San Jose today and I noticed little numbers painted on the side of the concrete barriers in the median. I made a little sketch of what I saw:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2887/13228422493_8ea73c19d2_c.jpg)
Anyone know about these?
Yep, they're post-miles that are normally found on those little white paddle signs on the right shoulder. In the case of your drawing, you are 19.7 miles from the Santa Clara/San Benito county line.
Thanks! I figured it was those. Although it's quite a weird placement for them...
I'll bet they are new too!
Painted or otherwise, I've seen postmiles on median barriers going back to the early 1980's. They aren't a new concept.
When I was 5 years old, my family took a trip to California. I remember staying at a Holiday Inn near Disneyland that I thought I recalled a span wire assembly near the hotel that was a high rise. Then later on in 1972 on return to LA, I noticed that no span wire existed then and that even to this day California uses mast arms exclusively along with back plates for all signal heads even side mounted signals.
I was wondering, if California ever used span wires whether normal practice or even temporary as many states have changed over the years from one installation to another and the fact many will install a span wire assembly during construction projects even if the state uses mast arms totally?
Edit: I also see that Caltrans does indeed have steel girder bridges in use. On another note I always thought that they exclusively used box girder or reinforced concrete roadway decks on all highway bridges. The NB car ramp from I-5 to I-405 in Irvine, CA is a steel girder bridge.
California/Caltrans does sometimes use span wire traffic signals for temporary/construction purposes, but I don't think I've ever seen a permanent span wire installation there.
As to bridges: I can only speak as someone who occasionally visits California from my neighboring Nevada. My observation is that Caltrans seems to favor concrete box girder bridges, but both are in regular use. As with Nevada, I think the decision may be a function of construction cost (i.e. rising/falling prices of steel) and ease of construction (i.e. flyovers seem to be easier to build with steel girders over an open highway, but a bridge over a city street may be easier to do with concrete and falsework).
Quote from: roadfro on March 23, 2014, 09:22:37 PM
California/Caltrans does sometimes use span wire traffic signals for temporary/construction purposes, but I don't think I've ever seen a permanent span wire installation there.
There used to be one at the intersection of Foothill Blvd and Voss Ave (https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.317655,-122.068618&spn=0.001692,0.001725&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.317655,-122.068618&panoid=T5h6OyvIWlKudX-B0D0vhw&cbp=12,10.33,,0,-0.49) in Cupertino up until the late 80's. It had an old-style controller box where you could hear the clicks and thunks of relays when the lights changed.
Quote from: roadfro on March 23, 2014, 09:22:37 PM
As to bridges: I can only speak as someone who occasionally visits California from my neighboring Nevada. My observation is that Caltrans seems to favor concrete box girder bridges, but both are in regular use. As with Nevada, I think the decision may be a function of construction cost (i.e. rising/falling prices of steel) and ease of construction (i.e. flyovers seem to be easier to build with steel girders over an open highway, but a bridge over a city street may be easier to do with concrete and falsework).
As far as I know, most, if not all, new overpasses and bridges are made of concrete either by creating wooden forms and pouring the concrete on site or by using pre-cast concrete bridge sections which are trucked to the construction site and installed (typically during the over night hours because a full-freeway closure is needed).
The last new steel girder installation I know of occurred a few years ago when the ramp to I-580 east from east I-80 in the MacArthur Maze was repaired after a gasoline tanker overturned on the ramp below and the ensuing fireball melted the girders of the 580 ramp causing it to collapse.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2014, 11:42:01 AM
I was wondering, if California ever used span wires whether normal practice or even temporary as many states have changed over the years from one installation to another and the fact many will install a span wire assembly during construction projects even if the state uses mast arms totally?
Here are the photos of the temporary span wire setups (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5585.msg122397#msg122397) I shot in South Lake Tahoe in November 2011. Those were in place for just about two full years. The permanent mast arm signals finally went in as they completed that project last summer.
The mile marker has been there since the 2002 widening of US-101 between Cochrane and CA-85. My parents drove me to elementary/middle school on that route every day during the construction, so I'm pretty familiar with that stretch of road.
I also got to see the HOV ramps from US-101 to CA-85 (Southern Terminus) develop as well as the new flyovers for CA-87/CA-85.
I didn't think Calif. ever used spanwire anywhere. I've never seen it on any of my visits to Calif. in the last 30 years.
There is a permanent span wire setup in Carmel at the CA-1/Carmel Valley Road.
So I spent the weekend in Fresno and noticed some more "different" signage around the CA-41/CA-168/CA-180 interchange there. More APL signage has been added, but I noticed one new thing: the left exit signage off of CA-168:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7355/13901754135_28e2dd7857_c.jpg)
And I've noticed that some newer BGS installations, not just in Fresno, have been using raised caps on the cardinal direction. I'm aware of this above reassurance shields, but it's only been recently that I've noticed it used on BGS (except that one sign on I-5 south near Six Flags Magic Mountain). An example is the sign i posted just above.
:-o
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on April 16, 2014, 04:34:23 PM
There is a permanent span wire setup in Carmel at the CA-1/Carmel Valley Road.
So I spent the weekend in Fresno and noticed some more "different" signage around the CA-41/CA-168/CA-180 interchange there. More APL signage has been added, but I noticed one new thing: the left exit signage off of CA-168:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7355/13901754135_28e2dd7857_c.jpg)
And I've noticed that some newer BGS installations, not just in Fresno, have been using raised caps on the cardinal direction. I'm aware of this above reassurance shields, but it's only been recently that I've noticed it used on BGS (except that one sign on I-5 south near Six Flags Magic Mountain). An example is the sign i posted just above.
The exit# box takes up a pretty big chunk of that sign. Sure gives it a "crowded" look.
Actually, that looks pretty darned good for a California sign.
I was noticing that on GSV that there is a one size fits all with signal backplates. I see that the 8 inch signal heads use the same size backplate as the 12 inch, but with a smaller cut out in the middle for the smaller sized signal heads.
So I'm back after a period of inactivity (although I did lurk here and there) because of a lack of road trips until this month.
Anyways, last weekend en route to Phoenix, I noticed strange exit tabs on signs around San Fernando on I-210:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3856/14635780803_0a36de6a0d_c.jpg)
CentralCAroadgeek, do not be surprised, this is district 7...anything can happen! Expect the unexpected, and be frustrated by inconsistencies.
iPhone
At least this is better than no exit number at all...
Quote from: AndyMax25 on July 10, 2014, 12:43:06 AM
CentralCAroadgeek, do not be surprised, this is district 7...anything can happen! Expect the unexpected, and be frustrated by inconsistencies.
iPhone
It's safe to say that I'm not all too familiar with SoCal, then...
That exit number oddity is only on the 210 from the 118 to the 5. I haven't seen it on any other freeway in D7 or the greater Los Angeles area.
Aren't they (Caltrans) afraid that the exit number will be blown off the sign bridge and cause mayhem? :spin:
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on July 09, 2014, 07:17:44 PM
So I'm back after a period of inactivity (although I did lurk here and there) because of a lack of road trips until this month.
Anyways, last weekend en route to Phoenix, I noticed strange exit tabs on signs around San Fernando on I-210:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3856/14635780803_0a36de6a0d_c.jpg)
There's going to be more signs along I-210 that are going to have exit numbers added in that fashion. See the discussion about Caltrans District 7 project 07-1W2204 here... https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11603.0
Found this piece while looking for something else and thought I'd share with you all:
http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2015/08/7-key-measures-of-californias-transportation-challenges/
Quote7 Key Measures of California's Transportation Challenges
Senator John MoorlachBy Senator John Moorlach
California State Senate, 37th District
Friday, August 7th, 2015
1. CA's gas taxes are the 4th highest in the nation.
According to the American Petroleum Institute, California's 61-cent-per-gallon gas taxes are the 4th highest in the nation, behind only Pennsylvania, New York and Hawaii. This does not include the recent addition of extra cap-and-trade taxes resulting from bringing fossil fuels under California's AB 32 law.
2. CA's gas prices are the nation's highest.
According to AAA, the current national average price for a gallon of "˜regular' gasoline is $2.63. California's current average price is $3.69 per gallon (as of 8/5/15).
3. CA's gas tax & transportation fees yield $10.6 billion annually.
According to the State of California, Department of Transportation, Division of Budgets, 2014/2015 Fiscal Year estimates, the State brings in at least $10.6 billion in taxes and fees "dedicated to transportation purposes."
4. Caltrans spends just 20% of that revenue on state road repair & new construction.
Last year, Caltrans spent $1.2 billion in state road maintenance & repair, and $850 million in new construction. Similar amounts are planned for the 2015/2016 CA State budget.
5. Caltrans wastes half a billion $$ annually on extra staffing.
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) report on the review of the Caltrans' Capital Outlay Support Program found that the agency is overstaffed by 3,500 positions at a cost of $500 million per year.
6. CA's roads rank near the bottom in every category, including:
46th in rural interstate pavement condition
49th in urban interstate pavement condition
46th in urban interstate congestion
7. Poor road conditions cost Californians $17 billion yearly in vehicle repairs.
34% of CA's major roads are rated to be in "poor" condition. Driving on roads in need of repair costs California motorists $17 billion a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs — $702.88 per motorist.
Here is a great example of your tax dollars working poorly in California:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1projects/potter_vallet_road_safety/
The timeline from start to finish is 7 years for what amounts to a very minor highway improvement project going less than half a mile. Notice how neither major party puts out a platform calling for bureaucratic reform? Expect more news of the same kind.
Rick
A few observations:
* John Moorlach is an Orange County Republican, as is his predecessor.
* FoxAndHoundsDaily.com is nominally a "business and politics" blog, but the name itself is an indirect reference to the Conservatives in England and most of the commenters on this particular piece seem to be coming from the right--"Good luck with that with the liberals in control of everything" and so on.
* It would be helpful to know what exactly are being counted as "taxes and transportation fees," and what exactly is considered "state road new construction" and "state road maintenance & repair." The clear implication from the post is that ~80% of revenues are just going up in smoke, but (1) in California, as in most other states, the gas tax presumably funds some construction/maintenance/repair activity on non-state systems, and (2) it would not be reasonable to expect farebox revenues from mass transit systems--which are a "transportation fee"--to go to roads, state-owned or otherwise.
* About ten years ago, California had a proposition to require all transportation-related taxes and fees to be dedicated to transportation-related purposes. Did this not pass? Is it not being followed? If it is not being followed, why not?
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 21, 2015, 12:55:57 PM
* About ten years ago, California had a proposition to require all transportation-related taxes and fees to be dedicated to transportation-related purposes. Did this not pass? Is it not being followed? If it is not being followed, why not?
That sounds like a rejected proposition on the same ballot as the 2003 recall election which elected Gov. Schwarzenegger.
I remember that election well. I drove my mother to the polling place. That was the last election in which she voted, before she passed away the following year.
It looks like there were several propositions at around the same time that were plausibly transportation-related.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_ballot_propositions_2000%E2%80%9309
The one voted on in the recall election was Proposition 53, which would have required the spending of 3% of general fund revenues annually on state and local infrastructure projects (excluding school and community college projects). As you say, it failed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_53_%282003%29). However, the one I am thinking of is Proposition 42, which did pass on March 5, 2002. Wikipedia subtitles it "Allocation of Existing Motor Vehicle Fuel Sales and Use Tax Revenues for Transportation Purposes Only," but does not have an article on it.
Proposition 51, which failed on November 5, 2002, would have allocated the proceeds of motor vehicle sales and use taxes to a school bus safety set-aside fund and to certain specific infrastructure projects.
California does have a high fuel tax with pretty bad outcomes in terms of road surface quality, congestion, and so on. However, land prices and the cost of living are both quite high, and that may have knock-on effects on the cost of doing business in the highway/publicly funded general transportation infrastructure sector. Given that Proposition 42, if not abrogated, means that California has a hypothecation rule comparable to that existing in other states (such as Kansas) whose roads are better by all of the usual quality measures, I would like to know if Proposition 42 is in fact breaking down and, if so, how.
I'm from New York and very surprised to learn that NY's gas tax is actually higher than Calif. I would have figured the opposite. I've been to Calif. many times and I always had the feeling that more money was being spent there on road projects than New York.
Although Calif's freeway signing is sloppy compared to New York's, Calif. spends a lot more money on good traffic signal configurations than New York does. Calif. has far more left-turn arrows and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections than NY does. So for that reason alone I always figured there's more money available for this stuff in Calif.
NY lets its tax-funded transportation funds be raided for non-transportation-related initiatives.
You are correct. And so must Pennsylvania 'cause their transportation infrastructure makes New York look good by comparison.
Quote from: sdmichael on February 21, 2014, 11:23:40 AM
Valley Blvd is also former US 70/99 from Colton to just east of Etiwanda Ave. Ontario Mills Pkwy is just another roadway.
The former US route 60-70-99 combo goes past Kaiser Hospital in Fontana where I was born, also faces I-10. Too bad it wasn't officially an US highway in 1980 when I was born, but that goes past my hometown Indio CA. Indio Blvd. is now a historic route (99) from I-10 junction to Coachella (now State routes 86 in Indio and 111 in Coachella), but it's next to the Union or Southern Pacific railroad. Part of our lives before and after route designation, may the "99" be part of our personal and local histories.
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on July 09, 2014, 07:17:44 PM
Anyways, last weekend en route to Phoenix, I noticed strange exit tabs on signs around San Fernando on I-210:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3856/14635780803_0a36de6a0d_c.jpg)
They could mount the exit number sign to the right of the Roxford St sign.
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 23, 2015, 01:58:09 AM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on July 09, 2014, 07:17:44 PM
Anyways, last weekend en route to Phoenix, I noticed strange exit tabs on signs around San Fernando on I-210:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3856/14635780803_0a36de6a0d_c.jpg)
They could mount the exit number sign to the right of the Roxford St sign.
Like this? I don't think it looks much better personally. But it might be easier to see, and that's what's important in the end I guess.
https://goo.gl/maps/F14oa
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 23, 2015, 01:58:09 AM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on July 09, 2014, 07:17:44 PM
Anyways, last weekend en route to Phoenix, I noticed strange exit tabs on signs around San Fernando on I-210:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3856/14635780803_0a36de6a0d_c.jpg)
They could mount the exit number sign to the right of the Roxford St sign.
That probably wouldn't happen due to wind loading calculations...
Does anyone know if there are any freeway exits in California that still do not have exit numbers?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 25, 2015, 02:52:46 PM
Does anyone know if there are any freeway exits in California that still do not have exit numbers?
Oh, there are a ton of exits that still do not have numbers. Too many to mention.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 25, 2015, 03:13:22 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 25, 2015, 02:52:46 PM
Does anyone know if there are any freeway exits in California that still do not have exit numbers?
Oh, there are a ton of exits that still do not have numbers. Too many to mention.
LA is doing pretty badly in this regard. But for a lot of exits, there is one advance guide sign and the gore point sign with the exit number, which is enough to be compliant.
Could the vertical post of these sign supports (on I- 210) be used with a new sign mounting assembly to meet the wind loading standards? It would be more economical than replacing the entire sign support . How far behind is Caltrans in installing freeway exit numbers through out CA?
Quote from: pctech on August 26, 2015, 10:24:30 AMHow far behind is Caltrans in installing freeway exit numbers throughout CA?
AIUI, Caltrans considers an exit to be numbered if there is at least one exit tab in the action signing sequence, or the gore sign has an exit number, and pretty much all of the exits in the state now meet this very loose standard. Caltrans has modestly upped the pace of sign replacements but even at the current rate it would still take decades to get exit numbers on every gore and action sign for every exit.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 26, 2015, 11:45:25 AM
Quote from: pctech on August 26, 2015, 10:24:30 AMHow far behind is Caltrans in installing freeway exit numbers throughout CA?
AIUI, Caltrans considers an exit to be numbered if there is at least one exit tab in the action signing sequence, or the gore sign has an exit number, and pretty much all of the exits in the state now meet this very loose standard. Caltrans has modestly upped the pace of sign replacements but even at the current rate it would still take decades to get exit numbers on every gore and action sign for every exit.
Which makes the non-numbering of the eastbound 50/Business 80/Route 99 split in Sacramento extremely hard to understand (as those signs were installed ca. 2009, as other junctions in the area were already in the process of receiving full exit number signage!).
Quote from: TheStranger on August 26, 2015, 11:48:43 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 26, 2015, 11:45:25 AM
Quote from: pctech on August 26, 2015, 10:24:30 AMHow far behind is Caltrans in installing freeway exit numbers throughout CA?
AIUI, Caltrans considers an exit to be numbered if there is at least one exit tab in the action signing sequence, or the gore sign has an exit number, and pretty much all of the exits in the state now meet this very loose standard. Caltrans has modestly upped the pace of sign replacements but even at the current rate it would still take decades to get exit numbers on every gore and action sign for every exit.
Which makes the non-numbering of the eastbound 50/Business 80/Route 99 split in Sacramento extremely hard to understand (as those signs were installed ca. 2009, as other junctions in the area were already in the process of receiving full exit number signage!).
Isn't that exit a TOTSO (turn off to stay on)? That might explain the lack of number...
Quote from: roadfro on August 26, 2015, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 26, 2015, 11:48:43 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 26, 2015, 11:45:25 AM
Quote from: pctech on August 26, 2015, 10:24:30 AMHow far behind is Caltrans in installing freeway exit numbers throughout CA?
AIUI, Caltrans considers an exit to be numbered if there is at least one exit tab in the action signing sequence, or the gore sign has an exit number, and pretty much all of the exits in the state now meet this very loose standard. Caltrans has modestly upped the pace of sign replacements but even at the current rate it would still take decades to get exit numbers on every gore and action sign for every exit.
Which makes the non-numbering of the eastbound 50/Business 80/Route 99 split in Sacramento extremely hard to understand (as those signs were installed ca. 2009, as other junctions in the area were already in the process of receiving full exit number signage!).
Isn't that exit a TOTSO (turn off to stay on)? That might explain the lack of number...
It is, but then other similar exits (Route 1/I-280 split in Daly City, I-5/Route 99 in Wheeler Ridge) ARE numbered.
I also recall that the I-80/Business 80 junction in West Sacramento is not numbered off of I-80 (while the I-80/Business 80 split near Foothill Farms IS numbered).