Not sure I've seen this setup before - anywhere.
From I-405 at Exit 1 (Route 133) in Irvine:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7188%2F6829355354_46d2c00d0f.jpg&hash=4de3d83050842c287e27f2f140ddcbc42b49ddfc) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/6829355354/)
DSC_5959 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/6829355354/) by csampang (http://www.flickr.com/people/csampang/), on Flickr
It seems like it's somewhat confusing, as I don't think the second listed exit is part of Exit 2 at all, but entirely what comprises Exit 3.
indeed, it doesn't make any sense. it's just Caltrans being stupid in their obedience of the "exit tabs! everywhere! now!" requirement.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 12, 2012, 03:49:17 PM
indeed, it doesn't make any sense. it's just Caltrans being stupid in their obedience of the "exit tabs! everywhere! now!" requirement.
I would like it IF Exit 3 was mentioned specifically for the lower exit in similar fashion. Having said that, isn't there a risk for message overload with a sign like this?
Quote from: TheStranger on March 12, 2012, 03:33:36 PM
Not sure I've seen this setup before - anywhere.
From I-405 at Exit 1 (Route 133) in Irvine:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7188%2F6829355354_46d2c00d0f.jpg&hash=4de3d83050842c287e27f2f140ddcbc42b49ddfc) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/6829355354/)
DSC_5959 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/6829355354/) by csampang (http://www.flickr.com/people/csampang/), on Flickr
It seems like it's somewhat confusing, as I don't think the second listed exit is part of Exit 2 at all, but entirely what comprises Exit 3.
I'm thinking that has to be a sign goof. Taking a closer look at the photo, it appears the original sign was altered because the "3/4" and the exit tab looks like it was pasted on.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 12, 2012, 04:14:02 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 12, 2012, 03:49:17 PM
indeed, it doesn't make any sense. it's just Caltrans being stupid in their obedience of the "exit tabs! everywhere! now!" requirement.
I would like it IF Exit 3 was mentioned specifically for the lower exit in similar fashion. Having said that, isn't there a risk for message overload with a sign like this?
Cramming too much stuff into a sign is the very definition of CalTrans signage.
My guess is this was an error. The Manual doesn't require exit tabs on interchange sequence signs. I don't think the problem is quantity of legend on California signs as much as it is the hodgepodge way they arrange it sometimes. Like they threw darts at a board when formatting them. Though I have seen cases where they cram more legend on a sign panel than the size of the panel would reasonably allow. Maybe that's what the above poster meant.
If you want to see a state with excessive legend on their signs, go to New Jersey. Especially on I-80 between Paterson and the Geo. Washington Bridge. Other roads as well, where excessive route numbers and destinations are sometimes shown.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2012, 08:25:40 PM
My guess is this was an error. The Manual doesn't require exit tabs on interchange sequence signs. I don't think the problem is quantity of legend on California signs as much as it is the hodgepadge way they arrange it sometimes, way out of compliance with the Manual. Like they threw darts at a board when formatting them. Though I have seen cases where they cram more legend on a sign panel than the size of the panel would reasonably allow.
CalTrans seems to have the mindset of replacing 40 and 50 year old signs while still retaining the 40 and 50 year old support structures those signs are mounted to. If the goal is to update legends without exceeding the original panel dimensions, it can explain many of the 'hodgepodge' legend formats CalTrans has come up with during recent sign replacement projects.
I've also heard rumors that separate exit tabs weren't provided on the new signs because it apparently would trigger an environmental review - presumably because of the additional 'shadow' effect the exit tab would create.
Quote from: roadman on March 23, 2012, 12:43:26 PM
CalTrans seems to have the mindset of replacing 40 and 50 year old signs while still retaining the 40 and 50 year old support structures those signs are mounted to. If the goal is to update legends without exceeding the original panel dimensions, it can explain many of the 'hodgepodge' legend formats CalTrans has come up with during recent sign replacement projects.
If the 40-50 year old support structures are still structurally sound, why should they be replaced and add to the cost of a project? Besides, I think sign panel height may play more of a role in the odd layout of signs when incorporating an exit number.
Quote from: roadman on March 23, 2012, 12:43:26 PM
I've also heard rumors that separate exit tabs weren't provided on the new signs because it apparently would trigger an environmental review - presumably because of the additional 'shadow' effect the exit tab would create.
Never heard that used as an excuse. I'm not saying it's inaccurate, just that I've never heard that separate tabs would require an environmental review.
I noticed in SF last month that new overheads had the exit tab above the main sign, however blank green is extended to the left of the exit tab to keep the sign itself merely a normal rectangle. I wondered if it was a wind issue or an aesthetic one: perhaps CalTrans just thinks an extra piece of metal above the main sign is ugly. All in all, I thought the signs still looked pretty good.
On the Pacific Southwest forum they're having a big discussion about separate exit number tabs. The consensus is that it's a wind-load issue, and also that Caltrans doesn't want to be bothered with extra mounting hardware.
From the "California Observations" topic on the Pacific Southwest board...
Quote from: jrouse on February 24, 2012, 01:14:17 PM
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.
So, yes the current Caltrans design is due to wind-loading... the new sign bridges can accommodate external exit tabs but no one has developed a method of mounting the external tabs and it's not a high priority. IOW, don't expect to see external tabs on overhead signs in California anytime soon. :sombrero:
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 23, 2012, 02:05:54 PMBesides, I think sign panel height may play more of a role in the odd layout of signs when incorporating an exit number.
This may be slightly off-topic, but...I've seen Caltrans's limited sign panel height requirements cited as the reason for some of their "quirky" design elements (like internal exit tabs), but I never understood why limited sign heights are necessary or desirable, especially when most other states get by fine with their taller signs. Am I missing something really obvious?
I would imagine the idea of maintaining sign height on existing structures to avoid having to do a new set of calculations and potentially replacing them is worthwhile enough to design around, to CalTrans. That said, I'm okay with blank space to the left of the exit tab, but not like shown in the original photo. When a sign is that cluttered, you completely lose the exit number information among the other text.
This interchange sequence sign should not have an exit tab, plain and simple.
CalTrans' internal exit tabs don't really give me issue either...at least they are numbering exits now...
I like CalTrans' approach of similar-height signs on overhead structures...NDOT does the same thing. I accept the fact that replacing signs in the same size is smart from the engineering standpoint of not having to do new calcs. I think CalTrans' wind loading specs in certain instances are on the very conservative side, since NDOT uses some similar sign structures with exit tabs for years and has had no issues. They should make the tab detail a higher priority--reducing sign legend to fit the tab isn't the right approach...they should be putting on tabs wherever possible.
Quote from: Steve on March 23, 2012, 06:51:09 PMI would imagine the idea of maintaining sign height on existing structures to avoid having to do a new set of calculations and potentially replacing them is worthwhile enough to design around, to CalTrans.
I don't think they are bothered about the calculations, but in the late 1980's District 7 and Headquarters collaborated on a freeway guide sign design handbook which mentioned the accumulation of old sign structures in maintenance yards statewide as a headache to be avoided. I think Caltrans just likes to reuse whenever possible.
To comment on Roadman's suggestion that avoidance of environmental review might be another reason for using flush tabs, I think I have heard similar rumors myself. I have never been sure how much credit to assign such suggestions, but I do know that assessment of visual impact is part of Caltrans' standard procedure for environmental impact statements.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 28, 2012, 04:46:23 AM
Quote from: Steve on March 23, 2012, 06:51:09 PMI would imagine the idea of maintaining sign height on existing structures to avoid having to do a new set of calculations and potentially replacing them is worthwhile enough to design around, to CalTrans.
I don't think they are bothered about the calculations, but in the late 1980's District 7 and Headquarters collaborated on a freeway guide sign design handbook which mentioned the accumulation of old sign structures in maintenance yards statewide as a headache to be avoided. I think Caltrans just likes to reuse whenever possible.
When MassDOT replaces sign support structures, which is usually every other cycle of sign replacement (or 35 to 40 years), the old supports are removed and discarded by the Contractor. This results in lower bid prices for the new supports, as the Contractor will figure the scrap value of the old supports in their bid.
And, with due respect to CalTrans sign engineers, I reiteriate my earlier concerns about CalTrans practice of mounting new signs on 40 year old support structures. I find it hard to believe these supports were so overbuilt in the first place that they meet current AASHTO design and wind loading standards.
Quote from: roadman on April 05, 2012, 08:35:23 PMI find it hard to believe these supports were so overbuilt in the first place that they meet current AASHTO design and wind loading standards.
they probably did. they certainly overbuilt the signs themselves; the porcelain signs from the 50s and 60s which were never retrofitted with grime-attracting reflective buttons are as shiny as they day they were installed.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 05, 2012, 08:46:29 PM
they probably did. they certainly overbuilt the signs themselves; the porcelain signs from the 50s and 60s which were never retrofitted with grime-attracting reflective buttons are as shiny as they day they were installed.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5040%2F6897024500_348d9f7770_c.jpg&hash=5fb1d5f935daeca549fb60fcb9310fac276e2420)
Here's a good example of what Agentsteel53 is talking about. The greenout panel on the bottom portion of the sign fell off to reveal an old action message "EXIT (arrow) 3/4 MI". The portion that's visible was unreflectorized legend on a porcelain sign panel.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 06, 2012, 02:29:00 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5040%2F6897024500_348d9f7770_c.jpg&hash=5fb1d5f935daeca549fb60fcb9310fac276e2420)
Here's a good example of what Agentsteel53 is talking about. The greenout panel on the bottom portion of the sign fell off to reveal an old action message "EXIT (arrow) 3/4 MI". The portion that's visible was unreflectorized legend on a porcelain sign panel.
I need to find a good photo of this gantry, which has been exposed fully to the elements since 1968 and is in very good condition. They just forgot to retrofit it in the 70s.
http://g.co/maps/nbmpp
for a better picture of a different example... this sign is from 1947 and is in active service.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/blog/photos/104796.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_sb_exit_395a_01.jpg)
Full Size Image from AARoads Gallery (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_sb_exit_395a_01.jpg).
Here's another example of non-reflectorized legend on a porcelain guide sign. IIRC, that the EXIT 3/4 MILE (arrow) message was never covered up and you can see the difference in clarity between the it and the reflectorized legend.
Quote from: roadman on April 05, 2012, 08:35:23 PMWhen MassDOT replaces sign support structures, which is usually every other cycle of sign replacement (or 35 to 40 years), the old supports are removed and discarded by the Contractor. This results in lower bid prices for the new supports, as the Contractor will figure the scrap value of the old supports in their bid.
But is it really usual to replace structures as well as sign panels? My experience of the vast majority of state DOTs is that normal practice is to replace panels in pure signing contracts, leaving the existing structures alone (except in isolated cases)--MassDOT is actually the major exception to this rule I am aware of. Most other states tend to combine sign structure replacement with full-depth roadway reconstruction.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 05, 2012, 08:46:29 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 05, 2012, 08:35:23 PMI find it hard to believe these supports were so overbuilt in the first place that they meet current AASHTO design and wind loading standards.
they probably did. they certainly overbuilt the signs themselves; the porcelain signs from the 50s and 60s which were never retrofitted with grime-attracting reflective buttons are as shiny as they day they were installed.
The Massachusetts Turnpike had a number of these signs that were replaced as part of the 1995 signing project. They were supplied by a company called Cameo that fabricated the majority of the CalTrans porcelain signs - I have an old salesman's sample and related literature from 1968 in my office.
Quote from: roadman on April 06, 2012, 05:32:08 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 05, 2012, 08:46:29 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 05, 2012, 08:35:23 PMI find it hard to believe these supports were so overbuilt in the first place that they meet current AASHTO design and wind loading standards.
they probably did. they certainly overbuilt the signs themselves; the porcelain signs from the 50s and 60s which were never retrofitted with grime-attracting reflective buttons are as shiny as they day they were installed.
The Massachusetts Turnpike had a number of these signs that were replaced as part of the 1995 signing project. They were supplied by a company called Cameo that fabricated the majority of the CalTrans porcelain signs - I have an old salesman's sample and related literature from 1968 in my office.
What's the sample like? Is it interesting enough to post a picture of?
Quote from: roadman on April 06, 2012, 05:32:08 PMThey were supplied by a company called Cameo that fabricated the majority of the CalTrans porcelain signs - I have an old salesman's sample and related literature from 1968 in my office.
I would be very interested in seeing these!
I don't remember the Mass Pike having porcelain signs. Anyone have any pictures? I'll bet they said something like "CA-68" on the back. There are some signs in Reno which say CA-78!
I'm confused about something. Are you guys saying that Caltrans' (white on dark-green) overhead signs from the 1960's did not originally have reflector-buttons on the lettering and borders? That the buttons were retrofitted later? Was the original lettering non-reflective? Or did they use reflective lettering material? That would be very surprising to me as a New Yorker, because NYSDOT's signs had buttons starting in about 1960 and continuing thru 1984 installations. I remember being very impressed with that new modern signing as a kid.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 06, 2012, 08:21:52 PM
I'm confused about something. Are you guys saying that Caltrans' (white on dark-green) overhead signs from the 1960's did not originally have reflector-buttons on the lettering and borders? That the buttons were retrofitted later? Was the original lettering non-reflective? Or did they use reflective lettering material? That would be very surprising to me as a New Yorker, because NYSDOT's signs had buttons starting in about 1960 and continuing thru 1984 installations. I remember being very impressed with that new modern signing as a kid.
that is correct. Cal Division of Highways first started making overhead guide signs in the 1940s, and they were completely non-reflective. lighting was provided by active illumination: overhead bulbs. these started out as white signs with black legend, before being changed to black with white legend around 1947.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19550601i1.jpg)
that is an early '50s gantry. Those black bars above the signs are the housing for the lights.
around 1956, the lighting was switched to underneath, as seen here:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19550071i1.jpg)
the reason for this was because it was easier to maintain. Imagine standing on that narrow catwalk, traffic zooming below you - having to reach over your head was just too problematic, while kneeling down was a lot better.
there are still some - very few! - overlit gantries left in the LA area, but the vast majority are now underlit or have no lighting at all.
In 1955, a few experiments were done with green signage (including a 1956 experiment with retroreflective - foreground and background! - signage on the US-40 Roseville Bypass) but the official standards for green signs started appearing in 1958, to comply with the 1957 AASHO interstate specification. By 1962 the transition was complete. I'm not sure what order they did things in exactly, between overhead and side-of-the-road installs of various flavors, but I believe all overhead signage kept all the layout standards, and was switched in color, in May '59. I do not have a good color photo of a decisively green sign on the internet, but I must note I have a photo somewhere of an older black sign with greenout, resulting in a two-tone look!
in 1973, due to the energy crisis, it was decided that the active lighting was too expensive, so that is when the hordes of sign workers were sent up with a bucket of buttons and a barrel of glue... about 99% of the signs were successfully retrofitted in the next several years, but isolated examples survive of signs that were somehow forgotten.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19580103i1.jpg)
on this 1960 sign, you can see that the original US-60 shield was changed to state route 60 in 1965 or so, and only that received the button retrofitting.
coincidentally in 1973, California switched away from porcelain to all button copy on the overhead signs. They had experimented with this off and on in prior years - I know of a 1961 button copy gantry, for example, on I-8.
(And side-of-the-road installs were experimented with everything, including the aforementioned Roseville experiment, which also included button copy signs in 1956. The last side-of-the-road porcelain signs went up in 1963 - after that was all button copy or retroreflective tape. This was because those signs had a shorter design lifespan and 30-year porcelain was excessively expensive.)
the main reason for the switch in overheads away from porcelain as well was because Cameo could never quite get the 1971 federal standard green correct. So it made sense to go to the same contractors who made the side-of-the-road installations to do the overhead signs as well. As an added bonus, the reflectorized signs needed no active lighting.
so, by 1973, California was out of the porcelain racket, and all new sign installations were reflectorized (instead of actively lit) and all old signs were being retrofitted so that the lights could be turned off. Recently, the lights have been turned on again, adding an extra bit of illumination to retrofitted-porcelain and button copy signs, of which hundreds upon hundreds survive in the state.
V-e-r-y i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g! Thank-you agentsteel53 for that detailed summary. You must be the Los Angeles area sign-historian like I am in the NYC area. (chuckle!) I like those old white-on-black overhead signs.
BTW, what road was the Ramona Fwy? I've never seen that on any map. Is is called something else now? I'm a little lost re: those old route numbers too. The 101 obviously survives. Was US-99 the current I-5? And was US-60-70 the current I-10? I seem to remember other photos somewhere (from the 1960's) showing those routes concurrently signed.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 06, 2012, 09:49:09 PM
V-e-r-y i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g! Thank-you agentsteel53 for that detailed summary. You must be the Los Angeles area sign-historian like I am in the NYC area. (chuckle!) I like those old white-on-black overhead signs.
BTW, what road was the Ramona Fwy? I've never seen that on any map. Is is called something else now? I'm a little lost re: those old route numbers too. The 101 obviously survives. Was US-99 the current I-5? And was US-60-70 the current I-10? I seem to remember other photos somewhere (from the 1960's) showing those routes concurrently signed.
That is the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10). Ramona Blvd. was built as a route into downtown L.A. in the 1930s with some grade separations. That evolved into the current freeway.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 06, 2012, 07:45:39 PM
I don't remember the Mass Pike having porcelain signs. Anyone have any pictures? I'll bet they said something like "CA-68" on the back. There are some signs in Reno which say CA-78!
With the current reconstruction of I-80 through downtown Reno, I don't think any of those old porcelain signs are left at this point. :-(
The one on southbound US 395 north of Reno might be the last porcelain sign left in the state...
Quote from: SignBridge on April 06, 2012, 08:21:52 PMI'm confused about something. Are you guys saying that Caltrans' (white on dark-green) overhead signs from the 1960's did not originally have reflector-buttons on the lettering and borders? That the buttons were retrofitted later? Was the original lettering non-reflective? Or did they use reflective lettering material? That would be very surprising to me as a New Yorker, because NYSDOT's signs had buttons starting in about 1960 and continuing thru 1984 installations. I remember being very impressed with that new modern signing as a kid.
Yes, that is precisely the case. Caltrans porcelain enamel overhead guide signs were originally not retroreflectorized at all--instead, they were externally lit. (Ground-mounted signs had button reflectorization, initially by button reflectors which were secured to a back plate and were visible through circular slots in an enamelled front plate attached to the back plate, and later through the use of AGA letters.) In the 1970's, Caltrans systematically retrofitted most of these signs with epoxied-on button reflectors in order to allow the lights to be turned off on signs that were not action signs, to save electricity. At that time I believe the
MUTCD did not yet require that signs should be illuminated or retroreflectorized to show the same colors by night as by day, which is part of the reason state DOTs and other agencies have now abandoned button copy.
Edit: I didn't click to the second page of posts before composing the above, and so didn't see Jake's much more detailed (and extensively illustrated) summary. I'm leaving this post in though since it has some additional information.