District 7/Los Angeles sign replacement projects

[J N Winkler]

The current (2015-09-28) Attachments D & E indicate the following upcoming major sign replacement contracts in District 7:

*  I-5/Los Angeles County (northern 40 miles, including the Grapevine segment)--$2.6 million--scheduled advertising date of 2015-10-05

*  US 101/Los Angeles County (East Los Angeles Interchange to I-405 separation, a distance of about 17 miles)--$2.7 million--scheduled advertising date of 2015-10-12

We have parallel threads dealing with major sign replacement contracts in Districts 3 and 4, with some tangential discussion of concurrently advertised projects of the same type in Districts 2 and 5.  In addition to this week's tranche of District 4 signing jobs, another District 2 signing job was also advertised.  It appears to me that Caltrans is now doing what TxDOT did back in 1998-2004:  comprehensively replacing all existing button copy signs with retroreflective sheeting signs, with a rough average of one signing contract advertised per month with some months having multiple signing jobs.

Button copy will become very rare once these jobs are done, though I doubt it will be completely eliminated, since that did not happen in Texas.

[jeffe]

It should be pointed out that all of these sign replacements are using Type 11 reflective sheeting.  Caltrans did a test down in San Diego and determined that sign illumination was not required because the sign reflected enough light from headlights.

As such, these projects also call for the removal of the sign lights and walkways.  Others have noted in a different thread that large sign replacement projects are rare in California.  It seems in this case Caltrans is using the cost savings from reduced maintenance and energy costs to accelerate sign replacement.

[roadfro]

It should be pointed out that all of these sign replacements are using Type 11 reflective sheeting.  Caltrans did a test down in San Diego and determined that sign illumination was not required because the sign reflected enough light from headlights.

As such, these projects also call for the removal of the sign lights and walkways.  Others have noted in a different thread that large sign replacement projects are rare in California.  It seems in this case Caltrans is using the cost savings from reduced maintenance and energy costs to accelerate sign replacement.

This hypothesis makes a lot of sense. I was curious how Caltrans was getting funding to do multiple large-scale sign replacements all at once.

Has Caltrans let multiple sign projects simultaneously like this before? I don't even think the beginning of Cal-NExUS had this sign replacement much activity.

[J N Winkler]

Has Caltrans let multiple sign projects simultaneously like this before? I don't think even the beginning of Cal-NExUS had this much sign replacement activity.

This is certainly the first time (since 2000 at least) that Caltrans has advertised signing jobs in different districts in the same letting, with one of the districts involved having multiple such jobs in the same advertisement.  However, all of the districts with the possible exception of Districts 1 and 9 have done at least one large sign replacement since retroreflective sheeting became required for guide signs in 1999.  Some of these (e.g. I-40 and I-15 in District 8, SR 110 in District 7, I-5 in District 11, etc.) have been done on a corridor basis.  The District 11 I-5 job in 2002 was one of the first Caltrans signing contracts with pattern-accurate plans (sign layouts only) and preceded both Calnexus (which came out later in 2002) and contractor-furnished permanent signs (introduced 2004).

Besides the increase in the number of signing contracts per Attachment A, the volume of signing per contract is significantly larger; two contracts in today's Attachment A (both District 4 jobs) had over 100 pages each of sign panel detail sheets, which is unprecedented.  I am pretty sure last week's District 5 signing job is the first Caltrans signing contract I have ever seen with more than 100 pages of sign panel detail sheets.

The high sheet count per contract for sign panel detail sheets, and the requirement to remove external illumination, was also a feature of the projects that formed part of TxDOT's late nineties/early noughties conversion to retroreflective sheeting.

In terms of contract signing, Calnexus was all but a non-event.  Most of the initial installation of exit numbers was done by maintenance forces (under the "only one sign needed per exit" policy) and so bypassed the lettings, though some panel retrofits were done in District 2 under contract.

It is a good thing Jeffe mentioned the San Diego experiment since I had fallen into a pattern of looking just at signing plans instead of keeping up to date with TOPDs, the California MUTCD, etc. and hadn't really registered a changeover to Type XI sheeting as a new focus in Caltrans signing.  Here are a few links of interest:

*  Roads and Bridges article on the San Diego experiment:

http://www.roadsbridges.com/caltrans-tests-reflective-sheeting-guide-sign-visibility-and-cost-savings

*  Caltrans' reconnaissance of what other states have been doing in terms of using Type XI sheeting as a substitute for sign lighting:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/researchreports/preliminary_investigations/docs/type_xi_sign_sheeting_preliminary_investigation.pdf

*  TOPD 14-02 (first revision), mandating Type XI for replacement guide signs:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/policy/14-02_rev1.pdf

[andy3175]

Button copy will become very rare once these jobs are done, though I doubt it will be completely eliminated, since that did not happen in Texas.

I'm not sure about the rarity of the button copy signs in California ... just because many of the "minimal exit numbering compliance" activities have resulted in only one sign replacement in a series (leaving the other signs intact). But if more contracts come up with the speed at which these sign contracts have come up and they spread to all urban areas of the state, then I'd agree with you. Here in San Diego, there is substantial button copy that remains on I-8, central I-805 (between the two HOV projects), and even I-5 through the central city area. It would be a big contract to replace signage on those two urban freeways.

In District 11, I have noticed that in cases where Caltrans replaced all signs approaching an interchange, they have a pattern of placing the  exit number (from those 2002 and 2004 contracts). Good examples of this are along I-5 from I-8 to I-805 and I-5 through Carlsbad and Oceanside. The first sign in the sequence typically omits the exit number, and the exit number appears on the second sign, sometimes the third sign, and at both the final sign and gore point. These newer sign plans in Caltrans Districts 3 and 4  seem to show exit numbers at nearly every sign, which in my opinion is an improvement over the 2002 and 2004 efforts. We'll see if that holds in other districts.

[emory]

The new Colorado Street and Los Feliz signs are now on my commute, all shiny and new. Colorado has a new exit tab while Los Feliz does not.

[myosh_tino]

The current (2015-09-28) Attachments D & E indicate the following upcoming major sign replacement contracts in District 7:

*  I-5/Los Angeles County (northern 40 miles, including the Grapevine segment)--$2.6 million--scheduled advertising date of 2015-10-05

Looking through the plans for this project, I noticed that exit signs on I-5 for CA-138, CA-14, I-210 and I-405 do not have exit "tabs".  All signs on I-5 for CA-118 do not have exit "tabs" except for a 1 1/4 mile advance guide sign.  The only numbered route who's signs have an exit "tab" is CA-126.

Another observation... unlike the sign replacement projects in the Sacramento and greater San Francisco Bay Area, this project also replaces ground-mounted signs.  The northern California projects replace only overhead signs.  Ground-mounted button copy signs will remain.

[ARMOURERERIC]

I hope that Caltrans sign designers took some sort of effort to field check the info on these future signs.  Since I live in Boulevard and frequently drive I-8 to San Diego, it is very frustrating to note that all the signs from Descanso out had their sign info copied word for word as to the orignials, hence you have signing standards from different era copied over:  An exit will have as it's second to last sign saying at the very bottom "NEXT EXIT" followed by "RIGHT LANE" at the next exit followed by "EXIT 1/2 MILE".  We even have a brand new auxilliary sign for Exit 65 on I-8 for Boulevard/Manzanita, Manzanita, like Boulevard is an unicorporated area, however, Manzanita stopped being used as a local designation over 40 years ago and the combined area is just all called Bouelvard.  Plus now when I have clients come out, they get confused thinking that "Campo Boulevard" is the name of the street you are exiting unto when taking exit 65 for CA 94.

[andy3175]

The current (2015-09-28) Attachments D & E indicate the following upcoming major sign replacement contracts in District 7:

*  I-5/Los Angeles County (northern 40 miles, including the Grapevine segment)--$2.6 million--scheduled advertising date of 2015-10-05

Looking through the plans for this project, I noticed that exit signs on I-5 for CA-138, CA-14, I-210 and I-405 do not have exit "tabs".  All signs on I-5 for CA-118 do not have exit "tabs" except for a 1 1/4 mile advance guide sign.  The only numbered route who's signs have an exit "tab" is CA-126.

Another observation... unlike the sign replacement projects in the Sacramento and greater San Francisco Bay Area, this project also replaces ground-mounted signs.  The northern California projects replace only overhead signs.  Ground-mounted button copy signs will remain.

What is the contract number for the sign replacement project in District 7?

[J N Winkler]

Plans etc. are here (contract number is part of the URL):

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-243204/

The other District 7 signing contract (on US 101) is now in Attachment D, but there are no signing contracts listed in Attachment E, so we have a breather coming up--we'll just have to see whether it lasts 10 weeks or 10 years.