Bill Proposed to Sell Advertising on California Changeable Message Signs

[Max Rockatansky]

We don't need SPAM in the right of way of our highways. I think allowing highway VMS signs to show ads would establish a dangerous precedent and possibly open the door for things like billboards to be built right in the medians of highways rather than outside the ROW where they belong. Of course, this is all assuming the current VMS signs could even function properly for displaying ads, which they do not. I don't think taxpayers are going to be too keen on blowing anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000 per sign just to upgrade a crappy monochrome text display to a full color LED unit that can display graphics.

Worst case scenario is a free for all making guard rails and Jersey barriers necessary on all edges of the roadway due to billboard structures hugging along the highway at any point an advertiser saw fit to build. Another scenario is outdoor advertising companies taking the state to court citing unfair competition and violation of federal regulations.

There's a lot of rules regarding how advertising can be displayed along Interstate and US highways, most of which grew out of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. There are some places, such as trust land held by tribes, where the rules don't seem to apply. You can see some astonishing levels of billboard clutter in some of those places. Here in the Lawton, OK area we have a parade of double stack and quad stack billboards on the South side of town and just North of the Medicine Park exit. It looks pretty awful. That's coming from someone who works in the sign industry. I'd prefer fewer but better looking billboards.

Basically we're talking about a state and a DOT that wastes a crap ton of state tax payer money on roads that ought to be relinquished to localities.

What makes you think a local town/city government is going to spend money on roads and streets any more wisely? If anything, diverting such money to hundreds of local governments will make it far easier for those tax dollars to disappear in very disorganized and questionable fashion.

When I get home I'll answer you more throughly.  But the time being I'll you on the locality question.  Why should the state wide tax base carry the burden of expense on a road that's meant to carry local traffic?  For example the debate I got into with the fictional thread with California state highway remembering was CA 216.  That particular route is an 18 mile to/from a freeway route in CA 198.  CA 216 barely scrapes the city limits of Visalia and is largely local in nature.  So why would this be a state maintained highway when there is already established county routes within the vicinity?  We're talking about a state where this scenario repeats itself over and over in every corner of the map.  Why should I as a Kern County resident be paying for local roads for local traffic in Tulare County when they should be doing it?  By the same token why should a Tulare County resident be paying for local Kern County roads?  State Highways ought to be designated to move traffic through the state or to a location of interest like a national park.  I tend to point to Arizona and ADOT as a better example where the state is pretty choosy in what roads it maintains.  Now granted there is no guarantee of quality regardless of who maintains a road, I just see an issue with the state I reside in needing to find alternate means of funding to reduce tax payer liability or reduce the burden they carry with local relinquishment.  Don't forget we're talking about a state with some of the highest income and gas taxes in the country.  Something is wrong with the way funding is being considered if VMS advertising is a serious consideration.

[Bobby5280]

Why should the state wide tax base carry the burden of expense on a road that's meant to carry local traffic?

Those highways don't carry just local traffic. They carry personal and commercial traffic back and forth, some of it covering considerable distances. Highways fit part of a larger, bigger picture system of roads that do far more than neighborhood streets. We don't all live in a vacuum. We drive a lot of different places (particularly some of the participants in this forum).

The local tax bases in most cities and towns could not withstand the burden of maintaining their busiest streets and highways 100% on their own. If they had to do so the entire highway system would collapse. Rapid cost inflation of road building and maintenance is threatening to do that anyway, but that's another topic.

Most state DOTs do contribute money for busy thoroughfares that don't carry a highway number designation. Here in Lawton, OK there's a couple street improvement projects on the drawing board that will be partially funded by ODOT. That's because those streets carry a decent amount of commercial traffic and traffic from out of town.

Cities and towns are responsible for paying to maintain much of their regular street infrastructure. A lot of small towns are drying up because they don't have the tax base in place to do that, much less keep up with building very costly highways. Young people leave due to boredom and lack of opportunity, leaving behind a high percentage of retirees drawing more from the tax base than they're contributing.

If you funnel taxpayer money meant for highways to cities and towns, those communities are going to use the money to pay for their most urgent problems, which often don't include roads. Broken water mains and sewage lines are costly to repair. It costs a lot to keep police departments, fire departments and even waste departments properly staffed.

As for the VMS signs generating any of this money from ad sales, I wouldn't hold my breath on it. IMHO they're mostly a waste of money. Not that I condone phone use from behind a vehicle, but people can get amber alerts or storm warnings on their phones. People use Waze and Google Maps to spot traffic jams. OTOH, full color LED billboards that traditionally carry ads can (and in some cases do) deliver community service alerts.

[Max Rockatansky]

Why should the state wide tax base carry the burden of expense on a road that's meant to carry local traffic?

Those highways don't carry just local traffic. They carry personal and commercial traffic back and forth, some of it covering considerable distances. Highways fit part of a larger, bigger picture system of roads that do far more than neighborhood streets. We don't all live in a vacuum. We drive a lot of different places (particularly some of the participants in this forum).

The local tax bases in most cities and towns could not withstand the burden of maintaining their busiest streets and highways 100% on their own. If they had to do so the entire highway system would collapse. Rapid cost inflation of road building and maintenance is threatening to do that anyway, but that's another topic.

Most state DOTs do contribute money for busy thoroughfares that don't carry a highway number designation. Here in Lawton, OK there's a couple street improvement projects on the drawing board that will be partially funded by ODOT. That's because those streets carry a decent amount of commercial traffic and traffic from out of town.

Cities and towns are responsible for paying to maintain much of their regular street infrastructure. A lot of small towns are drying up because they don't have the tax base in place to do that, much less keep up with building very costly highways. Young people leave due to boredom and lack of opportunity, leaving behind a high percentage of retirees drawing more from the tax base than they're contributing.

If you funnel taxpayer money meant for highways to cities and towns, those communities are going to use the money to pay for their most urgent problems, which often don't include roads. Broken water mains and sewage lines are costly to repair. It costs a lot to keep police departments, fire departments and even waste departments properly staffed.

As for the VMS signs generating any of this money from ad sales, I wouldn't hold my breath on it. IMHO they're mostly a waste of money. Not that I condone phone use from behind a vehicle, but people can get amber alerts or storm warnings on their phones. People use Waze and Google Maps to spot traffic jams. OTOH, full color LED billboards that traditionally carry ads can (and in some cases do) deliver community service alerts.

Actually I complete disagree with you on a large number of the California state highways in regards to carrying commercial traffic.  I'll grab a bunch off the route log I compiled to discuss when I get home.  216 just came to mind off the top of my head since it turned into such a large discussion on that other thread.  You got to understand there are dollars on the table that could be used to better maintain and improve true through ways like I-5, CA 99, CA 58, I-10 and others of the like.  I'm not talking about deletions of major arterial highways I'm talking about localized roads.  A good sample would be the state maintained surface highways down around Los Angeles.  I can't think of many justifications why many of the surface routes are maintained in incorporated areas that already maintain a network of streets.  If I recall correctly a large portion of CA 2 was just relinquished by Caltrans for that very reason.

Btw not igoring the VMS replies, it's way too much work to do on the phone as opposed to typing.

[kphoger]

Fact is that they already ignore them here in California and there is too many VMS signs as is.  Have a look at the state map:

* * *

The message of the day is "In a minor crash?  Pull to the shoulder."  So basically by and large it's useless messages like this that strewn about the state on way too many VMS signs.  Took a look at CA 99 from Fresno to Sacramento, that's a lot of redundant VMS signage. 

To me, this sounds like "VMSes have too many unnecessary messages, so let's add even more unnecessary messages."

[Max Rockatansky]

Fact is that they already ignore them here in California and there is too many VMS signs as is.  Have a look at the state map:

* * *

The message of the day is "In a minor crash?  Pull to the shoulder."  So basically by and large it's useless messages like this that strewn about the state on way too many VMS signs.  Took a look at CA 99 from Fresno to Sacramento, that's a lot of redundant VMS signage. 

To me, this sounds like "VMSes have too many unnecessary messages, so let's add even more unnecessary messages."

Actually I'd rather take down about half of them on 99.  Caltrans has a ton of portable ones they bring in for emergencies.  The ones that I think are placed well are up on mountain roads like 41, 49, 88, US 395, U.S. 50, 108, 120 and 4.  Generally there is information about if the road is open or what chain restrictions are in place.  The General VMS could be more useful if they had travel times but they probably don't do that due to how much programming it would take I would imagine. 

[kphoger]

Fact is that they already ignore them here in California and there is too many VMS signs as is.  Have a look at the state map:

* * *

The message of the day is "In a minor crash?  Pull to the shoulder."  So basically by and large it's useless messages like this that strewn about the state on way too many VMS signs.  Took a look at CA 99 from Fresno to Sacramento, that's a lot of redundant VMS signage. 

To me, this sounds like "VMSes have too many unnecessary messages, so let's add even more unnecessary messages."

Actually I'd rather take down about half of them on 99.  Caltrans has a ton of portable ones they bring in for emergencies.  The ones that I think are placed well are up on mountain roads like 41, 49, 88, US 395, U.S. 50, 108, 120 and 4.  Generally there is information about if the road is open or what chain restrictions are in place.  The General VMS could be more useful if they had travel times but they probably don't do that due to how much programming it would take I would imagine. 

I get that.  But is Plan B really to make people more likely to ignore all of them?

[Max Rockatansky]

Personally I'd like to see a reduction of VMS signage in areas that don't see regular usage for it.  Namely I'm talking areas that aren't mountain passes of heavily congested with urban traffic.  It's obvious the VMS signs are being wasted if things like advertisements are being seriously considered.  At minimum it sure looks like that the current VMS signage isn't being used enough to justify them continuing to exist without additional funding.  So basically I'd say delete some of the VMS signs over time over something like advertising, at least someone is finally at least exploring the issue...which is a start for once.  Rural areas especially if they are freeways, flat two-lanes or expressways can probably do just fine with temporary VMS signs for construction or an accident detour.  Really with things like mobile apps and 511 the VMS signs are becoming increasing less important by the year.  The best ones in the state are the rural mountain passes which still don't have a lot of information outside of what Caltrans provides.

Now on the flip side speaking of Caltrans expenses there is a lot of things out here that are fairly unique to the state.  Route quality greatly varies from route to route with some routes having isolated expressway if not full freeway sections while others wouldn't really meet the criteria of a county route in other states....sometimes you'll see the variance in short sections of the same highway.  CA 178 comes to mind in that in just a couple miles in Bakersfield you go from urban surface street, to freeway, to rural/narrow canyon, to expressway and finally to rural two lane in less than two hours of driving.  In urban areas there are several surface streets that could be relinquished to the locality or county for maintenance alongside the sprawled out grids they already maintain.  It's strange to look at states like Nevada and Arizona which largely are much more organized in route logs than California which is largely not.  I really think there is an opportunity for Caltrans to speed up the relinquishment on a lot of the routes they maintain and roll the funds back into projects like upgrading CA 99 or CA 58 to Interstate standards.  Hell you could probably head off disasters like the Tex Wash Bridge wash out on I-10 or the I-5 sink hole faster.  But basically when I wrote that whole thread about California highway renumberings this is what I had in mind:

-  To find some continuity of routes.  There is generally no logic to what routes go where or there is no apparent difference between what is a primary and secondary state highway.  For what it was worth I tried to get all the State Highways on freeways on two digit numbers along with larger routes that traveled large expanses of the state.
-  I tried to find rural routes that were based entirely serving a local community such as CA 216 and deleted them from the "fictional route log" by downgrading to a county route.  There is a long established policy existing in California for county routes, it just seems like Caltrans doesn't push relinquishment very aggressively.  When I wrote that California renumbering thread one poster argued with me about 216 being a state route because of a high school, in my mind that's a weak argument because that serves the local community.  Essentially I was talking about routes that don't facilitate cross-state commerce, trucking or tourism...I see those as roads that ought to be county maintained.  Besides, a large number of the deletions I suggested were in San Joaquin Valley where there is little to no difference between the state highways and county maintained routes.
-  In keeping with route number continuity I tried to establish a series of family routes for secondary state highways.  I ended up with a lot of X01s and X99s at the end of the day, but at least they made some sense rather than having a random 178 or 198 which are mostly freeway/expressway.
-  I tried to eliminate surface street routes in urban areas like; L.A, Santa Barbra and Oakland which really there isn't much of an excuse for those cities not taking over maintenance...especially when there freeways in place that took over their alignments a long time ago.
-  I tried to give different route designations for current route numbers that are separated by mountains or stand no chance of ever being connected.  A lot of mountain routes in California once had designs to be connected but have long since been abandoned.  Others have suffered the fate of CA 39 and will never be fixed despite what Caltrans says...

So with that in mind, I just see a lot of ways things could be consolidated with the route log out here and a lot of room for improvement.  Now I'm a realist and I'm not the slightest bit delusional about the lack of realism of a fictional thread...but hey the state did do a "great renumbering" in 1964.  It's just interesting to see the state actually exploring an alternate method of funding other than taxes.  I already mentioned the high income tax here in California as well of huge gas tax.  So with that in mind I'm more in favor of "ideas" or at least exploring them than realistically doing something silly like putting ads on VMS signs....it might actually lead to a good idea one day.

Now that I've said all that I'll copy over all the routes I covered in that fictional thread in the next two replies...it's long and will take two posts, so I apologize in advance.

[Max Rockatansky]

Also I forgot in the other post but I did look at some changes to US and Interstate Routes.  There seems to be an opportunity for something better out here for both US and Interstate highways, at least in numbering....but really that isn't anything different than the opinion I hold for the stagnation of both grids on the national level.

[roadfro]

Mod Note: I've removed the two quoted posts from Max Rockatansky about his California highway renumbering plan. The original posts can be found in his "California Highway Renumbering Mega Thread" on the Fictional Highways board.

I usually allow a decent amount of "thread drift" on this Pacific Southwest board–however, this was drifting a bit far beyond the scope of this particular topic. Forum members do sometimes engage in some limited discussion of this nature if related to a thread topic, but it is generally appreciated if large/detailed renumbering-type discussions stay on the fictional board.

–roadfro

[roadfro]

Personally I'd like to see a reduction of VMS signage in areas that don't see regular usage for it.  Namely I'm talking areas that aren't mountain passes of heavily congested with urban traffic.  It's obvious the VMS signs are being wasted if things like advertisements are being seriously considered.  At minimum it sure looks like that the current VMS signage isn't being used enough to justify them continuing to exist without additional funding.  So basically I'd say delete some of the VMS signs over time over something like advertising, at least someone is finally at least exploring the issue...which is a start for once.  Rural areas especially if they are freeways, flat two-lanes or expressways can probably do just fine with temporary VMS signs for construction or an accident detour.  Really with things like mobile apps and 511 the VMS signs are becoming increasing less important by the year.  The best ones in the state are the rural mountain passes which still don't have a lot of information outside of what Caltrans provides.

I'm curious why you think a reduction of VMS signs is needed. This is one element of intelligent transportation systems that, I think, some places need to expand on. 511 and mobile apps are good (and I often make use of them before starting a trip), but a solo driver would not be able to use a phone to look up or get that information while driving, due to "handheld device" bans in many states. The VMS message at least alerts the driver to an issue, who can then pull over if needing to research anything.

Granted, some VMSs in rural areas are not needed all the time–but it is good to have them in place when they are needed. If there's a crash or closure, the DOT can load that info message to VMSs virtually immediately on various routes, as opposed to however long it may take the DOT to drag a temporary sign out to a location to warn of the temporary closure. Full-size signs aren't always needed in all locations–Nevada DOT has smaller versions that they put at various points along 2-lane highways that are just as good. Even for things like certain valleys that are prone to a safety hazard like high crosswinds–by the time NDOT drug a temporary VMS trailer out to the location, that storm could have passed.

[Max Rockatansky]

Personally I'd like to see a reduction of VMS signage in areas that don't see regular usage for it.  Namely I'm talking areas that aren't mountain passes of heavily congested with urban traffic.  It's obvious the VMS signs are being wasted if things like advertisements are being seriously considered.  At minimum it sure looks like that the current VMS signage isn't being used enough to justify them continuing to exist without additional funding.  So basically I'd say delete some of the VMS signs over time over something like advertising, at least someone is finally at least exploring the issue...which is a start for once.  Rural areas especially if they are freeways, flat two-lanes or expressways can probably do just fine with temporary VMS signs for construction or an accident detour.  Really with things like mobile apps and 511 the VMS signs are becoming increasing less important by the year.  The best ones in the state are the rural mountain passes which still don't have a lot of information outside of what Caltrans provides.

I'm curious why you think a reduction of VMS signs is needed. This is one element of intelligent transportation systems that, I think, some places need to expand on. 511 and mobile apps are good (and I often make use of them before starting a trip), but a solo driver would not be able to use a phone to look up or get that information while driving, due to "handheld device" bans in many states. The VMS message at least alerts the driver to an issue, who can then pull over if needing to research anything.

Granted, some VMSs in rural areas are not needed all the time–but it is good to have them in place when they are needed. If there's a crash or closure, the DOT can load that info message to VMSs virtually immediately on various routes, as opposed to however long it may take the DOT to drag a temporary sign out to a location to warn of the temporary closure. Full-size signs aren't always needed in all locations–Nevada DOT has smaller versions that they put at various points along 2-lane highways that are just as good. Even for things like certain valleys that are prone to a safety hazard like high crosswinds–by the time NDOT drug a temporary VMS trailer out to the location, that storm could have passed.

Conversation just side skirted out of control that's all.  One person grabbed a particular part of what I said and went somewhere with it that I didn't imply in the original post...something to the effect of society or what not...honestly I think it was just sarcasm.  Basically I kind of look at the original post and article as an implication that there is some sort of funding issue with VMS signs.  Granted I don't have the budget for VMS signage in California but without rereading the article it would be probably easy to assume there is an issue from the mere fact that the idea even came up at all.

With that in mind when the conversation shifted towards general highway expenditure, especially route relinquishments or lack of speed in regards to turning them over.   I started talking about spending consolidation as a whole or where things could be shored up...hence the whole route 216 talk and one thing led to the other with the lengthy route log opinions I pulled from the fictional thread where I had discussed the whole state previously. So really just to summarize I don't want to exactly see Caltrans delete VMS per se but to use them more wisely than putting up generic messages that have no value.  I rather see travel times between locations or just have the signed turned off than something silly like "Buckle up for safety" or whatever the message of the day happens to be.  If that couldn't be done maybe it was time to look at some way to allow tax payer burden to be relieved slightly, or at least explore it.  I think that somewhere that I even suggested additional billboard signage on major roadways in lieu of VMS deletion...it's not Caltrans follows the MUTCD too closely that it's not an option.

No issue on my end from the pros you just raised about VMS.  The main difference between California verses a Nevada and Arizona in my book is that the VMS signs are more widely used than here.  Hopefully that clarifies things a little, I'm honestly surprised after all this time that this thread went dark that it would take off from a small snippet of approval I had about someone actually looking at alternate means of revenue. 

[Bobby5280]

The traffic advisory signs have their place on the roadways, when installed in the right strategic places and used properly. I'm just flatly opposed to sticking ads on them. I've seen a few of them on I-25 in Southern Colorado. That area is sparsely populated, but that's a major route that is subject to sometimes very dangerous weather conditions. I'd rather those LED signs display inane phrases like "don't drink and drive" much of the time rather than show ads. Drivers will get confused by that and then get used to casually ignoring them. They would risk ignoring an important warning or alert due to the VMS displaying spam most of the time.

Actually I complete disagree with you on a large number of the California state highways in regards to carrying commercial traffic.  I'll grab a bunch off the route log I compiled to discuss when I get home.  216 just came to mind off the top of my head since it turned into such a large discussion on that other thread.  You got to understand there are dollars on the table that could be used to better maintain and improve true through ways like I-5, CA 99, CA 58, I-10 and others of the like.

Just to clarify something: what I call "commercial traffic" is more than just 18-wheel semi-trucks. Commercial traffic can consist of company cars, pickups, delivery vans, Fed-Ex/UPS vans, crane trucks, construction vehicles and (of course) big rig trucks. Not all of that would be prohibited from a "no commercial vehicles" road. For instance big rig trucks aren't allowed on the Belt Parkway in Brooklyn, but you'll see plenty of vans, pickups and company cars on that freeway.

A good sample would be the state maintained surface highways down around Los Angeles.  I can't think of many justifications why many of the surface routes are maintained in incorporated areas that already maintain a network of streets.

Maybe the city doesn't have enough tax dollars coming into its coffers to pay for maintenance and improvements of those streets all by itself.

Lawton, OK is a good example since it faces a difficult situation in this regard. Cache Road is by far its busiest street. It used to carry the US-62 designation. But that was diverted to Roger's Lane, a very poorly and dangerously designed wannabe freeway that's really nothing more than a glorified street. ODOT moved the US-62 designation there in part so it could fix some of the more glaring safety issues with 2 partial cloverleaf style exits. Meanwhile Cache Road still carries a shit-ton of heavy commercial traffic.

Lawton's city government might be able to handle some simple maintenance issues on that 6-lane street, but it's going to be screwed if it can't get help from ODOT for more serious matters. The same goes for Lee Blvd., which used to carry the OK-7 designation. OK-7 was truncated to the East side of town where it meets I-44. The problem is Lawton has the Goodyear plant on its west side just out of city limits. This was at one time the world's largest tire factory, and it may still be considering some of the expansion they have done. There are other industrial factories out there by Goodyear. None of the truck traffic coming to and from those plants can go directly to I-44 or US-62. It has to rumble down Lawton city-maintained streets to get to I-44. Lawton gets no tax money from those industrial plants out west. Yet the city's infrastructure gets pummeled by that commercial traffic nonetheless.

The General VMS could be more useful if they had travel times but they probably don't do that due to how much programming it would take I would imagine.

There are possible ways how these signs could display travel times, but it probably wouldn't be very cheap to add the function. Cameras at various points on the road could sample license plates and track the times to display on the VMS signs. They could be provided data from 3rd parties like Google Maps or Waze. A lot of LED signs can display info from RSS feeds, so this shouldn't be too much different. But in the end it would take some programming and taxpayer money spent.

[Max Rockatansky]

Oh I gotcha on the usefulness in dangerous roads or mountain passes.  I listed US 395, CA 49, CA 41, CA 108, CA 120, CA 88 and I believe a couple more out in the Sierras where the VMS signs are used properly or could be used on the fly.  The terrain is probably actually more prone to quick changes in weather in the Sierras than they are out in the Rockies.  I'd say just turn the signs off if they don't have a critical message to display over leaving them on with a generic message or even an ad like the article discussed.  Leaving the VMS on something inane and generic tends to devalue their important while something that is on only at certain times catches the eye.  Maybe turning off the VMS signs when they aren't needed will also have some sort of nominal cost savings?...I'm not sure the power requirements they need to say with any degree of certainty.  A good example of an alternate I always found was "tune to AM station XXXX when flashing" since the sign catches your attention only when needed.  ADOT uses those on I-10 east of Tucson for dust storms or winter weather.

I gotcha on the commercial traffic, I know you meant more than 18 wheelers.  We got a lot of really rural routes that go by rural homes and some that don't even go into areas with incorporated towns.  Those roads ought to be county routes at best in my opinion since they really only serve the locals and local commerce.  Tulare County is a good example with several J Series county routes already in use along with named avenues serving farms.  In some routes there is very little to no difference in the quality of any of them....especially San Joaquin Valley in general.

You probably hit the mark with tax issues and relinquishments.  Granted I'm talking about ideal relinquishments of urban corridors.  In the Los Angeles area you had a large section of Sunset Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd and Foothill Blvd that were part of US 66 that still sees heavy traffic.  The bulk of the old 66 route has been turned over but that's not the case for many routes that were always just California state highways.  Like I said...there is some ideal room for improvement but I'm under no delusion about it being a fast process but I do think Caltrans needs to be more aggressive with the relinquishment policy.

As far as route signage I look at Nevada as a good example of how to sign minor routes and stuff that is on the cutting list.  The more I look at how Nevada does signage the more I like it:

Routes 0-499 are major routes
Routes 500-699 are urban routes
Routes 700-895

I would prefer an Arizona style stingy grid of state highways but at least with the Nevada system you can tell what status the road you are on currently is.  California is all over the places with randomly placed route numbers pretty much ranging from 1 to 330.

[myosh_tino]

Actually I'd rather take down about half of them on 99.

I wouldn't.

During the winter months, tule or valley fog is a real problem in the central valley where visibility can plummet to zero in an instant.  IINM, Caltrans installed a number of VMSes on CA-99 and I-5 after a couple of fatal 50+ vehicle pile ups that were caused by dense valley fog (I-5 and CA-99) or sudden dust storms (mainly on I-5).

I suppose those "Tune to AM XXXX" signs would work but rather than forcing the driver to mess with his/her radio, it would be much simpler to display "SLOW DOWN DENSE FOG AHEAD" on the multitude of VMSes on both routes.

[Max Rockatansky]

Actually I'd rather take down about half of them on 99.

I wouldn't.

During the winter months, tule or valley fog is a real problem in the central valley where visibility can plummet to zero in an instant.  IINM, Caltrans installed a number of VMSes on CA-99 and I-5 after a couple of fatal 50+ vehicle pile ups that were caused by dense valley fog (I-5 and CA-99) or sudden dust storms (mainly on I-5).

I suppose those "Tune to AM XXXX" signs would work but rather than forcing the driver to mess with his/her radio, it would be much simpler to display "SLOW DOWN DENSE FOG AHEAD" on the multitude of VMSes on both routes.

Right but most people are blowing dust right off into oblivion during that Tule Fog every year....I know, I drive in it every friggin winter.   So if the VMS sign is constantly operating doesn't that negate the effectiveness since the driver's are going to be used to seeing it?  Say the VMS was off when it didn't have an important message of it was the "Tune to when flashing sign" that probably would catch more eyes that people are used to seeing everyday.  I know for me it would probably catch my eye more if the VMS was off and then sudden on one day displaying a message about fog or another hazard of the like.

[kphoger]

I know for me it would probably catch my eye more if the VMS was off and then sudden on one day displaying a message about fog or another hazard of the like.

This is the opposite of displaying advertising on VMSes.  So are you in favor of displaying useless messages (ads), or are you in favor of leaving them blank (off)?  Because now you've advocated both.

[Max Rockatansky]

I know for me it would probably catch my eye more if the VMS was off and then sudden on one day displaying a message about fog or another hazard of the like.

This is the opposite of displaying advertising on VMSes.  So are you in favor of displaying useless messages (ads), or are you in favor of leaving them blank (off)?  Because now you've advocated both.

Preference would be for better VMS or messages turned off when they aren't needed.  If that's something Caltrans can't accomplish then save some money and show some Burger King adds.  What they got going now lends more often to useless.