Is JCT or Junction not a Los Angeles thing?

[jfs1988]

Even though there are a few, they still seem to be pretty rare in the Greater Los Angeles Area (especially when you are closer to Los Angeles).

[myosh_tino]

If you're referring to an interchange sequence sign, there are plenty of them up here in northern California.  The practice was carried over to some new signs that are about to be installed in the S.F. Bay Area but instead of using mixed case, they're going to be all uppercase (Junction vs JUNCTION).

[jfs1988]

The only ones I know of that are closer to the city of Los Angeles is the one for the East Los Angeles Interchange on the 60 Freeway westbound just after the 710 Freeway & the one for the 57 Freeway just after Phillips Ranch.

The one for the East LA Interchange has very small letters.


In the Greater LA Area they seem to be more common in the Inland Empire (east of the 15 Freeway).

[AndyMax25]

Here is one along NB 405 approaching the Marina Freeway in Los Angeles.

[AndyMax25]

Here is another one I drove past yesterday. EB 118 approaching San Diego Freeway.

[jakeroot]

I seem to recall seeing "ROUTE ## FREEWAY NAME" far more often than "JCT ROUTE ##".

[djsekani]

I seem to recall seeing "ROUTE ## FREEWAY NAME" far more often than "JCT ROUTE ##".

That is more common in Hollywood and Downtown L.A., but other freeways with newer signage use a variety of other methods. There's no real standard out here.

[SeriesE]

I seem to recall seeing "ROUTE ## FREEWAY NAME" far more often than "JCT ROUTE ##".

That is more common in Hollywood and Downtown L.A., but other freeways with newer signage use a variety of other methods. There's no real standard out here.

New signs tend to use (route) Fwy or (route) Freeway

[mrsman]

I seem to recall seeing "ROUTE ## FREEWAY NAME" far more often than "JCT ROUTE ##".

That is more common in Hollywood and Downtown L.A., but other freeways with newer signage use a variety of other methods. There's no real standard out here.

New signs tend to use (route) Fwy or (route) Freeway

That's right. Due to newer FHWA standards regarding message loading there is a big push in Caltrans Dist. 7 to remove the mention of freeway names.  And in many cases control cities are also being removed for similar reasons.

In my view, it isn't necessary.  The old signs were fine.  If people find the signs confusing, maybe they should put down their phones and drive.

[SeriesE]

I seem to recall seeing "ROUTE ## FREEWAY NAME" far more often than "JCT ROUTE ##".

That is more common in Hollywood and Downtown L.A., but other freeways with newer signage use a variety of other methods. There's no real standard out here.

New signs tend to use (route) Fwy or (route) Freeway

That's right. Due to newer FHWA standards regarding message loading there is a big push in Caltrans Dist. 7 to remove the mention of freeway names.  And in many cases control cities are also being removed for similar reasons.

In my view, it isn't necessary.  The old signs were fine.  If people find the signs confusing, maybe they should put down their phones and drive.

Agree on the control cities part. All freeway interchange guide signs should have at least one control city per direction, even if the freeway terminates in some suburb.

The word "freeway" on interchange sequence signs, though, is redundant and should be removed. Just the shield is sufficient.

[coatimundi]

The word "freeway" on interchange sequence signs, though, is redundant and should be removed. Just the shield is sufficient.

Not every state route is a freeway, but there are a lot of state routes that are freeways. And it can get confusing. In the Bay Area, there are several state routes that have freeway sections and non-freeway sections. They're often in different segments, meaning that a freeway that intersects the state route will actually have two interchanges for that same route: one for the freeway and one for the non-freeway. And they're usually pretty close to one another.

Even in Southern California this can be problematic: I don't find it at all hard to believe that someone could confuse the non-freeway SR 76 with the freeway SR 78, just a few miles apart on I-5 in Oceanside.

[SeriesE]

The word "freeway" on interchange sequence signs, though, is redundant and should be removed. Just the shield is sufficient.

Not every state route is a freeway, but there are a lot of state routes that are freeways. And it can get confusing. In the Bay Area, there are several state routes that have freeway sections and non-freeway sections. They're often in different segments, meaning that a freeway that intersects the state route will actually have two interchanges for that same route: one for the freeway and one for the non-freeway. And they're usually pretty close to one another.

Even in Southern California this can be problematic: I don't find it at all hard to believe that someone could confuse the non-freeway SR 76 with the freeway SR 78, just a few miles apart on I-5 in Oceanside.

Non-freeway state routes are supposed to be list as "Road Name (route)" though, and multiple exits with the same route are typically listed with the route shield and the cardinal directions. If one of the exits is not freeway grade, it's Road Name then shield then direction.

[coatimundi]

Non-freeway state routes are supposed to be list as "Road Name (route)" though

Not all state routes have a name. Like 79 and 198. Many do have names, but having just the route marker on the sign would then, in the case of removing "freeway," would be wrongfully indicative of a freeway.

[SeriesE]

Non-freeway state routes are supposed to be list as "Road Name (route)" though

Not all state routes have a name. Like 79 and 198. Many do have names, but having just the route marker on the sign would then, in the case of removing "freeway," would be wrongfully indicative of a freeway.

Just having the route marker doesn't necessarily indicate the route is a freeway.

Only District 7 and 12 emphasizes the route is a freeway in the sequence signs by having the word freeway inline; others list the routes as Junction xx. So there's no distinction between a junction with a freeway or an unnamed conventional highway/expressway.

[coatimundi]

Just having the route marker doesn't necessarily indicate the route is a freeway.

I know, and I've become somewhat lost (it happens to me more these days), but this drove my contention:

The word "freeway" on interchange sequence signs, though, is redundant and should be removed. Just the shield is sufficient.

That's what I'm not following: if you remove "Freeway" (or "Fwy") and leave the shield, then it has no apparent difference from a regular, at-grade state route.

[SeriesE]

Just having the route marker doesn't necessarily indicate the route is a freeway.

I know, and I've become somewhat lost (it happens to me more these days), but this drove my contention:

The word "freeway" on interchange sequence signs, though, is redundant and should be removed. Just the shield is sufficient.

That's what I'm not following: if you remove "Freeway" (or "Fwy") and leave the shield, then it has no apparent difference from a regular, at-grade state route.

According to the MUTCD, interchange sequence signs are typically used in urban areas, where at-grade state routes have street names. So it's still possible to tell whether the route is a freeway by checking if there's a street name before the shield.

Basically sign it Bay Area style without "junction"  since LA doesn't use that word for whatever reason.
Kind of like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/mk9rcR8EW512

[coatimundi]

Just having the route marker doesn't necessarily indicate the route is a freeway.

I know, and I've become somewhat lost (it happens to me more these days), but this drove my contention:

The word "freeway" on interchange sequence signs, though, is redundant and should be removed. Just the shield is sufficient.

That's what I'm not following: if you remove "Freeway" (or "Fwy") and leave the shield, then it has no apparent difference from a regular, at-grade state route.

According to the MUTCD, interchange sequence signs are typically used in urban areas, where at-grade state routes have street names. So it's still possible to tell whether the route is a freeway by checking if there's a street name before the shield.

Basically sign it Bay Area style without "junction"  since LA doesn't use that word for whatever reason.
Kind of like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/mk9rcR8EW512

But there are many instances in urban areas where the actual name of the road is less known than the number, if there even is a name. 76 in Oceanside is the example I already gave, but there are several others in the Inland, like portions of 74 and 79.
In that Google Maps example, there's another 22 just east of there. And, in that case, I don't know that the fact that one has "Street" on its sign makes it particularly clear that one is a freeway and one is not. Freeway interchanges often feature surface street off-ramps, and those surface streets often appear on the sign for the freeway.

I mean, I'm all about consistency. It's too bad Caltrans isn't, since they can't even keep it consistent within one district. I would rather the Bay Area adopt the "Fwy" style. If anything, putting "Junction" on there is pretty obvious: of course there's a junction, that's what an interchange is.

[TheStranger]

I would rather the Bay Area adopt the "Fwy" style. If anything, putting "Junction" on there is pretty obvious: of course there's a junction, that's what an interchange is.

Funny enough, this reminds me of two particular signs near the Bayshore Freeway:

- in San Francisco, for decades the advance signage for the 280/101 junction at one spot on 280 north in Glen Park was "Bayshore Freeway" (creating the neat alphabetical order exit listing of Alemany Boulevard, Bayshore Freeway, and Cesar Chavez Street) - retained even in the retroreflective era.  However a greenout patch with "JCT (101 shield)" was added in the last 6-7 months!

I think that might have been the last spot in the Bay Area that the Bayshore Freeway name was signed (I know it was signed off of 480 east in the 1960s), there might be one or two pointers to it in the South Bay but I'm not sure.

- On 101 south in San Mateo, for the last two/three years, the Route 92 interchange is signed as "Junction 92"...while one or two of them has always had the correct "Junction (92 shield)" appellation, another was signed as "Junction 92" with no shield!  I think this has since been fixed sometime earlier this year.

[coatimundi]

I think that might have been the last spot in the Bay Area that the Bayshore Freeway name was signed (I know it was signed off of 480 east in the 1960s), there might be one or two pointers to it in the South Bay but I'm not sure.

I distinctly recall some local signage on surface streets in either Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, or northern SJ (municipalities get so muddled down there). It had the name in all caps and had the 101 shield.

You mentioning that sequence sign on 280 reminded me of it too, so I had to find it. Pretty attractive: https://goo.gl/maps/yueutbiJNzN2

If you change the date, you can see how it is underneath that patch.

[SeriesE]

Just having the route marker doesn't necessarily indicate the route is a freeway.

I know, and I've become somewhat lost (it happens to me more these days), but this drove my contention:

The word "freeway" on interchange sequence signs, though, is redundant and should be removed. Just the shield is sufficient.

That's what I'm not following: if you remove "Freeway" (or "Fwy") and leave the shield, then it has no apparent difference from a regular, at-grade state route.

According to the MUTCD, interchange sequence signs are typically used in urban areas, where at-grade state routes have street names. So it's still possible to tell whether the route is a freeway by checking if there's a street name before the shield.

Basically sign it Bay Area style without "junction"  since LA doesn't use that word for whatever reason.
Kind of like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/mk9rcR8EW512

But there are many instances in urban areas where the actual name of the road is less known than the number, if there even is a name. 76 in Oceanside is the example I already gave, but there are several others in the Inland, like portions of 74 and 79.
In that Google Maps example, there's another 22 just east of there. And, in that case, I don't know that the fact that one has "Street" on its sign makes it particularly clear that one is a freeway and one is not. Freeway interchanges often feature surface street off-ramps, and those surface streets often appear on the sign for the freeway.

I mean, I'm all about consistency. It's too bad Caltrans isn't, since they can't even keep it consistent within one district. I would rather the Bay Area adopt the "Fwy" style. If anything, putting "Junction" on there is pretty obvious: of course there's a junction, that's what an interchange is.

Agreed on the need for consistency. Whatever way they choose, as long as it's applied consistently across the state it's good.

Looks like San Diego's district signed 76 as "Junction (76)", like say I-8
IIRC the interchange sequence sign for 198 is signed as "Junction (198)" on I-5.

[flowmotion]

- in San Francisco, for decades the advance signage for the 280/101 junction at one spot on 280 north in Glen Park was "Bayshore Freeway" (creating the neat alphabetical order exit listing of Alemany Boulevard, Bayshore Freeway, and Cesar Chavez Street) - retained even in the retroreflective era.  However a greenout patch with "JCT (101 shield)" was added in the last 6-7 months!

Oh, shit. And BOOO.

After how many decades, I'm shocked that Caltrans would ever find the motivation to change that sign. Someone must have narced.

(And has it really been 6+ months since I drove through there? Now I have to go check it out.)