CalTrans District 7 (mostly Los Angeles) resigning project

[TheStranger]

  The best available free guide to control cities is still Paul Wolf's control cities page, and it lists no control cities for I-210 or I-405.

I wonder though...there's a very limited set of 3dis covered by that list (and none in California); do most states simply handle 3di control cities without any submission to AASHTO for approval?

 

[Brandon]

  The best available free guide to control cities is still Paul Wolf's control cities page, and it lists no control cities for I-210 or I-405.

I wonder though...there's a very limited set of 3dis covered by that list (and none in California); do most states simply handle 3di control cities without any submission to AASHTO for approval?

It's way off in some cases as well.  "LaSalle-Peru" for I-24 WB?

[Occidental Tourist]

New signage on I-405 at the 22 shows not only control cities, but a NEW control city (Irvine). I suspect the practice to reduce would be for EXITS not mainline signage.

This project is an excellent example of two districts handling signage in different and inconsistent ways.

For example, on the District 7 side, the recent replacement signs on the 405 south approaching the 22/605 interchange use the ubiquitous "605 Freeway" language on BGS and advance signs.  On the District 12 side, where the interchange construction coincidentally means new signs are being put up south of the 605/22 interchange at the same time District 7 replaced their signs north of the interchange, the 605 is simply referred to as "605 NORTH".  Further, District 12's construction contractor is using first letter raised cardinal directions, while the new signs for District 12 keep the traditional one-height cardinal directions.

[SignBridge]

We're starting to sound like a bunch of lawyers arguing the fine points of law in a courtroom. LOL

Now, with due respect to our comrade Mr. Winkler, who obviously knows the freeway signing business quite well, I suggest that any highway authority's non-posting of destinations due to their absence in AASHTO's listing is nonsense. In fact, that same MUTCD Section 2E-13 that he referred to talks about major destinations OR control cities in its first paragraph. And I would take that to mean that posted destinations don't always necessarily have to be a designated control city.

In fact, in many other parts of the country including the Washington D.C. and New York City metropolitan areas, which have many 3-digit interstate highways, destinations are almost always used.  Those destinations include cities, and regions. And even bridges and tunnels (which is a whole 'nother controversial subject). So who's kidding who in California? 

[J N Winkler]

We're starting to sound like a bunch of lawyers arguing the fine points of law in a courtroom.

It gets like that at times!

Now, with due respect to our comrade Mr. Winkler, who obviously knows the freeway signing business quite well, I suggest that any highway authority's non-posting of destinations due to their absence in AASHTO's listing is nonsense. In fact, that same MUTCD Section 2E-13 that he referred to talks about major destinations OR control cities in its first paragraph. And I would take that to mean that posted destinations don't always necessarily have to be a designated control city.

This is true.  My argument is essentially that since the AASHTO control cities list does not include control cities for I-210 or I-405 (or, indeed, the vast majority of three-digit Interstates), Caltrans is off the hook (from a MUTCD standpoint) since the "should" statement does not apply.  Now, if Caltrans has its own control city list (some state DOTs do--Arizona is one example that comes to mind), then it could be that omitting control cities puts Caltrans in breach of its own standards.  But I don't think Caltrans actually has such a list.

In fact, in many other parts of the country including the Washington D.C. and New York City metropolitan areas, which have many 3-digit interstate highways, destinations are almost always used.  Those destinations include cities, and regions. And even bridges and tunnels (which is a whole 'nother controversial subject). So who's kidding who in California?

There are other metropolitan areas where pull-through signs on three-digit Interstates don't have control cities.  Wichita (where I live) is one example of such, as is Topeka and the parts of metro Kansas City that are in Kansas.

[SignBridge]

Well J.N., I guess Kansas and California are a longer way from New York and Washington than I thought . LOL

Let's also discuss the question of street and city names on the same sign. J.N. you correctly point out that the FHWA has advised against this practice since at least 1971. (No kidding, I did see it in the 1971 Manual, first edition I ever read.) And for 40 years I have never understood their position on that issue. BTW it's guidance, not a standard. The exact quote in the 2009 Manual is: A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided. Not "shall".

BTW, New York DOT apparently agrees that's it's a dumb recommendation. For 40 years Region-10 on Long Island has been using street names with one or two destinations (both in mixed-case lettering) on their BGS's with no problems that I know of. 

Does anyone here know the specific reason for avoiding both together?

[myosh_tino]

Now, if Caltrans has its own control city list (some state DOTs do--Arizona is one example that comes to mind), then it could be that omitting control cities puts Caltrans in breach of its own standards.  But I don't think Caltrans actually has such a list.

According to the 2012 California MUTCD, each district is supposed to develop a list of control cities within their district and share that information with adjoining districts.

Guidance:
05 Each Department of Transportation District should determine its list of control cities in cooperation with adjacent districts and states to achieve continuity of signing for through traffic on State highways. Any given route should have the same control cities (in both directions of travel).

This guidance statement, found at the end of Sec 2E.13, was added by Caltrans.  It does not exist in any form in the national MUTCD.

[TheStranger]

This guidance statement, found at the end of Sec 2E.13, was added by Caltrans.  It does not exist in any form in the national MUTCD.

Has that guidance statement been in previous CalTrans updates to the MUTCD?

This let-the-districts-choose approach explains why I-5 north in San Diego County is signed for "Los Angeles" while the same road/direction in southern Orange County is signed for "Santa Ana."

[hm insulators]

I don't remember if I-210 has box trusses, but I think the newer sections east are too new to have them.  Casual inspection in Google StreetView doesn't turn up anything except Pratt trusses.

I think the stretch of I-210 between the 134 in Pasadena and the 118 Freeway (in other words through La Crescenta, La Canada and so forth) has box trusses on the above-grade stretches.

Fixed quoting. --roadfro

[myosh_tino]

This guidance statement, found at the end of Sec 2E.13, was added by Caltrans.  It does not exist in any form in the national MUTCD.

Has that guidance statement been in previous CalTrans updates to the MUTCD?

This let-the-districts-choose approach explains why I-5 north in San Diego County is signed for "Los Angeles" while the same road/direction in southern Orange County is signed for "Santa Ana."

It has.  The same guidance statement was added in the 2003 California MUTCD.

Doing a little digging, that guidance statement was lifted, word-for-word, from Section 4-04.11 of the last edition of the Caltrans Traffic Manual...

4-04.11 Control City Signing

Signing should be consistent, to distant major destinations (control cities) for long trip orientation. Each district should determine its list of control cities in cooperation with adjacent districts and states to achieve continuity of signing for through traffic. Any given route should have the same control cities (in both directions of travel). The "control city" should remain the same on all successive signs throughout the length of the route until that destination is reached.

What I find interesting is the last sentence, which was NOT carried over to the California MUTCD.  Prior to 2003, the control city was not supposed to change until that destination is reached.  Had that statement been carried over the MUTCD, District 12 would have had little choice but to sign I-5 for Los Angeles instead of Santa Ana unless they convinced District 11 to also use Santa Ana as the control city for I-5 north.

[TheStranger]

Are you talking about just on pull-through signs only or entrance/exit signs too? 

Specific examples of pull-throughs and freeway junctions that are seeing control cities removed, from the PDFs:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-1W2204/plans_and_specs/plans/07-1w2204_plans-pgs%20101-169.pdf

Page 3 and 5: "405 North"
Page 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16: "405 South"

Page 12: Note the retention of Manhattan Beach as a destination for Rosecrans Avenue.

---

From the original PDF posted at the start of the thread...

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-1W2204/plans_and_specs/plans/07-1w2204_plans-pgs%20001-100.pdf

Page 23 and 77 and 78: along I-10 west, replacement of "US 101 Los Angeles" exit sign with a plain "US 101" with no control city, and addition of pullthrough I-10/I-5 sign with no control city

Page 24, 25, 78, 79: replacement of I-210 San Fernando with I-210 WEST, while retaining control city for Route 134/Ventura

Page 35 and 88: replacement of I-210 San Bernardino with I-210 EAST

Page 37, 38, 46, 89, 90, 94: replacement of I-210 Pasadena with I-210 WEST

Page 53, 54, 98-100: replacement of I-405 Santa Monica with I-405 NORTH (note the retention of LAX Airport legend, as well as the control cities for 105)

Page 55: removal of control cities for 405-to-105 ramp

Page 57: replacement of I-405 Santa Monica with I-405 NORTH (but Inglewood and Route 42 retained for Manchester Avenue exit sign)

Page 58: replacement of Route 90 Marina Del Rey with Route 90 WEST

Page 59 and 60: replacement of I-405 Santa Monica/Sacramento with I-405 NORTH and replacement of Route 90 Marina Del Rey with Route 90 WEST; replacement of I-405 SOUTH Long Beach with I-405 SOUTH (but control cities for 110 retained)

Page 66: replacement of I-405 SOUTH Long Beach with I-405 SOUTH

[AndyMax25]

Thanks TheStranger. I spoke to Jennifer N. today. She signed most of these plans as the engineer of record. I am putting a similar list together to send to her and supervisor. I'll let the group know of any response.


iPhone

[SignBridge]

Could it be that the reduction in legend is just an attempt to cut costs? Doesn't everything usually have to do with money? 30 years ago when a major highway in my area was resigned (in Long Island's last button-copy project) some legends were very minimalist (similar to what Caltrans is now doing) and one major split was insufficiently signed. I always figured that NYS DOT had under-budgeted the job, and had to skimp wherever they could to stay within budget.

[TheStranger]

Thanks TheStranger. I spoke to Jennifer N. today. She signed most of these plans as the engineer of record. I am putting a similar list together to send to her and supervisor. I'll let the group know of any response.


iPhone

Thanks again for your input.  I've actually really enjoyed this whole thread as it highlights a lot of what makes California unique compared to other states (district autonomy and freeway name usage in particular).

My own stylistic preferences would include freeway name retention, control city retention (or addition in the case of 605), and shield efficiency, but obviously consistency in the field based on MUTCD guidelines and existing practices is ultimately the goal of this discussion.

Could it be that the reduction in legend is just an attempt to cut costs?

On first guess, given that overall gantry message loading is what these signage plans attempt to address, I want to guess that the addition of exit number tabs has spurred on some of the legend removal.  But that would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis...

Bringing up the example of I-10 west at I-5 (pages 77 and 78 of the originally linked PDF), the new sign of I-10 WEST arrow/I-5 SOUTH arrow/US 101 arrow replacing US 101 Los Angeles EXIT ONLY arrow...there is a message loading increase in that area, but somewhat more clarity as to what is mainline Interstate 10 (trying to remain consistent with other installations in the area identifying all three routes), at the expense of a listed destination.

[SignBridge]

Is it specifically stated somewhere in those plans that reduction of message loading is Caltrans' objective in this round of resigning? If that's true, maybe as the above poster said, they are trying to reduce the message units due to the addition of exit numbers. Or again, maybe to keep the costs the same even with exit numbers. I think that's more likely. Things usually revolve around money, not from trying to do the right thing.

[AndyMax25]

I don't understand how weight can be an issue. These newer signs are MUCH lighter than the original ones and the text is screened into the sign, not an overlay like the originals. After replacement, the structures will ultimately see a lesser load.


iPhone

[SignBridge]

Yeah, what Andy said! The old signs were made of porcelain right? And the new ones are made of what, aluminum?

[Alps]

I don't understand how weight can be an issue. These newer signs are MUCH lighter than the original ones and the text is screened into the sign, not an overlay like the originals. After replacement, the structures will ultimately see a lesser load.

Sign weight is not the issue. Size is the issue, and it's because of wind loading. That's the driving force behind gantry design. Caltrans' height restriction is silly, because you can have a tall but narrow sign with less area than a very wide one.

[AndyMax25]

But they are replacing the size 1 to 1 with the existing signs.


iPhone

[J N Winkler]

Is it specifically stated somewhere in those plans that reduction of message loading is Caltrans' objective in this round of resigning? If that's true, maybe as the above poster said, they are trying to reduce the message units due to the addition of exit numbers. Or again, maybe to keep the costs the same even with exit numbers. I think that's more likely. Things usually revolve around money, not from trying to do the right thing.

The plans don't say any such thing--in general, construction plans sets don't contain statements of design intent.  We surmise that the designers seek to reduce message loading after comparing the existing legends to their proposed replacement and seeing that, in most cases, message loading is either reduced or kept the same after addition of exit numbers.

In regard to AndyMax25's point about same-footprint replacement, the apparent intent is typically to allow reuse of existing mounting hardware.  Many Caltrans overhead signs are of the formed-panel type, so the formed panels can be replaced while the removable sign panel frame (RSPF) that holds them together is re-used.  (I don't know whether the RSPF has to be removed from the gantry in order for the individual panels to be replaced, or if they can be slotted into place in the field.)  Obviously this is possible only if the replacement sign has the same exterior dimensions as the original.

Yeah, what Andy said! The old signs were made of porcelain right? And the new ones are made of what, aluminum?

It depends on the age.  Caltrans stopped using porcelain enamel on steel around 1970, and thereafter used aluminum.  The two types can be differentiated by the type of button copy they have.  Porcelain signs have reflectors applied to the sign surface with epoxy, while aluminum signs tend to have framed copy (the sheet of metal that is cut into the shape of a letter, crimped on the edges, and perforated to accommodate reflective buttons that are snapped into place is called a "frame").

I doubt the difference in weight is all that great.  Aluminum is lighter than steel, but might be used at a heavier gauge for added sturdiness.  The savings in weight from buttons and button frames is not great and might be outweighed by the weight of reflectorized film, which is not all that light.  As Alps suggests, the driving consideration behind same-footprint replacement is probably to maintain the same wind loading, as this reduces design effort.

In regard to freeway names, I don't feel this is a winnable battle.  Aside from message loading considerations, previous attempts to institute systematic signing of freeway names in the early 1960's (to accommodate what professionals then called the "local stranger," i.e. a person living in the LA basin and remaining in it but travelling well outside his or her local area) foundered on freeway names derived from one terminus:  it was considered confusing to the motorist to sign, e.g., "San Diego Freeway" northbound headed to Santa Monica, i.e. away from San Diego.  And message loading is one important reason the US highways in California were truncated in 1964.  A commonly quoted result of this change (in, e.g., US House committee testimony on freeway signing in 1967) was allowing the number of shields on a single gantry to drop from ten to four just by omitting overlapping US routes.

Let's also discuss the question of street and city names on the same sign. J.N. you correctly point out that the FHWA has advised against this practice since at least 1971. (No kidding, I did see it in the 1971 Manual, first edition I ever read.) And for 40 years I have never understood their position on that issue. BTW it's guidance, not a standard. The exact quote in the 2009 Manual is: A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided. Not "shall".

BTW, New York DOT apparently agrees that's it's a dumb recommendation. For 40 years Region-10 on Long Island has been using street names with one or two destinations (both in mixed-case lettering) on their BGS's with no problems that I know of. 

Does anyone here know the specific reason for avoiding both together?

As it happens, NYSDOT has a currently advertised contract to replace signs on several freeway routes in Long Island (D262550).  It is a proposal-only job and the signface layout sheets alone run to over 400 pages.  And, yes, many of the signs feature mixed street and place names, and I suspect at least some of them are replacements in kind, though it is hard to tell in the absence of sign layout sheets.

I have posted a question about this particular MUTCD provision on the MUTCD discussion board.  I don't know if it will receive a sensible reply.  My theory, however, is that the requirement has to do with establishing a clear delimitation between urban and rural signing and allowing sign spreading to be implemented without exposing the motorist to additional destinations at the last minute.  Sign spreading involves the use of interchange sequence signs, which almost invariably list crossroads (not places) as destinations, to give motorists advance notice of an upcoming exit while keeping the number of advance guide signs provided for a given exit to the minimum.  Since interchange sequence signs do not list places, any placename that appears on the advance guide or exit direction sign for the actual exit has the potential to nudge a motorist into a late decision to exit, which can be problematic especially on congested urban freeways where it is more difficult to maneuver to an exit ramp.

I guess my question, since Long Island is apparently local to you, is how extensively interchange sequence signs are used on the freeways there that feature mixed street and place names.

[AndyMax25]

All,

I have submitted the attached document to some Caltrans D7 staff.  I will let you know if I get any response.  Let's cross our fingers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf

[myosh_tino]

All,

I have submitted the attached document to some Caltrans D7 staff.  I will let you know if I get any response.  Let's cross our fingers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf

I see you included my redesign of the I-210 west sign in your correspondence.  If someone at Caltrans inquires about that sign and includes a job offer to design signs, please let me know, ok? 

[AndyMax25]

All,

I have submitted the attached document to some Caltrans D7 staff.  I will let you know if I get any response.  Let's cross our fingers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyfr2y4yc4p6356/comments_on_caltrans_contract_071W2204.pdf

I see you included my redesign of the I-210 west sign in your correspondence.  If someone at Caltrans inquires about that sign and includes a job offer to design signs, please let me know, ok? 

Myosh,

Ha ha!  Thank you for posting those, I definitely helps to illustrate the point.  Although I modified the 57 one a it a bit.  I figured they wouldn't go for having Diamond Bar on there.

Which software do you use to create theses signs?

[SignBridge]

J.N. Thanks for your very informative reply to the points I brought up. You make an interesting case re: place names not being used with street names in urban areas due to the complication of interchange sequence signs. I hadn't thought of that.

In answer to your question, interchange sequence signs are used only occasionally in the New York City area. They appear in a few places but are not normally included in the sign system here. In fact, as a teenager growing up here years ago, I never knew such signs existed until I watched a movie filmed on the San Diego Fwy. where I saw them for the first time. (chuckle!) And I was quite impressed with the idea.

[SignBridge]

AndyMax, I have just read your submission to Caltrans. Hopefully your being a P.E./T.E. from the L.A. area will cause them to take your excellent suggestions seriously or at least send you an intelligent professional reply. Please keep us posted. Thanx!