CalTrans District 7 (mostly Los Angeles) resigning project

[TheStranger]

J N Winkler posted this in another thread:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-1W2204/

Giving a look at some of the documents now to see any interesting things come up.

from 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 -

- Several examples for resigning along the 210 where the new signs do NOT have exit numbers! 

- Page 37: Interesting to see "210 West" replace "210 Pasadena."   Also note the typo of "Irindale Avenue" rather than "Irwindale Avenue" in several of the example shots, though on the actual specific plan sheets, this is corrected

- I've seen this discussed in other threads, but interesting to note exit signage in which the control city has been removed (due to multiple exits serving that same suburb, or multiple suburbs are accessible from that exit), i.e. Citrus Avenue/Covina, Grand Avenue/Glendora.

- Retention of Route 91 and 107 signs off of 405 - though, from my trip in November along Artesia Boulevard, there are enough 91 trailblazers west of 405 for that to be navigationally useful.

- Hello again, Route 42!

- The Harbor Freeway name text remains at 405/110, obviously as part of the signing-in-place approach.

- Will freeway-to-freeway interchanges generally lack exit numbers?  In the Bay Area they almost always have them; in Sacramento it is hit-or-miss (80/50 and 50 east at 99/Business 80 did not receive exit numbers in a 2009 sign replacement project)

- Page 94: The spacing between the 10 and 71 shields is a bit unusual

[myosh_tino]

The layouts of some of the new signs left me scratching my head wondering what in the hell were they thinking?!?  I know we have our quirks out here in California but some of these signs are flat out ugly.

Time permitting, I'm going to try to draw some of the more uglier signs, IMO, and offer a redesign using the same sized sign panel.

To kick things off, here is the oddly laid out CA-57 exit sign referenced by TheStranger on page 94...

[KEK Inc.]

What laced drugs did the designers take to come up with that?  Hopefully other Districts won't follow.

I find it more interesting that they seem to be getting rid of the full-height diamond tabs on HOV signs and replacing the word 'carpool' with 'HOV X+'.

[myosh_tino]

What laced drugs did the designers take to come up with that?  Hopefully other Districts won't follow.

I'm with you on that! 

I find it more interesting that they seem to be getting rid of the full-height diamond tabs on HOV signs and replacing the word 'carpool' with 'HOV X+'.

Caltrans adopted the new HOV signs which include the smaller diamond and the changing of "CARPOOL" to "HOV X+" in the 2012 California MUTCD to bring them more inline with national standards.  It's one of the rare occurrences of Caltrans falling in line with the rest of the nation.

Quite frankly, I prefer the full-height diamond because it stands out due to its larger size.

[KEK Inc.]

Caltrans adopted the new HOV signs which include the smaller diamond and the changing of "CARPOOL" to "HOV X+" in the 2012 California MUTCD to bring them more inline with national standards.  It's one of the rare occurrences of Caltrans falling in line with the rest of the nation.

Quite frankly, I prefer the full-height diamond because it stands out due to its larger size.

Have they been implemented on the field yet prior to these designs? 

[emory]

Retaining the Route 19 shield on the 210 I see. Even though it doesn't start til south of the 105. Yes, THAT far away.

[agentsteel53]

speaking of HOV standards, I'd really like it if Caltrans clarified the "HOV or toll" lane policy.  (see: I-15 express lanes between Escondido and 163)

by law, it is an OR, but the way it the signs are fashioned, it is ambiguous as to whether or not it is OR or AND. 

it took me several runs through, with the requisite number of people in the car, before I realized I could be using the express lanes even if I didn't have a transponder.

[myosh_tino]

Caltrans adopted the new HOV signs which include the smaller diamond and the changing of "CARPOOL" to "HOV X+" in the 2012 California MUTCD to bring them more inline with national standards.  It's one of the rare occurrences of Caltrans falling in line with the rest of the nation.

Quite frankly, I prefer the full-height diamond because it stands out due to its larger size.

Have they been implemented on the field yet prior to these designs?

AFAIK, these are the first signs sporting the new design.  I'm 100% sure they have not been implemented in northern California.

[J N Winkler]

J N Winkler posted this in another thread:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/07/07-1W2204/

Just to thank you for opening this thread--I hadn't realized how much fodder for interesting discussion this contract offers.

- Several examples for resigning along the 210 where the new signs do NOT have exit numbers!

Which ones?  The only signs I see for service interchanges on this route which do not have either bitten-out or separately mounted exit tabs are advance guide signs for Myrtle Ave., Santa Anita Ave., Madre St., Buena Vista St., Mount Olive Dr., Irwindale Ave., Vernon Ave., Sunflower Ave., Fruit St., Foothill Blvd., and Towne Ave.  With the lone exception of Towne Ave., all of these presumably comply with Caltrans exit numbering requirements on the basis that the corresponding exit direction signs do have tabs and Caltrans requires that the exit number be explicitly signed only once in the action signing sequence.  I do not see an exit tab for the Towne Ave. exit direction sign; is it possible there is already one in place that is not being replaced and is not shown in the plans as an inplace sign?

- I've seen this discussed in other threads, but interesting to note exit signage in which the control city has been removed (due to multiple exits serving that same suburb, or multiple suburbs are accessible from that exit), i.e. Citrus Avenue/Covina, Grand Avenue/Glendora.

This complies with the federal MUTCD, which has long incorporated a guidance statement to the effect that city and street names should not be mixed on advance guide and exit direction signs.  (I haven't checked to see if this statement has been transposed into the California MUTCD.)

- Hello again, Route 42!

StreetView imagery (from January 2011) shows the SR 42 shield still in place.  My guess is that it has not been removed even though Faigin's site says SR 42 was relinquished in 2000.  (As an aside, Caltrans is hardly the only slacker about revising interchange guide signs to reflect relinquished routes.  I-235 in Wichita has an interchange sequence sign with a shield for K-2, which was pruned back to Norwich--30 miles west--almost fifteen years ago, and I am waiting to see if this will be carbon-copied in an impending I-235 sign replacement.)

Do you think these replacements have something to do with MUTCD compliance with regards to retroreflectivity?  Also, why is District 7 is so against putting control cities on guide signs?  A number of the new signs omit a control city that was on the old signs.

I am sure retroreflectivity requirements are driving this sign replacement.  As to some of the puzzling infelicities in sign design, same-footprint replacement of existing signs in combination with elimination of city destinations would explain why many of the signs are too large for their messages.  It doesn't explain other things like the apparently random use of two-digit Interstate shields for three-digit routes, the interchange sequence sign on sheet 112 with street names that are not left-aligned, and the generally odd approach to vertical centering on many signs.

The odd spacing of the sign on sheet 94 ("To SR 71 I-10 use South SR 71 1 mile") is a more or less exact reproduction of the original.

[myosh_tino]

Do you think these replacements have something to do with MUTCD compliance with regards to retroreflectivity?  Also, why is District 7 is so against putting control cities on guide signs?  A number of the new signs omit a control city that was on the old signs.

I am sure retroreflectivity requirements are driving this sign replacement.  As to some of the puzzling infelicities in sign design, same-footprint replacement of existing signs in combination with elimination of city destinations would explain why many of the signs are too large for their messages. 

Which makes their omission even more puzzling.  If the old sign panel had a control city, why was it not carried over to the new signs?

It doesn't explain other things like the apparently random use of two-digit Interstate shields for three-digit routes, the interchange sequence sign on sheet 112 with street names that are not left-aligned, and the generally odd approach to vertical centering on many signs.

The use of 2-digit Interstate shields for 3-digit routes has also crept into the S.F. Bay Area, most notably at the CA-92/I-880 interchange in Hayward.  Many of the I-880 shields used on signs are the 36x36 2-digit shield.  As for the non-left-aligned interchange sequence sign (which I missed) all I can say is... 

The odd spacing of the sign on sheet 94 ("To SR 71 I-10 use South SR 71 1 mile") is a more or less exact reproduction of the original.

Yeah, I noticed that while trying to figure out where that sign is located.  Either way, it's ugly and should never have existed.

[jrouse]

speaking of HOV standards, I'd really like it if Caltrans clarified the "HOV or toll" lane policy.  (see: I-15 express lanes between Escondido and 163)

by law, it is an OR, but the way it the signs are fashioned, it is ambiguous as to whether or not it is OR or AND. 

it took me several runs through, with the requisite number of people in the car, before I realized I could be using the express lanes even if I didn't have a transponder.

The 2009 MUTCD introduced sign standards for priced managed lanes.  California did not adopt the 2009 MUTCD until 2012, and the I-15 project was substantially completed at that time.   Future priced managed lane projects in California will follow the MUTCD, which calls for the term "Express Lane" and also will display the conditions for using the lane. 

If the facility is "HOV or toll" the sign will display the occupancy requirement, the word "OR", and the FasTrak logo (examples are I-680 and SR-237 in the Bay Area). 

If everyone needs to have a tag (example is I-10 and I-110 in LA), the signs will say "FasTrak ONLY".  Even though carpoolers may get toll-free passage or a discount, the tag is still required.  Supplemental signing will indicate if carpools get toll free passage and under what conditions.  This type of supplemental signing is found on the I-495 express lanes in Virginia and the new express lanes  on the I-635 freeway in Dallas. 

In the case of the two express lanes in LA, you must have a switchable tag to get the discount.  The signing doesn't convey this and as a result there are issues with people carpooling in the lanes and using regular FasTrak tags who don't get the discount.  Caltrans will be working with Metro to address this issue.  This may also require a re-branding of the switchable FasTrak tag to something like "FasTrak Flex".  This is being looked at by the California Toll Operators Committee.

Signs on I-15 will be updated to the MUTCD standard when the existing signs reach the end of their service life or if the operational strategy changes and carpools will have to get a tag.

[agentsteel53]

If the facility is "HOV or toll" the sign will display the occupancy requirement, the word "OR", and the FasTrak logo (examples are I-680 and SR-237 in the Bay Area). 

I can, if needed, go and take photographs on I-15 where the word OR is missing.  must be a district-by-district variation in compliance.

[agentsteel53]

The use of 2-digit Interstate shields for 3-digit routes has also crept into the S.F. Bay Area, most notably at the CA-92/I-880 interchange in Hayward.  Many of the I-880 shields used on signs are the 36x36 2-digit shield. 

are these standard shape, or the weird triangle shape? 

I have no objection to 2-digit width shields for 3-digit routes.  that's the original '57 spec.



even the California "use shorter, wider digits" variant is palatable.

[myosh_tino]

The use of 2-digit Interstate shields for 3-digit routes has also crept into the S.F. Bay Area, most notably at the CA-92/I-880 interchange in Hayward.  Many of the I-880 shields used on signs are the 36x36 2-digit shield. 

are these standard shape, or the weird triangle shape? 

According to the signing plans, they are the standard shape.  If you're referring to the angular 2-digit independent-mount interstate shields, I don't recall ever seeing them on guide signs in California.

[agentsteel53]

According to the signing plans, they are the standard shape.  If you're referring to the angular 2-digit independent-mount interstate shields, I don't recall ever seeing them on guide signs in California.

they do exist, but it's more a trivia question than anything else.  usually they're replacements for shields that have fallen off the green sign or otherwise needed to be rearranged.  there are some triangle I-210 shields on the north segment of I-710 where the green signs were previously blank for years.

[sdmichael]

The way they plan to mount the exit number panels on that portion of the 210 beats what was done in Sylmar on the 210 from Yarnell to at least Hubbard. The exit tabs are mounted on the post BELOW the sign. It really makes no sense and looks hideous.

[pctech]

Of the CA exit number tab schemes I prefer the striped version that is popular in the SF bay area. It looks "cleaner", doesn't intrude into the message part of the sign.

[jrouse]

If the facility is "HOV or toll" the sign will display the occupancy requirement, the word "OR", and the FasTrak logo (examples are I-680 and SR-237 in the Bay Area). 

I can, if needed, go and take photographs on I-15 where the word OR is missing.  must be a district-by-district variation in compliance.

The I-15 signs are not MUTCD compliant, so there would be no "OR" in there.   The signs were installed before California adopted the 2009 MUTCD.

[J N Winkler]

Which makes their omission [city names on signs that had a street name] even more puzzling.  If the old sign panel had a control city, why was it not carried over to the new signs?

That has been deprecated by the federal MUTCD for at least 14 years--Caltrans is just catching up.  The operative phrase (always a Guidance statement) is "A city name and a street name on the same sign should be avoided," § 2E.09 in the Millennium and 2003 editions of the MUTCD, moved to § 2E.10 in the 2009 edition.  This provision has been carried through without change in the California MUTCD (or MUTCD supplement, as applicable) since the 1996 Traffic Manual was substantially replaced by a supplement issued in 2003.

[J N Winkler]

The way they plan to mount the exit number panels on that portion of the 210 beats what was done in Sylmar on the 210 from Yarnell to at least Hubbard. The exit tabs are mounted on the post BELOW the sign. It really makes no sense and looks hideous.

I'm not sure about that--some but not all of the SR 210 signs are getting bitten-out tabs but quite a few are getting separate tabs.  If box trusses are used on the 210, then each tab can be mounted next to the main sign panel on the box (an approach I have seen used elsewhere), but if they are Pratt trusses, then the separate tabs may very well end up on the posts below the main sign.

[myosh_tino]

Which makes their omission [city names on signs that had a street name] even more puzzling.  If the old sign panel had a control city, why was it not carried over to the new signs?

That has been deprecated by the federal MUTCD for at least 14 years--Caltrans is just catching up.  The operative phrase (always a Guidance statement) is "A city name and a street name on the same sign should be avoided," § 2E.09 in the Millennium and 2003 editions of the MUTCD, moved to § 2E.10 in the 2009 edition.  This provision has been carried through without change in the California MUTCD (or MUTCD supplement, as applicable) since the 1996 Traffic Manual was substantially replaced by a supplement issued in 2003.

Sorry, my bad.  I should have been a bit clearer.  I was referring to the lack of control cities on exit signs for other freeways and on pull-through signs.  The I-210 pull through on the same gantry as the oddly laid out CA-57 exit sign that I drew earlier currently has a control city ("Pasadena" IIRC) but the replacement does not.

If box trusses are used on the 210, then each tab can be mounted next to the main sign panel on the box (an approach I have seen used elsewhere), but if they are Pratt trusses, then the separate tabs may very well end up on the posts below the main sign.

If by box-truss you mean this...

... those have been removed from Caltrans' Standard Plans document.  The only sign structures that are "approved" are the monotube (a.k.a. tubular) and the standard truss

[J N Winkler]

Sorry, my bad.  I should have been a bit clearer.  I was referring to the lack of control cities on exit signs for other freeways and on pull-through signs.  The I-210 pull through on the same gantry as the oddly laid out CA-57 exit sign that I drew earlier currently has a control city ("Pasadena" IIRC) but the replacement does not.

Thanks--I'm with you now.  Pasadena is not the only control city that has been junked on 210 pull-throughs.  San Fernando and San Bernardino are going away too, as are Los Angeles on a US 101 sign and Santa Monica, Long Beach, and Sacramento on I-405 pull-throughs.  In most of these cases, though, the removed control city is being replaced by a cardinal direction that was previously not on the sign.  The pull-through you mention near the SR 57 interchange, several of the I-210 San Fernando pull-throughs, and three I-405 southbound Long Beach pull-throughs are isolated exceptions where the existing sign already has a cardinal direction word.

Inclusion of control cities on pull-throughs is inevitably somewhat arbitrary.  Caltrans' general approach here seems to reflect a view that drivers see the freeway network in the Los Angeles area as a grid (which it is, to a certain extent) and come to the area from outside without a clear idea of where the various communities are in the basin.  These drivers are not helped by signs which name cities without directions, as many of the existing signs do.  Substituting cardinal direction words for destinations is, by and large, neutral in terms of message loading.  Keeping cardinal directions but dumping the control cities (on signs that have both) reduces message loading.

If by box-truss you mean this...



... those have been removed from Caltrans' Standard Plans document.  The only sign structures that are "approved" are the monotube (a.k.a. tubular) and the standard truss

Yes, that is an example of what I mean by a box truss.  I am personally not aware of any new examples erected on Caltrans infrastructure since the mid-1980's (SR 24 freeway in Oakland is the most recently built example with box trusses I can think of), but since this is by and large not a structural signing contract (I think the US 101 gantry is the only one being erected under this contract), I think existing trusses and mounting hardware (e.g. removable sign panel frames) will be reused.

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.

[myosh_tino]

Yes, that is an example of what I mean by a box truss.  I am personally not aware of any new examples erected on Caltrans infrastructure since the mid-1980's (SR 24 freeway in Oakland is the most recently built example with box trusses I can think of), but since this is by and large not a structural signing contract (I think the US 101 gantry is the only one being erected under this contract), I think existing trusses and mounting hardware (e.g. removable sign panel frames) will be reused.

AFAIK, the 1994 portion of CA-85 between CA-87 and Stevens Creek Blvd was the last stretch of freeway to use the box truss.  I have not seen any newer installations.

I checked the Caltrans Office Engineer website and the box-beam truss was removed in 2006.

[TheStranger]

What intrigues me about the removal of pullthrough control cities:

in Orange County (entirely different CalTrans district), not only have control cities been retained in new signs, but in some cases, have received extra legend (Route 55 north with the unusual single-line slash text separation)!

[myosh_tino]

As promised, here are a few more drawings of the new signs in the signing plan and my redesigns.  The only constraint I put on myself was I could not enlarge the sign panel...


Oddity: removal of the control city "San Fernando" which was on the old sign


Oddity: the exit tab will be put on the truss' post instead of in the sign according to the plans
Note: This one was the toughest to redesign because all I had to work with was a 312" x 80" sign panel.


Oddity: placement of the cardinal direction and no control city.  In CT's defense, the new sign is a carbon-copy of the old one.

The way they plan to mount the exit number panels on that portion of the 210 beats what was done in Sylmar on the 210 from Yarnell to at least Hubbard. The exit tabs are mounted on the post BELOW the sign. It really makes no sense and looks hideous.

From the looks of it, certain signs included with this signing plan will also get exit tabs mounted below the sign on the post of the truss.  They seems to be all along I-210.