CalTrans District 7 (mostly Los Angeles) resigning project

[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? 

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?

To make a long story short, I have a sign-making library containing almost 400 elements (sign blanks, shields, arrows, sign trusses, etc) that, save for a few out-of-state route shields, were all self-created using specs I find online with 95% of the stuff in my library coming from specs I downloaded from the Caltrans website.  I use Visio to create full-scale drawings and then import them into Photoshop where I add color and some text.  I then resize everything to a more manageable scale.  The final products are all created in Photoshop and then exported to either PNG or JPG.

[pctech]

Are freeway names shown on the entrance ramp signs there? If yes, wouldn't that be sufficient to tell drivers which "named" freeway that they are entering?

[jrouse]

Interesting discussion.  As a Caltrans engineer who is familiar with signing practices and policies, I would like to add the following comments:

Regarding the removal of freeway names: this is not a new requirement.  It was also in the Caltrans Traffic Manual.  http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/control-devices/pdf/TMChapter4.pdf.  See Index 4-04.9, which states, "The use of route numbers and cardinal directions is preferred in signing to freeways. At freeway to freeway interchanges, overhead signing by freeway name may be included in primary directional signs only when the freeway name is well recognized and space permits.  At other than freeway to freeway interchanges, G77 and G78 signs including both the freeway name and appropriate route shield may be used to direct to the named freeway." This language is found in Section 2M.10 of the California MUTCD (in my opinion it should be in Section 2D.53).

Regarding the removal of community names on freeway signing: again, this is not a new requirement.  Index 4-04.12 of the Traffic Manual included the statements, "Highway exits will be identified on signs by route markers and street names. Community names should not be included on street name exit signs." This language is now included in Section 2E.30 of the California MUTCD.

I do think it's really cool that somebody took the time to provide the comments to the District on the errors on the plans.  Hopefully it will result in either an update being issued to the bid package, or they can be handled through the change order process. 

[TheStranger]

Interesting discussion.  As a Caltrans engineer who is familiar with signing practices and policies, I would like to add the following comments:

Regarding the removal of freeway names: this is not a new requirement.  It was also in the Caltrans Traffic Manual.  http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/control-devices/pdf/TMChapter4.pdf.  See Index 4-04.9, which states, "The use of route numbers and cardinal directions is preferred in signing to freeways. At freeway to freeway interchanges, overhead signing by freeway name may be included in primary directional signs only when the freeway name is well recognized and space permits.  At other than freeway to freeway interchanges, G77 and G78 signs including both the freeway name and appropriate route shield may be used to direct to the named freeway." This language is found in Section 2M.10 of the California MUTCD (in my opinion it should be in Section 2D.53).

I find this bolded part pretty interesting - more because it (understandably) doesn't give a particular standard for "well recognized."  I'm thinking specifically the case of Route 94 as the Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway (and to a milder extent Business 80 in Sacramento as the Capital City Freeway), in which the name-based signage was added en masse in the 1990s, years after the practice had been deprecated elsewhere.

The MacArthur Freeway named signage in the area (of which the signs at 24/580 date back to the 1960s/1970s) around the MacArthur Maze in Oakland seems to be the only existing Bay Area example of this practice beyond the one Bayshore Freeway sign in SF (and a few Nimitz Freeway signs here and there).

Regarding the removal of community names on freeway signing: again, this is not a new requirement.  Index 4-04.12 of the Traffic Manual included the statements, "Highway exits will be identified on signs by route markers and street names. Community names should not be included on street name exit signs." This language is now included in Section 2E.30 of the California MUTCD.

Does the sentence I've bolded here...basically state that control city removal is highly recommended for _street_ (i.e. non-freeway/highway) exits?  (Which would put it in line with newer national MUTCD standards)

Obviously if so, that wouldn't necessarily apply to through-route control cities and adjacent freeway control cities.

[AndyMax25]

My memo to D7 was specific to the Control City names at freeway to freeway interchanges (ie 405 South Long Beach).  I agree with D7 that putting community names underneath the street names at exits is not needed anymore.  Although along southbound 57, there are 2 Chapman Ave exits within 5 miles of each other.  The only way to differentiate the two (before exit numbers started again in CA) was by the community name, Fullerton for the northern exit and Orange for the southern exit.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.871128,-117.880039&spn=0.028684,0.03768&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=33.871201,-117.880064&panoid=VCMrM_JmFM9FGb0CURWHoQ&cbp=12,355.32,,0,-4.84

https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.791453,-117.87991&spn=0.014427,0.01884&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.791122,-117.87998&panoid=bTsOChpdaGkfVFeGm3IbXg&cbp=12,188.22,,0,4.63

Regarding the freeway names, I hate to see them disappear from the signage.  D7 staff is always telling me that they are removing the freeway names because of MUTCD Section 2M.10 due to lack of space.  I get it, no need to make a sign bigger just to keep the freeway names.  However, there are numerous places where there is plenty of space and now the sign is mostly a big green sail.  See this example below from SB 405 at I-10.  Also, Santa Monica is a world class destination, who doesn't recognize Santa Monica!?  And what happened to East and West???  They replaced the original sign almost 1 to 1 except removing the freeway name.  It's clear that they need a quality control person over there.

Original sign in background: http://www.flickr.com/photos/51186333@N00/42579268/in/photolist-4Lekj-7jt3Ye-99GhPc-8m3gyR-8MUf8n-8U8apc-8kAJds-8kALJs-8vztbg-8nxmwb-8kZSC4-7im7RN-7im7E5-27ywJk-aLK6ev-8FEbhU-975mKZ-dyGAwC-9451BG-65WYwb-Pqdev-2SsYFW-iXgByA-6RKP7b-bC8LLD-7jxJZN-7jtRtV-7jtR4B-9iFdsg-dt9Zta-8MXGf7-8MXTem-8MUDsx-8MXWnh-8MUMkp-4pNQyq-8MUz8r-8MXDFG-8MXCQU-8MXRNY-8MUCSP-8MUFCi-8MUxRT-8MXJsA-8MUCFH-8MXCe1-8MXQYW-8MUzmi-8MXN8G-8MUK7i-8MXJG3

New Sign: https://www.aaroads.com/california/images405/i-405_sb_exit_053_05.jpg

Here the old sign used to show the freeway name but not on the new one.  The name would fit identically above Santa Monica Blvd.  Oh well.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=x3115ia8maAMhM&tbnid=0ug0D7FdiHzexM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fraymondyue%2F5605244003%2F&ei=Mm8PU4a0OJLBoASvtYDwAQ&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNGvQ4Tg0icjSP3CtPQe_yVeaGghmA&ust=1393606790515563

[Zeffy]

Here the old sign used to show the freeway name but not on the new one.  The name would fit identically above Santa Monica Blvd.  Oh well.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=x3115ia8maAMhM&tbnid=0ug0D7FdiHzexM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fraymondyue%2F5605244003%2F&ei=Mm8PU4a0OJLBoASvtYDwAQ&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNGvQ4Tg0icjSP3CtPQe_yVeaGghmA&ust=1393606790515563

Isn't 'I-10 Freeway' redundant, since all Interstates are (supposed to be) freeways? Also, RaymondYu photo detected. 

[DTComposer]

Here the old sign used to show the freeway name but not on the new one.  The name would fit identically above Santa Monica Blvd.  Oh well.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=x3115ia8maAMhM&tbnid=0ug0D7FdiHzexM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fraymondyue%2F5605244003%2F&ei=Mm8PU4a0OJLBoASvtYDwAQ&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNGvQ4Tg0icjSP3CtPQe_yVeaGghmA&ust=1393606790515563

Isn't 'I-10 Freeway' redundant, since all Interstates are (supposed to be) freeways? Also, RaymondYu photo detected. 

That, and I think having Santa Monica Fwy immediately above Santa Monica Blvd might cause confusion for unaware drivers.

[SignBridge]

Yeah well, years ago there used to be an interchange sequence sign on I-405 northbound just north of the Mulholland Dr. overpass that listed Ventura Blvd. with Ventura Fwy. directly under it. Caltrans didn't have a problem doing that, 40 years ago at least.

With apologies to J. Rouse I have to say again, the inconsistency of California freeway signing is mind boggling. Like that sign photo above on the 405-south at the Santa Monica Fwy. not showing east/west. Give us a break! And BTW, how much sense does it make to have a sign pointing to Los Angeles when you're already in the City of Los Angeles??? Maybe it could show Downtown L.A. as the destination?

I know Calif. had their own Manual for many years (as did New York) but the Federal Manual clearly specifies route shield, cardinal direction, and control city at fwy-to-fwy interchanges.

[Occidental Tourist]

Interesting discussion.  As a Caltrans engineer who is familiar with signing practices and policies, I would like to add the following comments:

Regarding the removal of freeway names: this is not a new requirement.  It was also in the Caltrans Traffic Manual.  http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/control-devices/pdf/TMChapter4.pdf.  See Index 4-04.9, which states, "The use of route numbers and cardinal directions is preferred in signing to freeways. At freeway to freeway interchanges, overhead signing by freeway name may be included in primary directional signs only when the freeway name is well recognized and space permits.  At other than freeway to freeway interchanges, G77 and G78 signs including both the freeway name and appropriate route shield may be used to direct to the named freeway." This language is found in Section 2M.10 of the California MUTCD (in my opinion it should be in Section 2D.53).

Regarding the removal of community names on freeway signing: again, this is not a new requirement.  Index 4-04.12 of the Traffic Manual included the statements, "Highway exits will be identified on signs by route markers and street names. Community names should not be included on street name exit signs." This language is now included in Section 2E.30 of the California MUTCD.

I do think it's really cool that somebody took the time to provide the comments to the District on the errors on the plans.  Hopefully it will result in either an update being issued to the bid package, or they can be handled through the change order process. 

Joe! - I loved your old webpage.  I used to peruse it quite a bit back in law school when the internet was fairly new and I was a young roadgeek.

[jrouse]

Joe! - I loved your old webpage.  I used to peruse it quite a bit back in law school when the internet was fairly new and I was a young roadgeek.

To be honest until I saw your post I'd completely forgotten about my attempt at a webpage.

[jrouse]

Regarding the removal of community names on freeway signing: again, this is not a new requirement.  Index 4-04.12 of the Traffic Manual included the statements, "Highway exits will be identified on signs by route markers and street names. Community names should not be included on street name exit signs." This language is now included in Section 2E.30 of the California MUTCD.

Does the sentence I've bolded here...basically state that control city removal is highly recommended for _street_ (i.e. non-freeway/highway) exits?  (Which would put it in line with newer national MUTCD standards)

Obviously if so, that wouldn't necessarily apply to through-route control cities and adjacent freeway control cities.

You are correct.

[mrsman]

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!

I agree.  It would be shameful to get rid of control cities all over the place.  I also like the fact that you showed them that the new signs actually are inconsistent with current guidelines, let alone traditional signing practices.

[RG407]

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.

I'm not an engineer by any means, but I have never understood Caltrans's "wind load" excuse.  I live in Florida, and we get some pretty strong winds during out summer afternoon thunderstorms.  And then there are hurricanes.  During Hurricane Charley in 2004 we had 100 mph sustained winds in Orlando and there were very few, if any, BGS's damaged or destroyed in the area.  And we have some pretty big BGS's around here.
Surely, California rarely, if ever, experiences hurricane force winds.

[SignBridge]

I don't think the issue is wind load. We've learned a lot on this board in the last couple of weeks. I believe J.N. Winkler hit the nail on the head in his post of 2/26/14. He explained that in addition to continuing using the existing "sign bridges" or gantries, that the new signs must fit into the old sign mounting frames that Caltrans also apparently re-uses. I guess re-cycling all that equipment saves them thousands of dollars every year.

However, this is an unfortunate legacy regarding Caltrans' equipment. If true, it effectively limits replacement signs to the exact same size and dimensions as the old signs. Years ago, it must never have occurred to Caltrans that some day, they might want to change some legends. And that's why so many BGS's in California look like the legends were crammed onto them so awkwardly. It's a real shame.

One wonders why they don't change to a different type of mounting used by many other states that permits replacing signs with new ones of different size and dimensions. I guess once you have a system in place in a huge operation like California, it must be difficult to change.   

[jrouse]

I don't think the issue is wind load. We've learned a lot on this board in the last couple of weeks. I believe J.N. Winkler hit the nail on the head in his post of 2/26/14. He explained that in addition to continuing using the existing "sign bridges" or gantries, that the new signs must fit into the old sign mounting frames that Caltrans also apparently re-uses. I guess re-cycling all that equipment saves them thousands of dollars every year.

However, this is an unfortunate legacy regarding Caltrans' equipment. If true, it effectively limits replacement signs to the exact same size and dimensions as the old signs. Years ago, it must never have occurred to Caltrans that some day, they might want to change some legends. And that's why so many BGS's in California look like the legends were crammed onto them so awkwardly. It's a real shame.

One wonders why they don't change to a different type of mounting used by many other states that permits replacing signs with new ones of different size and dimensions. I guess once you have a system in place in a huge operation like California, it must be difficult to change.   

You've pretty well nailed it.  I would like to provide some clarification and additional background, though.

When AASHTO changed the wind load standards for sign structures in 2001, Caltrans had to completely redesign its sign structure standards.  This was done in the 2004 standard plans.  It is, however, expensive to install a new sign structure, and so in cases like this District 7 project, a lot of the existing infrastructure gets re-used.  And as you noted, replacement sign panels on the existing infrastructure need to be the exact size, or smaller.  I believe this is also due to concerns about wind loading.  It's surface area that counts, not necessarily dimensions.  Not all districts use the sign mounting frames; obviously if a frame is used, then the new panel has to be the same dimensions as the old panel.  Bottom line - if you want a bigger panel, you need a new sign structure to accommodate it.

Caltrans sign structures are designed to accommodate panels up to 120 inches in height; panel lengths can vary, up to 40 feet for a cantilever structure.  Those dimensions did not change with the redesign to accommodate the new wind load standards.  That redesign involved new post sizes and changes to the foundations, and I suspect, but cannot confirm, that it was also the reason for the elimination of the box beam closed truss sign structures.  Look at the 2002 Standard Plans versus the 2004 Standard Plans for a comparison, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/construction_standards.html

That 120-inch depth requirement is really the controlling limitation.  I think the MUTCD requirements for control city/cardinal direction that have been discussed extensively this thread could still be accommodated with the current panel size limitations.  I can't explain why those requirements aren't being met.

In some cases, the panel dimensions shown in the Standard Highway Signs book exceed the maximum depth for our structures.  The arrow per lane signs and the R3-48 series of pricing signs for express lanes are two examples that I am personally aware of. 

You all know that California has always marched to a different drummer.  And even within the state, there's inconsistency.  The districts have a lot of say about how things are done, and there's not a lot of push or control from HQ to standardize, and that leads to the variation you see.  Personally, that bothers me, and as a HQ guy, I try to push for statewide consistency as much as possible in the programs that I oversee (HOV lanes and HOT lanes). There are some places where they are rigorous about following the MUTCD, and then there are other places where the staff apparently don't seem to know or care.  I'm not going to name those places; those of you who live and travel in this state know where they are.

Even with the adoption of the MUTCD, we've still kept to our own way of doing things, but now some things are going to have to change.  Our signing unit at HQ has been having dialogue with the structures division about the limitations of our sign structures versus what the dimensions shown in the MUTCD and Standard Highway Signs book.  It will require a complete redesign of our sign structure standards which will take time and cost money, both of which are in short supply around here.

[myosh_tino]

Caltrans sign structures are designed to accommodate panels up to 120 inches in height; panel lengths can vary, up to 40 feet for a cantilever structure.  Those dimensions did not change with the redesign to accommodate the new wind load standards.  That redesign involved new post sizes and changes to the foundations, and I suspect, but cannot confirm, that it was also the reason for the elimination of the box beam closed truss sign structures.

So that explains why newer truss-type sign bridges have a noticeably larger post and a round foundation versus the older square foundation.

There are some places where they are rigorous about following the MUTCD, and then there are other places where the staff apparently don't seem to know or care.  I'm not going to name those places; those of you who live and travel in this state know where they are.

Hmmm... the only district that seems to be trying to follow the national MUTCD is District 6 (Fresno) with it's larger exit gore signs and arrow-per-lane signage (while keeping the 120" height limitation).  District 4 (S.F. Bay Area) seems to have no problems replacing older trusses with newer ones and while new signs here look fairly decent, the use of "down arrows" that point up-and-right on exit direction signs is a bit troubling.

[mrsman]

Thank you jrouse for your comments.  It helps to know what's going on in the inside.

So now I understand that Caltrans is limited in the size of the signs due to the constraints that you mentioned.

Yet, at the same time, the purpose of good signage is guiding the driving public so they can find where they need to go.  And I feel that the new signage standards get rid of too much useful information.

[AndyMax25]

I received this message from Caltrans yesterday:

"Thank you for your observation and I appreciate your comments on Caltrans project.
We will look into each  individual location and get back to you shortly"

I will continue to keep you all updated.


iPhone

[RG407]

Thanks SignBridge and jrouse for the clarification and info.  Now I understand why Caltrans uses the exact same size for the new signs.  "Wind load" often gets the blame, but re-using the existing structures makes a lot more sense.

How long does a sign gantry typically last?  In California there are tons of gantries that are more than 40, 50, perhaps even 60 years old.  At some point won't they have to replaced due to age?

[SignBridge]

I'd like to thank jrouse also for his candid summary of Caltrans practices as well as his confirming my theory on California signing in general. Also AndyMax25 for keeping us posted on Caltrans' replies and JN Winkler for his knowledge and input on these issues. And everyone else on this board for their interest and observations. This has turned into a really interesting and productive thread.

[MarkF]

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.

Here's the sign bridge with the Irvine control city:

[mrsman]

I love the use of two control cities.  They should also have Santa Ana as an additional control for the 22.  But some of the other information on the sign bridge does lead to information overload.

I think it's a fair assumption that most traffic at this point wants either the 405 or 22 and only a small number want the local exits.  So the information about GG  Blvd, Valley View, and Bolsa Chica should be on supplemental LGSs and not on the main sign bridge. 

[myosh_tino]

Here's the sign bridge with the Irvine control city:

Are the cardinal directions in Series D?  The lettering looks quite narrow and does not look like Series E or E-modified at all.

[J N Winkler]

Just a quick update on 07-1W2204, the contract that kicked off this discussion:  bids were opened last March 6 and the contract was awarded for $1.9 million on March 24.  Prior to bid opening, only one addendum was issued, with date (February 26) coinciding with AndyMax25's letter.  The addendum dealt with temporary pollution control and did not address any of the concerns raised in this thread.

[AndyMax25]

I received an email acknowledging the comments and that they would be considered (the email was posted earlier). The project manager even offered to meet me in person, which I accepted. But I have not heard from them since. With the contract awarded, I will try to contact them this week to see of there will be an addendum or a design change.


iPhone