CalTrans District 7 (mostly Los Angeles) resigning project

[roadfro]

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 #2: Use of the longer-shaft arrows, which isn't all too common for multi-lane exits in California...

[TheStranger]

The lack of control cities in the proposed pullthroughs has me wondering:

Is the district's eventual plan...for every route within the county to stop using pullthrough destinations, and at exits, freeway-to-freeway destinations?

I did see an interesting halfway step to this on two examples of newer signs along 710 north:

- at 405, the first advance signage for the exit lists control cities (San Diego/Santa Monica), but at least two after only point to 405 North/South.

- at 91, first  advance sign lists Redondo Beach/Riverside; at the first ramp (eastbound) east 91 is marked for Riverside, west 91 has no destination.  At the ramp for 91 west, the Redondo Beach control city reappears.

Also, an older (early 90s?) halfway example: along 5 north where 101 takes over the Santa Ana, a "NORTH" legend plate was added over "101 Los Angeles".  (In the re-signing plan, 101 will not have a text destination there)

[mrsman]

In my view, the old signs did not have too much information.  I generally find the following 4 pieces of information helpful: Highway number, Highway name, Cardinal Direction, Control City.  I don't want to be overloaded with information, so the signs should be judicious by not having multiple highway numbers or multiple control cities.

For single ramped exit to a street:  <19> Rosemead Blvd. Rosemead

For single ramped exit that leads to two ramps: <19> Rosemead Blvd. and then: <19> NORTH* Rosemead Blvd. Rosemead + <19> SOUTH* Rosemead Blvd. South El Monte [The + denotes two separate signs]

For double ramped exits like some parclos and cloverleafs to a street:  <27> NORTH* Topanga Canyon Blvd. Warner Center + <27> SOUTH* Topanga Canyon Blvd. Topanga

For pull-through signs on the freeway: <210> WEST* Foothill Freeway San Fernando

For freeway to freeway exits:

For single ramped exit:  <105> WEST* Glenn Anderson Fwy. LA Airport

For single ramped exit that leads to two ramps: <110> Harbor Fwy. and then: <110> NORTH* Harbor Fwy. Los Angeles + <110> SOUTH* Harbor Fwy. San Pedro

For double ramped exits (cloverleaf, stack, most fwy to fwy interchanges) :  <110> NORTH* Harbor Fwy. Los Angeles + <110> SOUTH* Harbor Fwy. San Pedro


For all * the cardinal direction should be on top of the shield.


I don't understand how removing all of these control cities makes it helpful to anyone.  If you don't know the small suburbs rely on the cardinal directions.  Cardinal directions should supplement control cities, they should not replace control cities.

[mrsman]

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...

I like it.  The only thing I would change is I'd replace Diamond Bar with Pomona, since it is larger and more familiar.  But I would also be sure that further down the road, we'd see a sign like <71> SOUTH Pomona Corona, to guide people to Downtown Pomona

[mrsman]

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.

Yes, very good.  Norwalk is a perfect control city for I-605.

I would use Norwalk for southbound I-605 from Huntington Drive (north end of freeway) to Telegraph road (just before the I-5).  From that point, the southbound control should be Seal Beach.  For nothbound I-605, I'd use Norwalk from I-405 to CA-91 and then switch to Duarte.

[Occidental Tourist]

Per page s33, somebody at District 7 has decided that we are going to refer to Imperial Highway as both "Imperial HWY" and "Imperial FWY".  All caps on the HWY and FWY, too.

District 12 similarly has some signs on the 5 they added a few years ago referring to "Ortega HWY".

Thanks, Caltrans.

[J N Winkler]

In my view, the old signs did not have too much information.  I generally find the following 4 pieces of information helpful: Highway number, Highway name, Cardinal Direction, Control City.  I don't want to be overloaded with information, so the signs should be judicious by not having multiple highway numbers or multiple control cities.

[snip]

I don't understand how removing all of these control cities makes it helpful to anyone.  If you don't know the small suburbs rely on the cardinal directions.  Cardinal directions should supplement control cities, they should not replace control cities.

The message loading constraint is real.

One way of measuring message loading is to count units.  One unit of message load can consist of the following:

*  Place name

*  Street name

*  Route number

*  Cardinal direction

*  Exit number

*  Command

*  Distance expression

*  Lane assignment arrow

*  Word "JUNCTION," "TO," etc.

*  "EXIT ONLY" expression

The general rule of thumb is 20 units maximum (desirable to have no more than 18).  Three signs per gantry is the desirable maximum, four is acceptable, while five is considered undesirable.

Take the westbound gantry on Sheet 24 as a typical example:

*  "WEST SR 134 Ventura LEFT 4 LANES"--Four message units

*  "TO SR 210 Del Mar Bl California Bl [two down arrows]"--Six message units

*  "SR 210 WEST 1 1/2 MILE [two down arrows] ONLY"--Six message units

*  "Fair Oaks Ave -- NORTH Marengo Ave 1/4 MILE"--Four message units

This is the new gantry, which sits right at the 20-unit maximum.  The original gantry with "San Fernando" is 21 units.

The units method of measuring message loading originates in a paper by R.W. McNees and C.J. Messer, "Reading Time and Accuracy of Response to Simulated Urban Freeway Guide Signs," in Transportation Research Record 844 (1982).  TxDOT's Freeway Signing Handbook has probably the fullest explanation that doesn't require subscription access to TRB publications, but the method itself is hardly unique to Texas.

A fair few of the signs (especially near system interchanges) butt up against the message unit limits even though they already omit a freeway name--the example above (which could easily refer to SR 134 as "Ventura Freeway") is a case in point.

[DTComposer]

Take the westbound gantry on Sheet 24 as a typical example:

*  "WEST SR 134 Ventura LEFT 4 LANES"--Four message units

*  "TO SR 210 Del Mar Bl California Bl [two down arrows]"--Six message units

*  "SR 210 WEST 1 1/2 MILE [two down arrows] ONLY"--Six message units

*  "Fair Oaks Ave -- NORTH Marengo Ave 1/4 MILE"--Four message units

This is the new gantry, which sits right at the 20-unit maximum.  The original gantry with "San Fernando" is 21 units.

The units method of measuring message loading originates in a paper by R.W. McNees and C.J. Messer, "Reading Time and Accuracy of Response to Simulated Urban Freeway Guide Signs," in Transportation Research Record 844 (1982).  TxDOT's Freeway Signing Handbook has probably the fullest explanation that doesn't require subscription access to TRB publications, but the method itself is hardly unique to Texas.

A fair few of the signs (especially near system interchanges) butt up against the message unit limits even though they already omit a freeway name--the example above (which could easily refer to SR 134 as "Ventura Freeway") is a case in point.

In this particular case, I would leave San Fernando and remove WEST. Because of the orientation of I-210 at that point, anyone who is staying on I-210 is heading to points north (San Fernando/Santa Clarita/Sacramento), not west, and those heading west (Burbank, Ventura) would go on CA-134. Removing one of the WESTs might reduce confusion.

[TheStranger]

With regards to message loading...here's a comparison point for an equally recent signing project, the addition of retroreflective pullthroughs and signs in Orange County:

http://goo.gl/maps/FJufC

* [carpool diamond] CARPOOLS ONLY I-5 NORTH Santa Ana NEXT LEFT - 6 message units

* SR 55 NORTH Anaheim / Riverside [3 down arrows] - 4 message units

* SOUTH San Diego [1 exit only down arrow] I-5 NORTH Santa Ana [2 down arrows] - 7 message units?

* EXIT 10A McFadden Ave - 2 message units

19 or so message units for this recent sign.

---

the 710 north at 91 assembly that I referred to a bit earlier in the thread:

http://goo.gl/maps/gpjhB

* I-710 NORTH Pasadena [three down arrows] - 4 message units

* EXIT 8B WEST [one exit-only down arrow] SR 91 Freeway EAST Riverside [two exit-only arrows] EXIT 8A - 9 message units

15 message units total?

---

The more-recent signage for the Four-Level, in this case, from 101 south, installed in the mid-2000s:

http://goo.gl/maps/jFSIQ

* US 101 SOUTH TO I-10 EAST I-5 SOUTH SR 60 EAST LEFT 3 LANES - 10 message units! (replaced the older I-5 South/I-10 East type signage on the pullthrough)

* SR 110 NORTH Pasadena NO TRUCKS [1 down arrow] EXIT 3B - 6 message units

* I-110 SOUTH EXIT 3B San Pedro [two down arrows] ONLY - 7 message units

* yellow sign with curved right arrow, 35 MPH suggested speed - 2 message units

25 message units total!

[andy3175]

The lack of control cities in the proposed pullthroughs has me wondering:

Is the district's eventual plan...for every route within the county to stop using pullthrough destinations, and at exits, freeway-to-freeway destinations?

I can say that here in District 11 (San Diego), the control city is generally not used except on the Interstates. This is why SR 52, 54, 56, etc. don't generally have control cities on the pull through signs. (Although there was one that had SR 52 west San Diego added on n/b SR 125.) SR 94 now has pull through signs with "Martin Luther King Jr Fwy" rather than any control point (at least on its freeway segment).

I do wonder if the District 11 approach on control cities is just for District 11 or if it is shared elsewhere such as District 7.

Regards,
Andy

[TheStranger]

Another thought that comes to mind:

Is it ever useful for "Freeway" (without a name) to be marked in text legend, when that message unit could have been  used instead for a control city?

This of course is most notable for 605, though 91 as well has this.

[Occidental Tourist]

Another thought that comes to mind:

Is it ever useful for "Freeway" (without a name) to be marked in text legend, when that message unit could have been  used instead for a control city?

This of course is most notable for 605, though 91 as well has this.

Possibly for state highways, as there might be some confusion about whether an upcoming state route is a surface road or a limited access highway. For interstates, there would seem to be zero benefit, and it seems entirely redundant.

And as you point out, almost every freeway intersecting the 605 includes the "freeway".  The 210 and 105, as well.

More annoying is when Caltrans -- mostly District 7 -- puts "Fwy" in front of the shield.  As in "Fwy [Interstate 10] EAST".

[andy3175]

Another thought that comes to mind:

Is it ever useful for "Freeway" (without a name) to be marked in text legend, when that message unit could have been  used instead for a control city?

This of course is most notable for 605, though 91 as well has this.

As the California state highway moves away from arterial and non-freeway roads, I suspect it will mean less. I believe Caltrans is trying its best to move state highways that are not freeway/expressway out of the state highway system based on individual efforts to download such routes to local cities/counties, but I have not found any specific directive to that effect. Back in the mid-1990s, when I first examined the list of state highways in California, I did not see many instances where the state Streets and Highways Code noted areas where the state route was shifted to local jurisdiction and cities were directed to post trailblazer signage for the routes. Nowadays, the state code has multiple examples, such as those found in the Los Angeles area (SR 2, SR 19, SR 39, and many others).

Regards,
Andy

[KEK Inc.]

I'm from Northern California, but my memories of Southern California had pertinent memories of how odd I-605 had no control cities. 

[TheStranger]

Some thoughts based on my recent travels near LA:

- For the 405 shield in this example (from 710 north), is repeating the shield twice with each cardinal direction particularly more clear than simply putting one shield with specific arrows for SOUTH and NORTH?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601879574/in/set-72157641136678175

- At 710/105 and 710/91, a left-exit tab is used to denote a ramp to the left of another ramp.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601469115/in/set-72157641136678175
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601460795/in/set-72157641136678175

This isn't universal practice within District 7 though, as seen at US 101 north at the Four-Level:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601350805/in/set-72157641136678175

Even on 710 itself, right tab/right tab for successive right-exit ramps can also be found:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601907534/in/set-72157641136678175

- The dashes between the road name and cardinal direction on this next-exits sign are an older style that, aside from this replace-in-kind situation, seems to not have caught on:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601482285/in/set-72157641136678175

- I always enjoy seeing freeway names being used on modern retroreflective signs:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601394883/in/set-72157641136678175

- One noticeable booboo on the US 101 segment of the Santa Ana Freeway:

This exit, Fourth Street, has been signed for nearly 40 years as Exit 1A off of 101:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601602993/in/set-72157641136678175
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601936734/in/set-72157641136678175

Inexplicably, between those two signs, is a brand new one marking it as Exit 135A presumably measured from I-5, even though at this point the freeway is already US 101 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601604903/in/set-72157641136678175

- Along the Ventura Freeway, an advance sign marks the Tujunga Avenue exit off of US 101 south as a connector to Route 170 north:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12602012414/in/set-72157641136678175

Once the exit is reached, there is no "TO Route 170", in contrast to some of the newer signs at the San Bernardino Split, and also in contrast to common practice for TO legend in NorCal:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12602018074/in/set-72157641136678175

[andy3175]

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.

It seems like as long as SR 164 remains on the books (and according to http://www.cahighways.org/161-168.html#164, it still exists between I-210 and Foothill as a state highway - a very short segment!), it is reasonable to sign the state route number. But why SR 164 continues to be signed as SR 19 considering the gap between extant sections of SR 164 and SR 19 is perplexing, except to allow the SR 19 "corridor" to continue to be signed. I have not found anything that explains conclusively why 19 and 164 are under the same route number, especially since the southernmost segment of 164 is unlikely to be constructed anytime soon.

The Streets and Highways Code even directs SR 164 to be signed on former segments that have been turned over (example is the section of Rosemead through Temple City):

(b) The relinquished former portions of Route 164 within the County of Los Angeles and the City of Temple City are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 164, the County of Los Angeles and the City of Temple City shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 164.

But this remains signed as SR 19. And still no good answer to your comment about 19 being signed on I-210 so far away from its remaining designated segments near I-105.

Regards,
Andy

[TheStranger]

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.

It seems like as long as SR 164 remains on the books (and according to http://www.cahighways.org/161-168.html#164, it still exists between I-210 and Foothill as a state highway - a very short segment!), it is reasonable to sign the state route number. But why SR 164 continues to be signed as SR 19 considering the gap between extant sections of SR 164 and SR 19 is perplexing, except to allow the SR 19 "corridor" to continue to be signed. I have not found anything that explains conclusively why 19 and 164 are under the same route number, especially since the southernmost segment of 164 is unlikely to be constructed anytime soon.

My simple guess:

19 has existed as the signed route on Rosemead since 1934; 164 has always been a paper designation that really will only ever be signed if that connector to 605 is ever built (which is unlikely). 

Really no need to have a 164 designation at all with 19 having never left that route at any point in its history (minus the relinquished portion) - like the segment of "480" that was always 101 along Lombard Street in SF, 164 at present is an entirely unnecessary route.

(A counterexample to the 480-revert-to-101 and 19-remains-along-164 concept though is 242 along former Route 24 in Concord, which has existed since 1964 as a paper route, but only since 1988-1989 as a signed route separate from 24.)

[andy3175]

- One noticeable booboo on the US 101 segment of the Santa Ana Freeway:

This exit, Fourth Street, has been signed for nearly 40 years as Exit 1A off of 101:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601602993/in/set-72157641136678175
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601936734/in/set-72157641136678175

Inexplicably, between those two signs, is a brand new one marking it as Exit 135A presumably measured from I-5, even though at this point the freeway is already US 101 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601604903/in/set-72157641136678175

I agree with your logic, and so does Calnexus. Once US 101 exits from I-5, any departing ramp should follow US 101's exit numbering pattern, and Calnexus confirms this to be the case with the 4th Street exit. However, I have had general questions about the rationale behind exit numbering around the East Los Angeles Interchange some time ago. The person I asked (a resident expert) stated that the rationale for the logic behind some exit numbers  is because Caltrans begins its zero milepost at the center of the interchange. The offramp to 4th Street, however, is well north of the centerpoint of the East Los Angeles Interchange, so Exit 1A is the most appropriate number for that offramp. I don't know if the centerpoint is just a Caltrans District 7 thing or all over the state.

Regards,
Andy

[andy3175]

My simple guess:

19 has existed as the signed route on Rosemead since 1934; 164 has always been a paper designation that really will only ever be signed if that connector to 605 is ever built (which is unlikely). 

That is probably the case: Rosemead was signed as 19 prior to the 1964 renumbering, so it was just as easy to keep it the same after the renumbering. My thinking is that now that 19 and 164 have been so significantly trimmed back, I wonder why keep signing either route, except for navigational purposes. So perhaps 19 will remain around for awhile longer ... and this begs the question why 19 was made the actual route number for the entire signed route.

Regards,
Andy

[DTComposer]

- One noticeable booboo on the US 101 segment of the Santa Ana Freeway:

This exit, Fourth Street, has been signed for nearly 40 years as Exit 1A off of 101:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601602993/in/set-72157641136678175
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601936734/in/set-72157641136678175

Inexplicably, between those two signs, is a brand new one marking it as Exit 135A presumably measured from I-5, even though at this point the freeway is already US 101 -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601604903/in/set-72157641136678175

I agree with your logic, and so does Calnexus. Once US 101 exits from I-5, any departing ramp should follow US 101's exit numbering pattern, and Calnexus confirms this to be the case with the 4th Street exit. However, I have had general questions about the rationale behind exit numbering around the East Los Angeles Interchange some time ago. The person I asked (a resident expert) stated that the rationale for the logic behind some exit numbers  is because Caltrans begins its zero milepost at the center of the interchange. The offramp to 4th Street, however, is well north of the centerpoint of the East Los Angeles Interchange, so Exit 1A is the most appropriate number for that offramp. I don't know if the centerpoint is just a Caltrans District 7 thing or all over the state.

Regards,
Andy

Considering there is also a Fourth Street exit from I-5, which would indeed be Exit 135A, perhaps someone just read the map wrong and got this sign on the wrong freeway?

I kinda understand the logic about the centerpoint of the interchange, but I still think it's odd that the Euclid Street exit from southbound US-101 is Exit 133 of I-5, even though you cannot take that exit from I-5.

[TheStranger]

I kinda understand the logic about the centerpoint of the interchange, but I still think it's odd that the Euclid Street exit from southbound US-101 is Exit 133 of I-5, even though you cannot take that exit from I-5.

Similar example exists, albeit not signed yet, from Route 99 in Sacramento: the T Street onramp, which is treated as Exit 6C from Business 80 from what I have seen on CalNexus even though it can only be accessed from 99 north (and really should be Exit 298C).

[andy3175]

I kinda understand the logic about the centerpoint of the interchange, but I still think it's odd that the Euclid Street exit from southbound US-101 is Exit 133 of I-5, even though you cannot take that exit from I-5.

I think if an offramp is accessible from the signed route, then the exit number should relate to that signed route, not to another route that "takes over" the signed route at a point downstream. So yes, Euclid Street should get a US 101 exit number in my opinion.

Regards,
Andy

[andy3175]

Similar example exists, albeit not signed yet, from Route 99 in Sacramento: the T Street onramp, which is treated as Exit 6C from Business 80 from what I have seen on CalNexus even though it can only be accessed from 99 north (and really should be Exit 298C).

Yes ... although this one is "funky" due to the question of whether it is Exit 6C of Business 80 or Exit 6C of SR 51 (given that SR 99 had already departed the freeway by that point). If SR 51 had its own exit numbering scheme, presumably this would be Exit 1A. But since SR 51 is folded into Business 80, I'm not sure what exit number to assign except maybe one from SR 99 (if for no other reason than to continue the same exit numbering sequence until the Business 80 mainline traffic merges in from the right).

Regards,
Andy

[mrsman]

In my view, the old signs did not have too much information.  I generally find the following 4 pieces of information helpful: Highway number, Highway name, Cardinal Direction, Control City.  I don't want to be overloaded with information, so the signs should be judicious by not having multiple highway numbers or multiple control cities.

[snip]

I don't understand how removing all of these control cities makes it helpful to anyone.  If you don't know the small suburbs rely on the cardinal directions.  Cardinal directions should supplement control cities, they should not replace control cities.

The message loading constraint is real.

One way of measuring message loading is to count units.  One unit of message load can consist of the following:

*  Place name

*  Street name

*  Route number

*  Cardinal direction

*  Exit number

*  Command

*  Distance expression

*  Lane assignment arrow

*  Word "JUNCTION," "TO," etc.

*  "EXIT ONLY" expression

The general rule of thumb is 20 units maximum (desirable to have no more than 18).  Three signs per gantry is the desirable maximum, four is acceptable, while five is considered undesirable.

Take the westbound gantry on Sheet 24 as a typical example:

*  "WEST SR 134 Ventura LEFT 4 LANES"--Four message units

*  "TO SR 210 Del Mar Bl California Bl [two down arrows]"--Six message units

*  "SR 210 WEST 1 1/2 MILE [two down arrows] ONLY"--Six message units

*  "Fair Oaks Ave -- NORTH Marengo Ave 1/4 MILE"--Four message units

This is the new gantry, which sits right at the 20-unit maximum.  The original gantry with "San Fernando" is 21 units.

The units method of measuring message loading originates in a paper by R.W. McNees and C.J. Messer, "Reading Time and Accuracy of Response to Simulated Urban Freeway Guide Signs," in Transportation Research Record 844 (1982).  TxDOT's Freeway Signing Handbook has probably the fullest explanation that doesn't require subscription access to TRB publications, but the method itself is hardly unique to Texas.

A fair few of the signs (especially near system interchanges) butt up against the message unit limits even though they already omit a freeway name--the example above (which could easily refer to SR 134 as "Ventura Freeway") is a case in point.

I guess as a former Californian, I have a nostalgic attachment to the freeway names.  These will certainly be removed to meet these message constraints as you say.  The radio traffic announcers will be the only ones left who will talk about the Santa Ana Freeway and the Long Beach Freeway. 

[This is kind of like my father who as an original New Yorker talked about the IRT and the BMT, but most younger people have no idea what that is and refer to the subways as the number 1 line or the A train.]

But to remove the control cities?  Control cities exist across the nation.  Is the addition of exit numbers a replacement for control cities?

I say that they need to remove the exit numbers from freeway to freeway interchanges if they need to meet these standards and put the control cities back.

[TheStranger]

Similar example exists, albeit not signed yet, from Route 99 in Sacramento: the T Street onramp, which is treated as Exit 6C from Business 80 from what I have seen on CalNexus even though it can only be accessed from 99 north (and really should be Exit 298C).

Yes ... although this one is "funky" due to the question of whether it is Exit 6C of Business 80 or Exit 6C of SR 51 (given that SR 99 had already departed the freeway by that point). If SR 51 had its own exit numbering scheme, presumably this would be Exit 1A. But since SR 51 is folded into Business 80, I'm not sure what exit number to assign except maybe one from SR 99 (if for no other reason than to continue the same exit numbering sequence until the Business 80 mainline traffic merges in from the right).

Regards,
Andy

A couple of thoughts:

- It's interesting how absolutely inconsistent - within districts - exit numbering policy is for freeway-to-freeway interchanges!  With Sacramento specifically (all newer updates) 80/50 lacks exit numbers going eastbound and so does 50 eastbound at 99/Business 80; I can understand it for the latter (triple concurrency splitting) but not so much for the former (50 and Business 80 both starting at that point).  So IMO, 99/Business 80 split would work with signing the mainline pullthrough as an exit (much like 101/80 in SF) and having Broadway and T Street as sub-ramps of that, all exit 298A/B/C.

- In LA, I don't recall the new signing plans for the East Los Angeles Interchange involving any new exit numbers for the northbound Santa Ana Freeway - even though the removal of destinations in theory opens up the gantry to more available message units.  (i.e. Pages 77, 79).  Is this because each of the freeways that split off from there (Golden State, Santa Monica, and the 101 segment of the Santa Ana) all have their own sets of numbered exits that might confuse those looking for any one of those three routes?

---

Interesting to see in page 100 of the PDF, a planned all-caps LAX AIRPORT legend (when this has been mixed case in all existing installations).  Any reason for this?

Page 83 - odd all-caps BLVD for the Rosemead Blvd sign.