CalTrans District 7 (mostly Los Angeles) resigning project

[KEK Inc.]

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.

I have a couple of redesigns for the Rosemead exit.  Figure 2 is more aesthetics, since it generalizes CA-19 to the exit rather than specifically assigns it to Rosemead.

[TheStranger]

  Figure 2 is more aesthetics, since it generalizes CA-19 to the exit rather than specifically assigns it to Rosemead.

In the case of this exit though, 19 does not (and has never) run along Michilinda, so that might explain the legend distinction.  (Similar style exists for the 27/Topanga Canyon and the 2/Santa Monica Boulevard exits off of 101)

[KEK Inc.]

Somehow I can picture Caltrans not really caring.  Other signs can point to CA-19 on the off-ramp.

[TheStranger]

Somehow I can picture Caltrans not really caring.  Other signs can point to CA-19 on the off-ramp.

Some examples where the route shield is centered, even when only one street name at the interchange corresponds to the route:

US 50 east at Route 16 in Sacramento (Howe Avenue is 16, Power Inn begins where 16 turns to run on Folsom)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4754304406/in/set-72157624279252253

I-5 north at I-710 in Commerce (Atlantic Boulevard is the predecessor route, pre-1964 Route 15)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601394883/in/set-72157641136678175

US 101 at Route 2/Santa Monica Boulevard in Los Angeles, which shares the exit with Western Avenue:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12064172756/in/set-72157639925852474

I-80 east at Route 113 south in Dixon; Currey Road runs north of the interchange (old US 40) while 113 runs along 1st Street
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4807755438/in/set-72157624519667042

I-80 east at Route 13 in Berkeley (Ashby is the state route, Shellmound is a local street)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4807114761/in/set-72157624519667042

Ambiguous: I-280 at Route 82 in San Francisco; shield is centered but Mission Street does become part of the route a mile away.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4840363650/in/set-72157624531453370

Examples where the route shield is aligned with the specific road in question:

I-110 south at I-405, where 190th Street and I-405 have separate legend lines:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12063464943/in/set-72157639925852474

US 101 south at Route 27/Topanga Canyon Boulevard, where the 27 shield only appears (awkwardly) adjacent to Topanga Canyon text:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12063386545/in/set-72157639925852474
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12063388535/in/set-72157639925852474

US 101 south at the route terminus (East LA Interchange) connecting to Route 60 - Route 60 shield and Pomona take one line, Soto Street below:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10399613044/in/set-72157636676683316

I-80 east at I-680 in Cordelia
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4807126693/in/set-72157624519667042

I-80 at Route 37
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4807748690/in/set-72157624519667042
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4807125865/in/set-72157624519667042

[SignBridge]

Well guys, my head is spinning looking at all the California inconsistency on these pages. Ya' really have to wonder if all Caltrans engineers are smoking weed.

To address a couple of points mentioned in these pages: If message loading is such a serious concern why do they put the word Freeway next to Interstate shields? It's a total waste considering that Interstate Highways are freeways in all cases, aren't they? Furthermore, why do they list the route number twice on the same line on either side of the destination. I've never seen either of these practices done anywhere else, and again if they are so concerned with message loading, why do they do these things?

Re: cardinal directions vs. destinations, etc. I guess Caltrans hasn't noticed that the national standard prescribed in the MUTCD is to show route number, cardinal direction and destination on all exit signs. And that the message must be consistent for all the signs for an exit.  There should be no controversy about this.

I'm amazed that California signing is so oddly designed. Even my native New York State DOT (which I often ridicule for various reasons) pretty much follows the Manual as far as sign legend is concerned. And that includes the New York City Metroplex which has a freeway density not unlike urban parts of California.

Don't get me wrong. I love driving freeways in California, but Caltrans practices really leave me scratching my head. LOL

[TheStranger]

Furthermore, why do they list the route number twice on the same line on either side of the destination.

There is a specific historical reason why this exists:

Many years ago, co-signed routes would have signage such as the following:

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=CA19580053

When the older (usually US) route was decommissioned as a result of 1964 renumberings, that shield would often be covered up with another shield of the existing route.

[SignBridge]

Why didn't they just green-over the phased out route numbers?

Also, what route was originally co-signed with I-10 on the Santa Monica Fwy? On my first trip out there in 1984 I remember pull-though signs westbound reading 10-west/Santa Monica/10-west.

[kendancy66]

Okay excuse number two.

Our freeways are so wide that you can only see half of the sign.

[NE2]

Also, what route was originally co-signed with I-10 on the Santa Monica Fwy? On my first trip out there in 1984 I remember pull-though signs westbound reading 10-west/Santa Monica/10-west.

Probably pre-1964 SR 26.

[sdmichael]

SR-26 was not cosigned with I-10. The Santa Monica Freeway was ALWAYS just I-10. I have seen early instances of double shields (1963) on I-5 at I-405.

[SignBridge]

Oh, so the duplicate shields really were deliberate in some cases. Again, I've never seen it anywhere besides California. And with all that earlier talk about message loading.........

[Occidental Tourist]

Oh, so the duplicate shields really were deliberate in some cases. Again, I've never seen it anywhere besides California. And with all that earlier talk about message loading.........

It's whatever is the Flavor of the Month at your local Caltrans district office.

Here are some of the last new button copy signs to go up.  They went up about 15 years ago.  They had double shields.

[TheStranger]

Oh, so the duplicate shields really were deliberate in some cases. Again, I've never seen it anywhere besides California. And with all that earlier talk about message loading.........

It's whatever is the Flavor of the Month at your local Caltrans district office.

Here are some of the last new button copy signs to go up.  They went up about 15 years ago.  They had double shields.

Looking at that, it amazes me how much redundancy exists here, with 20 message units (the max recommended these days) in use here:

- Extra NORTH 405 shield/direction
- on sign #2, extra 110 NORTH shield/direction
- the very existence of sign #3 (extra 110 north)

Take all that out (i.e. add a TRUCKS OK designation for the rightmost NORTH 110 lane) and you're down to 14 message units - all this before say removing a single bit of text legend!  (Take out "Harbor Freeway" and it's now just 13 message units; remove Santa Monica and that goes to a mere 12.)

[AndyMax25]

Everyone, this has been a great discussion.  The inconsistencies and contradictions are definitely frustrating. 

I've been told by Caltrans D7 staff that the future exclusion of freeway names and control cities on freeway signs is a statewide mandate that they must comply with.  I am extremely saddened to see them go, not only are they absolutely useful to the motoring public, but its a historical part of the original freeway system in California.  Regardless, the plans should still be consistent, why show Harbor Freeway but not Long Beach Freeway.  My assumption would be that they are just replacing signs 1 for 1 without thinking in some areas (405 plans) and deliberately removing existing messages on other areas (210 plans) because they have different route managers who don't seem to coordinate with each other.  Nor do the project managers seem to spend time to review the entire set.

I will try to send some of these comments to the traffic engineers I am in contact with at D7 and see if i get a response; especially the route 42 shields. 

I think the double shields are another example of 1 to 1 replacement as most of the original freeway signs had them.  See this photo of NB 710 (then SR 15 and then later SR 7).

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f321/YoungBP/I-151964.jpg

I also noticed the lack of a WEST sign at the NB 405 Artesia off ramp.  The off ramp ends with 2 right turn only lanes.  The SB 405 exit is properly signed as 91 EAST.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.872055,-118.341519&spn=0.005621,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.872136,-118.341579&panoid=PjuZnizZGGOtVxFkKlNb9w&cbp=12,330.54,,0,0.38

https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.873391,-118.341486&spn=0.005621,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.873289,-118.341491&panoid=4AtUV5jbKdMncdNGSz6NYQ&cbp=12,186.93,,0,-1

https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.872767,-118.342398&spn=0.005621,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.872829,-118.342442&panoid=Skm5rzvpHaCo4YEHaVp52w&cbp=12,155.32,,0,-1.8

[TheStranger]

Everyone, this has been a great discussion.  The inconsistencies and contradictions are definitely frustrating. 

I've been told by Caltrans D7 staff that the future exclusion of freeway names and control cities on freeway signs is a statewide mandate that they must comply with.  I am extremely saddened to see them go, not only are they absolutely useful to the motoring public, but its a historical part of the original freeway system in California.  Regardless, the plans should still be consistent, why show Harbor Freeway but not Long Beach Freeway.  My assumption would be that they are just replacing signs 1 for 1 without thinking in some areas (405 plans) and deliberately removing existing messages on other areas (210 plans) because they have different route managers who don't seem to coordinate with each other.  Nor do the project managers seem to spend time to review the entire set.

First off, thanks for your input.  Always great to see CalTrans folks on here (and DOT folks on the website in general).

Though I completely understand MUTCD rules elsewhere/modern practice, I do think targeted but spare usage of the freeway names (i.e. at major interchanges) can be useful.

I think the double shields are another example of 1 to 1 replacement as most of the original freeway signs had them.  See this photo of NB 710 (then SR 15 and then later SR 7).

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f321/YoungBP/I-151964.jpg

Did the double-shield signing practice begin around the time bordered signs and modern font choices (compare to any of the 1955-1957 thinner-font signs California was using at the time) were established?  While we do know of obvious examples of double-shield being installed after-the-fact to cover up removed concurrencies, the Long Beach Freeway has never had more than one route along its length.

Also interesting to see that even back then, Pasadena was the control city (with the South Pasadena gap unfinished then, as is the case at present).  Any idea what the Santa Fe Avenue/Alameda Street greenout is covering up?

I also noticed the lack of a WEST sign at the NB 405 Artesia off ramp.  The off ramp ends with 2 right turn only lanes.  The SB 405 exit is properly signed as 91 EAST.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.872055,-118.341519&spn=0.005621,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.872136,-118.341579&panoid=PjuZnizZGGOtVxFkKlNb9w&cbp=12,330.54,,0,0.38

https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.873391,-118.341486&spn=0.005621,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.873289,-118.341491&panoid=4AtUV5jbKdMncdNGSz6NYQ&cbp=12,186.93,,0,-1

https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.872767,-118.342398&spn=0.005621,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.872829,-118.342442&panoid=Skm5rzvpHaCo4YEHaVp52w&cbp=12,155.32,,0,-1.8

I wonder if the interchange used to offer full access to both westbound and eastbound Route 91:
http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=4.55373506935522E-06&lat=33.873518174453&lon=-118.341750959943&year=1972

[sdmichael]

The Santa Fe/Alameda signage is covering over I-405 signage most likely. If you note, there are blank signs in the background, for I-405.

[SignBridge]

Andy, did I read your post correctly? You said there is a statewide mandate to exclude both freeway names and control cities on future signing? I can understand not displaying freeway names. They're actually complying with the MUTCD. But not displaying control cities? That's very hard to believe. Are you talking about just on pull-through signs only or entrance/exit signs too? 

[TheStranger]

But not displaying control cities? That's very hard to believe. Are you talking about just on pull-through signs only or entrance/exit signs too? 

Based on the District 7 PDF posted at the start of the thread...both. 

I know (as noted earlier in this discussion) there's been a move towards removing control city legend from exit signage, to reduce message loading.  That by itself isn't so bad, but removing pullthrough control cities - which admittedly other states have done over the years too - to me is taking it to an extreme.

[sdmichael]

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.

[MarkF]

Oh, so the duplicate shields really were deliberate in some cases. Again, I've never seen it anywhere besides California. And with all that earlier talk about message loading.........

It's whatever is the Flavor of the Month at your local Caltrans district office.

Here are some of the last new button copy signs to go up.  They went up about 15 years ago.  They had double shields.

Looking at that, it amazes me how much redundancy exists here, with 20 message units (the max recommended these days) in use here:

- Extra NORTH 405 shield/direction
- on sign #2, extra 110 NORTH shield/direction
- the very existence of sign #3 (extra 110 north)

Take all that out (i.e. add a TRUCKS OK designation for the rightmost NORTH 110 lane) and you're down to 14 message units - all this before say removing a single bit of text legend!  (Take out "Harbor Freeway" and it's now just 13 message units; remove Santa Monica and that goes to a mere 12.)

For what it's worth, that 110 North trucks right lane sign is for a separate ramp that feeds to the right lane of N/B 110.  The other 110 north ramp feeds to the left side of N/B 110.

[andy3175]

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 would make the most sense to me. I too have noticed less control cities on exit signs, but pull-through signs seem to retain them. AndyMax, was there a distinction made on where control cities would be eliminated, or did they propose to eliminate them in both scenarios?

Regards,
Andy

[TheStranger]

For what it's worth, that 110 North trucks right lane sign is for a separate ramp that feeds to the right lane of N/B 110.  The other 110 north ramp feeds to the left side of N/B 110.

Alright, that makes a bit more sense in that context.  Still, could the two 110 North parts of the sign be combined into one, with "TRUCKS OK" for the rightmost ramp?  (I am assuming though that it is one of those truck ramps - like 99/5, 14/5, and 405/5 - where regular passenger cars are allowed as well)

[Brandon]

Oh, so the duplicate shields really were deliberate in some cases. Again, I've never seen it anywhere besides California. And with all that earlier talk about message loading.........

Michigan does double shields from time to time.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.982048,-83.335354&spn=0.009204,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.981884,-83.335477&panoid=oJ2gxEo3TPFZ3Cb35qa5pg&cbp=12,26.95,,1,-5.94

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.381055,-83.275487&spn=0.009209,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.381239,-83.275517&panoid=Ypmp3iDr-ysvwv8XU3HlVQ&cbp=12,350.05,,1,-6.4

[TheStranger]

Michigan does double shields from time to time.


https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.381055,-83.275487&spn=0.009209,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.381239,-83.275517&panoid=Ypmp3iDr-ysvwv8XU3HlVQ&cbp=12,350.05,,1,-6.4

This second link also shows a practice that is sometimes used in California (notably in Orange County): multiple control cities on the same line of text legend.

[J N Winkler]

Re: cardinal directions vs. destinations, etc. I guess Caltrans hasn't noticed that the national standard prescribed in the MUTCD is to show route number, cardinal direction and destination on all exit signs. And that the message must be consistent for all the signs for an exit.  There should be no controversy about this.

Where this signs job is concerned, this particular issue comes into play primarily in the case of system (freeway-to-freeway) interchanges.  The relevant MUTCD provision is § 2E.13, which includes a guidance statement stipulating that control cities should be used in this context.  But in MUTCD terms, a control city is an entity that is specified in the AASHTO control cities list.  This means the guidance statement does not apply to freeways for which AASHTO does not specify a control city.  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've been told by Caltrans D7 staff that the future exclusion of freeway names and control cities on freeway signs is a statewide mandate that they must comply with.

Do you have a citation for this?  I haven't been able to find chapter and verse even after a quick skim of Chapter 2E in the current California MUTCD and the Caltrans Traffic Operations TOPD download page.

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.

Strictly speaking, control cities guide traffic that is about to enter a freeway and provide forward orientation for traffic already on the freeway.  Mixing of place names and street names on the advance guide and exit direction signs for service interchanges (i.e., ones which connect the freeway to surface streets) is addressed by a separate provision, located at § 2E.10 in the current California MUTCD.  The federal MUTCD has deprecated street and place names on the same sign since the 1971 edition at least.  This provision has been adopted without change in California since the 2004 supplement largely replaced the last edition of the Caltrans Traffic Manual, and might have been effective in California from a much earlier date--I haven't yet tried to go back in the California-specific documentation.  Eliminating place names on these signs thus brings signing on the relevant sections of I-405 and I-210/SR 210 into conformity with a rule that, on the federal level at least, is almost 45 years old.

In regard to the I-405/SR 22/I-605 signs, these have been installed as part of an ongoing OCTA-funded upgrade to the interchange.  The general approach has been not only to provide control cities on a consistent basis, but also to eliminate freeway names that were present on the existing signing.  So, for example, signs which referenced I-405 North/San Diego Freeway/Santa Monica just say I-405 North/Santa Monica.  This reduces message loading due to text legend, so although there will have been some clawback owing to added lanes and expanded HOV facilities (the work includes a bidirectional HOV connector), I suspect message loading overall has trended downward.

Finally, in regards to the repeated-shield question, this is not exactly unique to Caltrans--Minnesota DOT also does it on urban freeways in the Twin Cities.  I am not aware that any studies have tested whether repetition of the message brings benefits that offset the added message loading.