CalTrans District 7 (mostly Los Angeles) resigning project

[pctech]

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.

Exit 5,Exit 21? Please explain.

[agentsteel53]

I drive under that sign bridge fairly often.  it's gotta be a candidate for "worst of road signs".  just completely confusing with the distracting grayout (!), the two inconsistent exit numbers, the random "Bolsa Chica Rd", the excessive "TRUCKS OK" (no, it would not kill the trucks to have to stay right for 300 more feet), and of course Irvine.

for anyone that supports Irvine as a control city or really anything other than a target for artillery practice... have you ever been to Irvine!?

[TheStranger]

Exit 5,Exit 21? Please explain.

My guess is that the Exit 5 referenced is that of Route 22 east.  This type of vague exit number reference can be found elsewhere too, as seen in this example in Sacramento on westbound 80:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4770809760/in/set-72157624279252253

[AndyMax25]

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.

I just had this correspondence with Caltrans today:

Me: I've noticed that the bid was awarded on March 24.  Will there be any adjustments to the sign designs via addendum or change order?

Caltrans: We have informed the Resident Engineer to expect changes on the Installation Orders (IO) which will be issued very soon.  Since this project  allowed only panel replacements, we are confined with the existing sizes and changing the messages would have no impact on the project.  Therefore, we will correct the panels on the IO's.

Me: Do you anticipate that all of the comments will be incorporated?  The comments did not necessitate the need to change any of the sign sizes.

Caltrans: Yes, we are evaluating all the comments and will incorporate all the changes that are possible.

I guess we will just have to wait and see what they look like once they are installed.  Does anyone know if these Installation Orders are posted on the internet?

[J N Winkler]

AndyMax25--many thanks for following up on this.

Your Caltrans contact is talking about Sign Installation Orders (SIOs).  A SIO is prepared on a standard Caltrans form and includes a pattern-accurate sketch of the sign together with details (arranged in tabular format) of sheeting, substrate type, mounting, etc.  Caltrans has a filled-out sample here:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/pdf/Sample_IO.pdf

In theory, a SIO is filled out by Caltrans whenever a sign is to be installed, whether by contractors or Caltrans maintenance forces.  It is used in an internal accounting process ("DAS-OBM" in the form number means "Department of Administrative Services, Office of Business Management"), but since it has route and postmile for the sign to be installed, it can be used for sign logging purposes.   District 7 has been experimenting for several years with a SIO database which essentially contains scans of every SIO it has issued over the past decade or so.  It is not online, however, and I know of no easy way to get hold of SIOs, though your contact might be willing to pass you a copy of the SIO package for this contract as a courtesy once it is finalized.

[myosh_tino]

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

Curiosity got the best of me last night so I went looking for and was able to find the sign plans for this project on the Caltrans website (project number 12-071621).  With the sign plan in hand I went to work duplicating the signs and here's what I came up with...



This is easily the largest drawing I've done.  The entire sign truss is over 134 feet wide.  Interestingly, the original plans call for only San Diego being listed as a control city for I-405 and the Series D cardinal directions are what appears on the plans.  The above image was reduced from 1832 pixels to 800 pixels wide.  To see the original-sized drawing go to http://markyville.com/aaroads/405-22_SignPlan.png

[agentsteel53]

so, who's the asshole that added Irvine?

[sdmichael]

Being in D12, it is probably the same group/person that added Santa Ana to the Los Angeles signs. Even State 57 at its southern terminus - in Santa Ana - still gives Santa Ana instead of San Diego.

[AndyMax25]

History and references regarding the changes of control city names along 405 and 5 freeways:

http://m.ocregister.com/articles/irvine-216680-signs-city.html. Dated October 27, 2009

http://m.ocregister.com/articles/santa-188399-city-freeway.html
Dated Dec 13, 2006



iPhone

[MarkF]

Adding "Anaheim /" to the northbound CA 55 control city (was just Riverside) was the most misleading.  Yes, CA 55 ends in Anaheim, but to most people Anaheim is the Disneyland area.  Wonder if many going to Disneyland get mislead to exiting NB 5 at 55.  At least 405 goes through and terminates in Irvine.

[DTComposer]

Adding "Anaheim /" to the northbound CA 55 control city (was just Riverside) was the most misleading.  Yes, CA 55 ends in Anaheim, but to most people Anaheim is the Disneyland area.  Wonder if many going to Disneyland get mislead to exiting NB 5 at 55.  At least 405 goes through and terminates in Irvine.

Except for the residential Anaheim Hills area, every other part of Anaheim is better reached by staying on I-5 north instead of getting on CA-55, including any destination of note: Disney, the Convention Center, Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, downtown, etc. - these are all directly reached by staying on I-5.

[pctech]

Shouldn't the double yellow "only" arrows on the second sign from the right be centered over the lanes?  It looks like it's compressed to save space on the right hand signs. California drivers would be used these "lots of information" freeway signs, but it would likely be confusing to out of area drivers.

[myosh_tino]

Shouldn't the double yellow "only" arrows on the second sign from the right be centered over the lanes?  It looks like it's compressed to save space on the right hand signs. California drivers would be used these "lots of information" freeway signs, but it would likely be confusing to out of area drivers.

While it may look like that in the photo, construction is still ongoing.  Looking at the signing plan, the arrows are spaced 11.5 feet apart which is close enough.  I don't think the arrows being off by 3 inches will cause any problems.

[mrsman]

History and references regarding the changes of control city names along 405 and 5 freeways:

http://m.ocregister.com/articles/irvine-216680-signs-city.html. Dated October 27, 2009

http://m.ocregister.com/articles/santa-188399-city-freeway.html
Dated Dec 13, 2006

I generally like the idea of isolated uses of a second control city if it provides clarity for the user without cluttering up the signage.  Of course, it requires sound judgment to make such a determination.

For 55 north, Anaheim is awful because it leads people from the I-5 away from central Anaheim.  A better control would be Yorba Linda.  I never liked Riverside because even though the 55 leads to the 91, Riverside is kind of far and really more east than north.  If I was in Newport Beach, heading up the 55 would lead to Northern Orange County, nor Riverside.

For I-5 north, I'd be OK if they put both Santa Ana and Los Angeles on the BGS.  But I dislike that they replaced Los Angeles for Santa Ana, particularly as Los Angeles is used as the control throughout San Diego County.

So far, I'm OK with Irvine/San Diego for the 405.  Irvine is an important employment destination and they didn't replace San Diego.  My issues with the sign is clutter due to the mention of all the surface streets on the same structure.  The surface streets should be mentioned on separate signs before the interchange and not clog up the rest of the information.

[SignBridge]

I agree that there is info overload on that sign display. I'm not familiar enough with that area to comment on the destinations shown. But I agree the info for the secondary exits should have been shown on supplemental signs.

And re: the inconsistent exit numbers, this kind of confusion is probably one reason Caltrans never wanted to get involved in exit numbers in the first place.

[TheStranger]

And re: the inconsistent exit numbers, this kind of confusion is probably one reason Caltrans never wanted to get involved in exit numbers in the first place.

I think a simple solution would be to identify which route goes with which exit number when a concurrency splits off like this, or when a new route begins.  (i.e. instead of it being simply "Exit 5" it'd be marked as "Route 22 - Exit 5" somehow).  Can see that creating a message loading issue though.

[AndyMax25]

All,

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

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

All,

Earlier today, I met with a Senior Transportation Engineer and 2 Transportation Engineers with Caltrans D7 Division of Operations - Traffic Design office regarding this project.  First of all, I was completely surprised that they invited me for a face-to-face meeting, let alone consider the comments.  We went sheet by sheet, comment by comment and they incorporated 95% of the comments.  The Senior Transportation Engineer explained that his team was "misled" by the Division of Design within D7 to believe that the control city names should not be included on the overhead signs.  They were all very thankful for the time to review the plans and acknowledged that this has saved them a lot of time, money, and possibly even some bad press.

They addressed all of the comments plus some other minor changes of their own.  A couple of other things to note from the meeting:

1.  Along the West 210 segment, since San Fernando is not an approved control city, all signs will say Sacramento.

2.  We discussed at length sign 211(d) on page 46/169.  I explained that normally the primary route is on top and other messages or secondary routes are usually below.  I also explained the history of the area and how the old sign was patched together BEFORE 57 was extended from 10 to 210.  They mentioned that since the sign designates 1 mile ahead, the "USE" line was more clear.  They will check in again with Division of Design and get back to me.

3.  Although I did not include this in my comments, on page 50/169, they are showing the route numbers at the left edge of the sign rather than the right side after the street name.  I did not discuss this with them as they indicated that they received direction from the Division of Design to implement this change as a new standard.  I did not tell then that now the plans are more inconsistent.  I personally like the old style of Freeway/Street name, then the route number, then direction.

4.  I asked them about exit number placement and they will get back to me about adding a few more where space is clearly available.  They verbally agreed to add Exit 46 onto sign 250(b) on page 56.

The meeting minutes, action items, summary of changes, and the revised plans are all saved here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1vrwwygsynkxwln/Contract_07%E2%80%901W2204_Caltrans_Response.pdf

Thank you all for your time, for bringing up this project on this forum, and for all of your input.  It felt like huge breakthrough.  Let me know if anyone has questions that I can pass along to the Caltrans Engineers.

[Alps]

I thought 3-digit Interstates didn't need approval for control cities. They go where they go.

[SignBridge]

Great job Andy! I'm really amazed that they were so interested in your input and agreed to make changes. Someone in their midst at Caltrans must have screwed up big time.

[mrsman]

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

All,

Earlier today, I met with a Senior Transportation Engineer and 2 Transportation Engineers with Caltrans D7 Division of Operations - Traffic Design office regarding this project.  First of all, I was completely surprised that they invited me for a face-to-face meeting, let alone consider the comments.  We went sheet by sheet, comment by comment and they incorporated 95% of the comments.  The Senior Transportation Engineer explained that his team was "misled" by the Division of Design within D7 to believe that the control city names should not be included on the overhead signs.  They were all very thankful for the time to review the plans and acknowledged that this has saved them a lot of time, money, and possibly even some bad press.

They addressed all of the comments plus some other minor changes of their own.  A couple of other things to note from the meeting:

1.  Along the West 210 segment, since San Fernando is not an approved control city, all signs will say Sacramento.

I prefer San Fernando, but since every other highway that heads towards I-5 (including I-405 which ends very close to San Fernando) uses Sacramento, there is not much lost in using Sacramento for I-210 west as well.

[Interstate Trav]

[

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

All,

Earlier today, I met with a Senior Transportation Engineer and 2 Transportation Engineers with Caltrans D7 Division of Operations - Traffic Design office regarding this project.  First of all, I was completely surprised that they invited me for a face-to-face meeting, let alone consider the comments.  We went sheet by sheet, comment by comment and they incorporated 95% of the comments.  The Senior Transportation Engineer explained that his team was "misled" by the Division of Design within D7 to believe that the control city names should not be included on the overhead signs.  They were all very thankful for the time to review the plans and acknowledged that this has saved them a lot of time, money, and possibly even some bad press.

They addressed all of the comments plus some other minor changes of their own.  A couple of other things to note from the meeting:

1.  Along the West 210 segment, since San Fernando is not an approved control city, all signs will say Sacramento.

I prefer San Fernando, but since every other highway that heads towards I-5 (including I-405 which ends very close to San Fernando) uses Sacramento, there is not much lost in using Sacramento for I-210 west as well.

Then Shouldn't 210 East be signed for Palm Springs, or Indio considering it's Parent 10 East is signed for those.  Redlands can stay but Palm Springs or Indio should be added.

[myosh_tino]

All,

Earlier today, I met with a Senior Transportation Engineer and 2 Transportation Engineers with Caltrans D7 Division of Operations - Traffic Design office regarding this project.  First of all, I was completely surprised that they invited me for a face-to-face meeting, let alone consider the comments.  We went sheet by sheet, comment by comment and they incorporated 95% of the comments.  The Senior Transportation Engineer explained that his team was "misled" by the Division of Design within D7 to believe that the control city names should not be included on the overhead signs.  They were all very thankful for the time to review the plans and acknowledged that this has saved them a lot of time, money, and possibly even some bad press.

They addressed all of the comments plus some other minor changes of their own.  A couple of other things to note from the meeting:

1.  Along the West 210 segment, since San Fernando is not an approved control city, all signs will say Sacramento.

2.  We discussed at length sign 211(d) on page 46/169.  I explained that normally the primary route is on top and other messages or secondary routes are usually below.  I also explained the history of the area and how the old sign was patched together BEFORE 57 was extended from 10 to 210.  They mentioned that since the sign designates 1 mile ahead, the "USE" line was more clear.  They will check in again with Division of Design and get back to me.

3.  Although I did not include this in my comments, on page 50/169, they are showing the route numbers at the left edge of the sign rather than the right side after the street name.  I did not discuss this with them as they indicated that they received direction from the Division of Design to implement this change as a new standard.  I did not tell then that now the plans are more inconsistent.  I personally like the old style of Freeway/Street name, then the route number, then direction.

4.  I asked them about exit number placement and they will get back to me about adding a few more where space is clearly available.  They verbally agreed to add Exit 46 onto sign 250(b) on page 56.

The meeting minutes, action items, summary of changes, and the revised plans are all saved here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1vrwwygsynkxwln/Contract_07%E2%80%901W2204_Caltrans_Response.pdf

Thank you all for your time, for bringing up this project on this forum, and for all of your input.  It felt like huge breakthrough.  Let me know if anyone has questions that I can pass along to the Caltrans Engineers.

Excellent work AndyMax! 

Anyways, I had a chance to go over the revisions Caltrans made to those signs and while I like what I see, I still don't care for the layout of the 57/10/71 sign (211b).  Here's another alternate layout of that sign that puts all shields on the same line and removed the Diamond Bar control city...

Here's an approximation of the Caltrans revision...

[SignBridge]

Myosh, I like your redesign. I think it has the best readability. However, I think Caltrans wants the I-10 shield to be the first thing people read on the sign; they want the Interstate highway to predominate.

[Occidental Tourist]

Nice work.  Can you PM me the names of the people you talked to?  I would like to see if I can get them to correct some of the HOV lane signing, because it's incorrect in a few places as well.

Ditto.  Great job!

And good luck, Joe.

[DTComposer]

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

All,

Earlier today, I met with a Senior Transportation Engineer and 2 Transportation Engineers with Caltrans D7 Division of Operations - Traffic Design office regarding this project.  First of all, I was completely surprised that they invited me for a face-to-face meeting, let alone consider the comments.  We went sheet by sheet, comment by comment and they incorporated 95% of the comments.  The Senior Transportation Engineer explained that his team was "misled" by the Division of Design within D7 to believe that the control city names should not be included on the overhead signs.  They were all very thankful for the time to review the plans and acknowledged that this has saved them a lot of time, money, and possibly even some bad press.

They addressed all of the comments plus some other minor changes of their own.  A couple of other things to note from the meeting:

1.  Along the West 210 segment, since San Fernando is not an approved control city, all signs will say Sacramento.

2.  We discussed at length sign 211(d) on page 46/169.  I explained that normally the primary route is on top and other messages or secondary routes are usually below.  I also explained the history of the area and how the old sign was patched together BEFORE 57 was extended from 10 to 210.  They mentioned that since the sign designates 1 mile ahead, the "USE" line was more clear.  They will check in again with Division of Design and get back to me.

3.  Although I did not include this in my comments, on page 50/169, they are showing the route numbers at the left edge of the sign rather than the right side after the street name.  I did not discuss this with them as they indicated that they received direction from the Division of Design to implement this change as a new standard.  I did not tell then that now the plans are more inconsistent.  I personally like the old style of Freeway/Street name, then the route number, then direction.

4.  I asked them about exit number placement and they will get back to me about adding a few more where space is clearly available.  They verbally agreed to add Exit 46 onto sign 250(b) on page 56.

The meeting minutes, action items, summary of changes, and the revised plans are all saved here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1vrwwygsynkxwln/Contract_07%E2%80%901W2204_Caltrans_Response.pdf

Thank you all for your time, for bringing up this project on this forum, and for all of your input.  It felt like huge breakthrough.  Let me know if anyone has questions that I can pass along to the Caltrans Engineers.

I am completely impressed by how this has all turned out. Great work! Question: on page 5 of your comments you talk about removing the CA-42 shields since that route doesn't exist anymore; right above it you talk about the 405/Artesia interchange and adding directionals to the CA-91 shield - but hasn't CA-91 been truncated back to I-110? Shouldn't the CA-91 shields be removed completely?

But again, this is incredible work, and more than I could have hoped for in terms of a response from Caltrans. Yay!