AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: 605 Sign Replacement Project  (Read 2701 times)

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 283
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 09:08:05 PM
605 Sign Replacement Project
« on: April 19, 2017, 12:40:43 PM »

Spot all the errors in this picture:



If I weren't used to it from District 7 by now, I'd be flabbergasted.
Logged

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 683
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 10:36:59 AM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2017, 01:50:24 PM »

I'm also no longer flabbergasted by District 7 at this point, but I do find it curious that, with their tendency to remove freeway names from new signage, that not only did they leave the name, but it's the same incorrect (or incomplete) name as before!
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 283
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 09:08:05 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2017, 04:43:53 PM »

For the whole replacement project, particularly around the 91 interchange, they've made no attempt to update the signs to reflect lane reconstruction that has occurred since the original button copy signs that are now being replaced were first installed.

For example, in the portion of the interchange depicted in the above picture, about 20 years ago a second transition lane was added for the movement to the 91 north.  It is visible on the far right of the picture. 

For the northbound 605 to 91 interchange, an option lane for the 91 west was removed and the freeway was restriped to have dedicated exit lanes to the eastbound and westbound 91, yet the signage was not updated then or now to reflect these "Exit Only" lanes.

For the southbound 605 to 91 interchange, an option lane for the 91 east movement was added many years ago, yet the approach signs were never changed to reflect this option lane, and the replacement signs ape the old, incorrect signage that was there.

The worst part about this is that almost all of the prior button copy signs in this area were installed in the 90's as part of the conclusion of the 105 interchange construction.  They were in excellent condition.  So if District 7 wasn't even going to update the signs to reflect the various changes to the roadway, there was hardly a reason to replace the existing button copy.
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 283
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 09:08:05 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2017, 04:44:40 PM »

I'm also no longer flabbergasted by District 7 at this point, but I do find it curious that, with their tendency to remove freeway names from new signage, that not only did they leave the name, but it's the same incorrect (or incomplete) name as before!

They also left "Artesia Freeway" on the southbound 605 signs.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2445
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:59:59 AM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2017, 06:04:02 PM »

Spot all the errors in this picture:



If I weren't used to it from District 7 by now, I'd be flabbergasted.
I'm also no longer flabbergasted by District 7 at this point, but I do find it curious that, with their tendency to remove freeway names from new signage, that not only did they leave the name, but it's the same incorrect (or incomplete) name as before!

They also left "Artesia Freeway" on the southbound 605 signs.

San Gabriel (minus the "River") Freeway on 605, Artesia on the 91 -- when D7 does a fubar, they do it completely!  This is one instance in which the less the better -- if they just signed the numbers & direction with appropriate directional arrows for both freeways it would be an improvement!  Since both facilities traverse suburbs that are -- at least to anyone who doesn't reside there -- indistinguishable from one another, control cities and/or named freeways aren't going to be of particular help to navigation!
Logged

MarkF

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 123
  • Location: Orange County, California
  • Last Login: September 28, 2017, 01:24:07 AM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2017, 01:47:45 AM »

I thought the 605 just went to THRU TRAFFIC. :)
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 283
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 09:08:05 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2017, 02:02:47 AM »

Since both facilities traverse suburbs that are -- at least to anyone who doesn't reside there -- indistinguishable from one another, control cities and/or named freeways aren't going to be of particular help to navigation!

The suburbs are indistinguishable to those who live here as well.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2445
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:59:59 AM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2017, 03:58:15 AM »

Since both facilities traverse suburbs that are -- at least to anyone who doesn't reside there -- indistinguishable from one another, control cities and/or named freeways aren't going to be of particular help to navigation!

The suburbs are indistinguishable to those who live here as well.

Yeah, I know -- lived down there for about 60% of my life, all in various 'burbs.  Just trying to be a bit diplomatic about the whole thing.
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 283
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 09:08:05 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2017, 10:54:11 AM »

Yeah, I know -- lived down there for about 60% of my life, all in various 'burbs.  Just trying to be a bit diplomatic about the whole thing.

I can appreciate that.  Diplomacy can be difficult to find on message boards.  Like trying to find the exit for Artesia off the 91.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1557
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 07:34:44 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2017, 03:33:56 PM »

Yeah, I know -- lived down there for about 60% of my life, all in various 'burbs.  Just trying to be a bit diplomatic about the whole thing.

I can appreciate that.  Diplomacy can be difficult to find on message boards.  Like trying to find the exit for Artesia off the 91.

Another victim of the message loading requirements.  The old signs would have listed a city (or two) for each exit and it was not confusing.

And it is true that many of the cities down there are sort of indistinguishable.  Known in some contexts as "Gateway cities".

That being said, I believe that Riverside should be signed as the control for 91 East, regardless of the merits for displaying controls in the other directions.  (I like control cities and would put them here, even though historically this interchange had none.  My choices: 91 W Gardena, 605 S Seal Beach, 605 N Duarte)
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2445
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:59:59 AM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2017, 08:47:42 PM »

That being said, I believe that Riverside should be signed as the control for 91 East, regardless of the merits for displaying controls in the other directions.  (I like control cities and would put them here, even though historically this interchange had none.  My choices: 91 W Gardena, 605 S Seal Beach, 605 N Duarte)

Wholly agree with Riverside being a consistent control city for CA 91 east of I-5; from its functional terminus at I-110 to I-5, I'd use Anaheim.  Westbound on 91 from its I-215/CA60 terminus in Riverside I'd also use Anaheim as far west as CA 57; west of there Gardena would in fact suffice (unless one really wants to go "straight into Compton!).  605's tricky as its alignment along the San Gabriel riverbed places it in between most of the "gateway" cities in the area.  SB, I'd use Long Beach from its northern reaches all the way down to CA 91; south of there I'd reference "TO I-405/CA 22".  NB's even more difficult; so far, no San Gabriel Valley city (save Pasadena, if considered as such) has warranted inclusion anywhere as a control city.  It would be a matter of "take your pick" of any one of several 'burbs.  Azusa might be a "least bad" option -- at least folks have probably heard of it, and it's just east of the north end of 605.  Unfortunately, there's not a lot with which to work here!   
Logged

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 683
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 10:36:59 AM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2017, 12:31:28 AM »

That being said, I believe that Riverside should be signed as the control for 91 East, regardless of the merits for displaying controls in the other directions.  (I like control cities and would put them here, even though historically this interchange had none.  My choices: 91 W Gardena, 605 S Seal Beach, 605 N Duarte)

Wholly agree with Riverside being a consistent control city for CA 91 east of I-5; from its functional terminus at I-110 to I-5, I'd use Anaheim.  Westbound on 91 from its I-215/CA60 terminus in Riverside I'd also use Anaheim as far west as CA 57; west of there Gardena would in fact suffice (unless one really wants to go "straight into Compton!).

I believe in the use of two control cities whenever message loading isn't an issue.
For CA-91 Westbound I would do the following.
From CA-60/I-215: Downtown Riverside, Anaheim
From Mission Inn Avenue: Corona, Anaheim
From Main Street: Anaheim, Long Beach
From Harbor Blvd/Lemon Blvd: Cerritos, Long Beach
From Bloomfield Avenue: Long Beach, Gardena
From I-710: Gardena, Redondo Beach

605's tricky as its alignment along the San Gabriel riverbed places it in between most of the "gateway" cities in the area.  SB, I'd use Long Beach from its northern reaches all the way down to CA 91; south of there I'd reference "TO I-405/CA 22".

I'm OK with Long Beach SB from I-210 (especially if the I-710 connection is never completed), but only if Long Beach is then signed as a control onto WB CA-91 (see above). Otherwise, you're directed towards a control city which is then dropped before you reach the city itself.

That said, when I went home to downtown Long Beach from I-605, I usually found it faster to cut over on I-105 to I-710 rather than CA-91.

(I would also make the control on SB I-710 Downtown Long Beach starting at CA-91).

NB's even more difficult; so far, no San Gabriel Valley city (save Pasadena, if considered as such) has warranted inclusion anywhere as a control city.  It would be a matter of "take your pick" of any one of several 'burbs.  Azusa might be a "least bad" option -- at least folks have probably heard of it, and it's just east of the north end of 605.  Unfortunately, there's not a lot with which to work here!   

I would use Whittier and San Gabriel Valley until the Whittier Blvd exit, then just San Gabriel Valley until CA-60, then To I-10/I-210.

Logged

SeriesE

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 33
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: May 16, 2017, 03:10:20 AM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2017, 04:50:36 AM »

For example, in the portion of the interchange depicted in the above picture, about 20 years ago a second transition lane was added for the movement to the 91 north.  It is visible on the far right of the picture. 

The second lane from CA-91 West to I-605 North begins after the fork, so the sign is technically correct. :)
Though the sign gantry should be moved east a bit so it's before the fork, per current standards.
Logged

joshI5

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13
  • Location: California
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 10:40:09 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2017, 01:16:47 AM »

Glad to hear at the very least there was a sign replacement project for this freeway. As far as I remember, and as much as I appreciate button copy, this freeway had some of the most deteriorated, illegible signage I've seen in the entire L.A. area....I've been hoping for a major replacement for a long time. As I haven't been down there in quite a while, how much did the project cover? Are all the old button copy signs replaced?
Logged

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 975
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 10:39:05 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2017, 08:13:50 PM »

The Federal MUTCD requires route shield, cardinal direction and control city. Seems pretty simple to me. I don't understand why California doesn't follow those requirements.

Also, someone spoke earlier about message loading requirements. Does Calif. have their own standard on that? The Federal Manual does not have message loading rules per se. They only have a recommendation re: number of destinations in the full sign display.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 08:21:57 PM by SignBridge »
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3118
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 09:53:52 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2017, 06:33:33 PM »


Also, someone spoke earlier about message loading requirements. Does Calif. have their own standard on that?

IIRC, during several of the recent LA-area re-signing projects, exits which had previously been signed for (Street Name) (Destination) were given new signs with just (Street Name).
Logged
Chris Sampang

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 975
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 10:39:05 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2017, 09:14:56 PM »

Well, the Federal Manual does recommend against having a street name and a place name on the same sign, so Caltrans may be following that. This also relates to Calif's interchange sequence signs listing the distance to the next 3 exits with street name only, no destinations. The Manual states that the sign legend must be consistent through the series of signs for any exit. No info should be added or dropped through the series. So they can't display street name only on one sign, and street with destination on the next sign. I don't think any of this relates to message loading.

In this case city/town names may be shown on supplemental signs as allowed in the Manual.

So I'm still mystified by Caltrans not adhering to the Manual's freeway signing standard specifying route shield, cardinal direction and destination.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1557
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 07:34:44 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2017, 12:13:22 AM »

Well, the Federal Manual does recommend against having a street name and a place name on the same sign, so Caltrans may be following that. This also relates to Calif's interchange sequence signs listing the distance to the next 3 exits with street name only, no destinations. The Manual states that the sign legend must be consistent through the series of signs for any exit. No info should be added or dropped through the series. So they can't display street name only on one sign, and street with destination on the next sign. I don't think any of this relates to message loading.

In this case city/town names may be shown on supplemental signs as allowed in the Manual.

So I'm still mystified by Caltrans not adhering to the Manual's freeway signing standard specifying route shield, cardinal direction and destination.

CA does have its own version of MUTCD that is different than the fed version, so they don't always follow what the feds do.

And there has always been a particular problem with the 605 in that it does not pass through suburbs of any real significance and that the river that it borders tends to be the border between different suburbs.  The northern suburbs are all small cities in the San Gabriel Valley.  I favor Duarte as the terminal, but there are good arguments to use Arcadia, Bradbury, Monrovia, Irwindale, Baldwin Park, Azusa, and West Covina.  Similarly, Whittier, Norwalk, and Cerritos are decent controls for the middle portion.  Similarly, Long Beach, Seal Beach, or even San Diego all have good arguments tobe the southern control.  So Caltrans never designated a control so we have "thru traffic" instead.  This is not helpful to traffic at all as having a city like Duarte, even though it is small, still designates a direction towards the central San Gabriel Valley.  I prefer having Duarte and Seal Beach as the controls, and if those are too small then designate regions like:  San Gabriel Valley and Orange County Beaches.

For the exits for streets, I still don't understand why having the city/town names are a problem.  They are actually very helpful.  In my area, there is an exit off the Capital Beltway that reads: "South 97, Georgia Ave, Silver Spring"  This is particularly helpful since Silver Spring is a control on the Beltway.  How would people who are following control cities on the BGS know which exit to use to actually reach Silver Spring if it isn't signed on one of the exits?

[Or even more apropos for this thread, as someone else pointed out the difficulty of finding the Artesia exit from the 91.  The freeway is known as the Artesia Fwy, it parallels Artesia Blvd and passes through the relatively small city of Artesia.  The best exit to take is Pioneer Blvd, but there is only an auxiliary sign stating "Norwalk Artesia Next Exit".  In the old days, there was a sign saying: "Pioneer Blvd Artesia" and it was a lot better.]
Logged

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 975
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 10:39:05 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2017, 08:49:42 PM »

mrsman, you addressed a number of interesting points.

I thought I read on this forum a few years back that Calif. had now adopted the Federal MUTCD and so no longer had their own Manual. If that's not accurate, anyone on here please correct me.

Re: destinations, Caltrans could simply do on the I-605 what New York DOT does on Long Island where a major highway ends at a suburban town where there are no major cities to use. They use the town where the highway ends and that's that. Works out fine. So looking at the map yeah, Duarte and Seal Beach might be reasonable as well as Norwalk for the mid-destination.

The Manual specifies city names for destinations, so San Gabriel Valley might not be appropriate; you can't see it on a map. But I admit I don't always agree with that standard. Again on Long Island, the destination "Eastern L.I." was used for many years on highways coming out from New York City and I thought that worked fine, but it's been replaced by the town where the road ends.

The Manual's answer to providing town names for exits where the street names are used to identify the exit is to use supplemental signs that would read something like Silver Spring next 2 exits or Pasadena next 5 exits, etc. That's what you saw re: Artesia. Hope this helps clarify some of these issues.

« Last Edit: May 29, 2017, 08:56:09 PM by SignBridge »
Logged

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 348
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 12:57:33 AM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #19 on: May 29, 2017, 09:00:30 PM »

I've always thought that it was rather stupid that the MUTCD doesn't allow both a street name and a city name to be listed on a sign. Both are pretty important for navigation.

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 975
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 10:39:05 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #20 on: May 29, 2017, 09:14:03 PM »

Compdude787, I completely agree with you and so does New York DOT apparently who routinely uses both on the same sign. And just to clarify, the MUTCD does not actually prohibit using both, it only recommends not showing both on the same sign. It's not an absolute standard, so states have some discretion on that.
Logged

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 348
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 12:57:33 AM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #21 on: May 29, 2017, 09:19:05 PM »

Compdude787, I completely agree with you and so does New York DOT apparently who routinely uses both on the same sign.

So does Washington state. They don't follow this recommendation from the other Washington.

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1557
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 07:34:44 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2017, 07:06:47 PM »

mrsman, you addressed a number of interesting points.

I thought I read on this forum a few years back that Calif. had now adopted the Federal MUTCD and so no longer had their own Manual. If that's not accurate, anyone on here please correct me.

You may be right on this, I am not sure.  But I am aware that CA has a legacy of doing their own thing and even if they generally adopt the federal MUTCD they could by fiat make some exceptions where warranted. 

Quote

Re: destinations, Caltrans could simply do on the I-605 what New York DOT does on Long Island where a major highway ends at a suburban town where there are no major cities to use. They use the town where the highway ends and that's that. Works out fine. So looking at the map yeah, Duarte and Seal Beach might be reasonable as well as Norwalk for the mid-destination.


Totally agree on this point.  Destinations are helpful, even if a small town.  At least one of the cars on the highway is going there.  And as you brought up LI, even if I have never heard of Happauge or Riverhead, seeing that alerts me that it is in the opposite direction of NYC.

Quote

The Manual specifies city names for destinations, so San Gabriel Valley might not be appropriate; you can't see it on a map. But I admit I don't always agree with that standard. Again on Long Island, the destination "Eastern L.I." was used for many years on highways coming out from New York City and I thought that worked fine, but it's been replaced by the town where the road ends.


I know that there are similar gripes in NYC where the names for bridges and tunnels are replaced by some city name, like replacing signage in the Bronx for the GW Bridge with Trenton.

CA is very fond of using larger control cities, even if the road you are on does not actually reach the city.  There are tons of roads that lead to SF or LA and don't go all the way there, but lead to one of the main highways that can get you there.  Another example is CA 55 originially had a NB control of Riverside, even though it ends in Eastern Anaheim at the 91 which then can get you to Riverside 30 miles to the east. In the Bay Area, the northern control for the entire I-680 is Sacramento because it reaches I-80 about 70 miles east of Sacramento.  I guess with the 605, if there is a big problem with using small cities, you could realistically sign most of the highway as going from San Diego (connecting to 405 S) to Los Angeles (connecting to I-5) to San Bernardino (connecting to I-10 E). But this doesn't even pass the laugh test.   So yes, Caltrans should just sign Duarte and Seal Beach even though they are not on the approved list of interstate control cities*

* This issue led Caltrans to change the western control on I-210 from San Fernando to Sacramento on the long stretch between CA 118 and Pasadena.  San Fernando was perfectly fine, even though it wasn't on the list.  At least they did not put up "thru traffic" there too.

Quote

The Manual's answer to providing town names for exits where the street names are used to identify the exit is to use supplemental signs that would read something like Silver Spring next 2 exits or Pasadena next 5 exits, etc. That's what you saw re: Artesia. Hope this helps clarify some of these issues.

There is a big difference between the main sign and the supplemental sign.  Namely, the height of the sign.  The overhead signs are much more prominent and the roadside signs can easily be missed, especially if there is a truck on your right.

I think the reason why I am upset about this is the fact that the old signs in CA routinelly had both street name and city (and state highway number if applicable) and there was no demonstrated problem with the signs.  Why get rid of useful information?  Why change controls that are well thought out and have proven to be useful.

Taken to its logical conculsion, Caltrans Dist 7 will simply take off control cities altogether.  In fact, they nearly did it over here at the 4 level interchange:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.060363,-118.2511889,3a,75y,43.76h,81.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s130tDgIvXVWTJvm-4jJGTA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


The old sign had cities in every direction and was more useful for travelers:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0603832,-118.2511621,3a,75y,43.76h,81.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1shVFPpNWeq1RZ6LWh0faaaQ!2e0!5s20090401T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Even the manual doesn't recommend getting rid of every control city.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 07:14:15 PM by mrsman »
Logged

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 975
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 10:39:05 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2017, 09:34:36 PM »

Good point about the 4-level interchange. In that case I guess Caltrans decided the route numbers were more useful than the old destinations. In fairness to them, it must have been a tough call. I guess there wasn't room to post every route number with a destination. But I too liked those old signs that said 5-Santa Ana, 10-San Bernadino.

Not to veer too much off-topic; a similar situation exists in the NYC area when you come off the Geo. Washington Bridge on the New Jersey side where a huge number of route shields and toll-road icons are signed, with not many destinations.

 
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3140
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 04:29:23 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2017, 05:26:25 AM »

mrsman, you addressed a number of interesting points.

I thought I read on this forum a few years back that Calif. had now adopted the Federal MUTCD and so no longer had their own Manual. If that's not accurate, anyone on here please correct me.

You may be right on this, I am not sure.  But I am aware that CA has a legacy of doing their own thing and even if they generally adopt the federal MUTCD they could by fiat make some exceptions where warranted. 

California does NOT automatically adopt the national MUTCD. Caltrans creates a 'California MUTCD', which is a state manual that FHWA says is in "substantial conformity" to the national version. They basically start with the national version and alter it to include California-specific situations (CVC references, removal of national standard signs and situations not used in the state, add references to CA sign codes, add/alter example figures to show Caltrans-specific practices, etc.).
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.