California Observations

[myosh_tino]

I'd hate to be resurrecting a thread that's been inactive for months, but another trip to Fresno today got me to notice something. Around the CA-41/CA-168/CA-180 interchange in Fresno, I noticed an APL sign put up on westbound 180. Here's a picture:


(Raised caps on the cardinal direction too!)

Well, I'll be darned!

Those signs appear to be standard 120" guide signs so those arrows must not be more than 36 inches tall (versus the 72-inch FHWA-standard).  That exit "tab" looks to be 30 inches tall versus the more (California) standard of 24 inches.

As I think about it, the Fresno area was the first to experiment with the larger, FHWA-standard exit gore signs so I guess this really shouldn't have come as much of a surprise.

[on_wisconsin]

I noticed an APL sign put up on westbound 180. Here's a picture:
[snip]
(Raised caps on the cardinal direction too!)

Pigs are flying and I'm sure hell is getting quite frosty as well. (CalTrans please, please don't let this be a one off...)

[myosh_tino]

After seeing that photo of an APL in California, I had to take a whack at drawing it...



The through and option-lane arrows are 48 inches tall which is considerably shorter than the 72 (or 66) inch tall arrows prescribed by the 2009 MUTCD.  Judging by the photo, it appears that the exit arrow might have an extended vertical shaft but it's late so in my haste to draw these arrows, I just used the curved arrow from the option-lane arrow.

If this is how Caltrans is going to handle arrow-per-lane signage, I think I can live with this implementation.  There isn't a whole lot of wasted green space (one of my complaints about the APL signs) and everything fits within the 120" maximum height for guide signs.  Whether this is a "one-off" remains to be seen but I seemed to recall jrouse, who works for Caltrans and is a member here, say Caltrans was looking at using an arrow-per-lane sign at the I-5/CA-1 junction in southern Orange County.

Note: The use of just an "ONLY" panel instead of an "EXIT" and an "ONLY" panel around the exit arrow is a long-standing California standard when there's a lane-drop on a freeway-to-freeway exit.  This signing standard was included in the 2012 California MUTCD.

[pctech]

Have yet to see APL in Louisiana. Like the looks of that one, minus the exit# tab of course. 

[SignBridge]

Myosh_tino, what is Caltrans' reason for not using exit only on its lane-drops? They seem to stubbornly insist on doing everything in their unique way, even while sort-of standardizing with the rest of the country.

California in some ways is almost like its own separate country. Interestingly, (though off-topic) emergency vehicle (Police-Fire-EMS) warning lights in Calif. have always followed a strict standard that did not exist in the rest of the country. And fire departments in Calif. have some practices that are unique to the west if not to California. (Send me a PM for more details if interested.)

[apjung]

Just recently went on another trip to California. I have yet to see a freeway signs with Clearview font. Has CA adopted the Clearview font like in Texas and Louisiana? I was hoping that I would see it on the new SF/Oakland Bay Bridge but all the new signs do not use the Clearview font.

[TheStranger]

Just recently went on another trip to California. I have yet to see a freeway signs with Clearview font. Has CA adopted the Clearview font like in Texas and Louisiana? I was hoping that I would see it on the new SF/Oakland Bay Bridge but all the new signs does not use the Clearview font.

No, CalTrans continues to use the FHWA font as before on all new sign installations.  Local entities may be different - Sacramento is now using a font that I'm not sure is Clearview, but isn't the traditional font either.

[agentsteel53]

I know of one Clearview sign in CA: a weigh station sign on I-10 eastbound near Cabazon or so.  (plus or minus 30 miles)

the infamous Santa Ana patch at the south end of CA-57 is not Clearview.  it looks close but not quite.

[myosh_tino]

Myosh_tino, what is Caltrans' reason for not using exit only on its lane-drops?

I quite honestly don't know why Caltrans requires just an "ONLY" panel on exit signs that involve a freeway-to-freeway lane drop other than to say it was always done that way.  I'll do a little digging when I get a chance.

They seem to stubbornly insist on doing everything in their unique way, even while sort-of standardizing with the rest of the country.

You mean like using cutout US and state route shields? 

Just recently went on another trip to California. I have yet to see a freeway signs with Clearview font. Has CA adopted the Clearview font like in Texas and Louisiana? I was hoping that I would see it on the new SF/Oakland Bay Bridge but all the new signs does not use the Clearview font.

Like others have said, Caltrans has not adopted Clearview and hopefully it stays that way.  Certain cities have begun to use Clearview for things like streetblades (Santa Clara immediately comes to mind).

[SignBridge]

Actually, Myosh, I hadn't even been aware of the practice with the shields. I was thinking more (for example) of the standard height of all overhead signs in a display, with all the limitations on the legends. Calif. signs basically only allow 3 lines of standard size copy, resulting in the route shield commonly being to the side of the legend. In most of the country, especially in the East, every sign panel is custom made for the legend to be displayed. On one sign-bridge you might see 3 signs of all radically different heights, depending on the legend requirements, including the number of lines of wording. And the route shield is usually (but not always) shown on top of the legend. That's how the MUTCD mostly shows it too.

[Brandon]

Actually, Myosh, I hadn't even been aware of the practice with the shields. I was thinking more (for example) of the standard height of all overhead signs in a display, with all the limitations on the legends. Calif. signs basically only allow 3 lines of standard size copy, resulting in the route shield commonly being to the side of the legend. In most of the country, especially in the East, every sign panel is custom made for the legend to be displayed. On one sign-bridge you might see 3 signs of all radically different heights, depending on the legend requirements, including the number of lines of wording. And the route shield is usually (but not always) shown on top of the legend. That's how the MUTCD mostly shows it too.

Not always.  Michigan is one of those states that keeps the shield to the left of the text on a very good percentage of their signage.  MDOT does not have the self-imposed limitations of CalTrans, but still uses the convention anyway.  MDOT also uses the CalTrans convention of multiple shields flanking a control city on wider pull through signage (i.e. {75} Detroit {75}).

Some examples here on AARoads:
https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/michigan096/i-096_eb_exit_190b_02.jpg
https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/michigan075/i-075_nb_exit_344a_02.jpg
https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/michigan075/i-075_sb_exit_162b_01.jpg

[SignBridge]

V-e-r-y I-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g........... Yes, that 75-Detroit-75 sign is positively Californian. I'd never seen that done outside of California. Using the word only instead of exit only is straight out of Calif. too.

Actually New York DOT is using some exceptions to their usual practice too, with the shield to the side of the wording. Guess even they borrow a page from Calif. once in a while. But that's very recent. 

[agentsteel53]

I don't know if that is a California spec, or just a very old spec (that California hangs on to, as they do). 

it may be an example of states aping each other to come up with efficient signage for freeways in the mid-50s, before interstate standards came out in 1957.  I have seen an old black and white photo for 94/Milwaukee/94 which I believe was in Illinois. 

I don't believe it is in my '57 interstate manual.

[NE2]

Could have initially been for symmetry when applying shields to existing signs.

[national highway 1]

I know of one Clearview sign in CA: a weigh station sign on I-10 eastbound near Cabazon or so.  (plus or minus 30 miles)

the infamous Santa Ana patch at the south end of CA-57 is not Clearview.  it looks close but not quite.

There is, however, a Clearview sign installed in California by Arizona for the Ehrenburg/Parker exit across the Colorado River on I-10.

[agentsteel53]

forgot about that.  there's also some in Winterhaven on I-8 referencing Yuma.

I can't remember I-40, but my guess would be "probably".  there are ADOT signs on the implied segment of AZ-95 in Needles, but they are older and thus not Clearview.

[andy3175]

Like others have said, Caltrans has not adopted Clearview and hopefully it stays that way.  Certain cities have begun to use Clearview for things like streetblades (Santa Clara immediately comes to mind).

Yes, Clearview has been adopted by several municipalities for street blades, but it seems like the largest ones have not. In cities like Los Angeles and San Diego, some of the city street have large overhead guide signs that weren't erected by Caltrans. Examples include overheads along Pacific Highway in San Diego or along non-state maintained sections of Sepulveda Blvd, and these cities typically use FHWA fonts. As I recall, San Francisco's guide signs also do not use Clearview. So, the only Clearview I've seen in California (aside from the Arizona-placed examples on I-8 and I-10 and the occasional odd sign such as Exit 77 truck regulatory signage in both directions of I-5 or the sign Jake mentioned on I-10) is on street blades mostly in smaller cities (Folsom, Santa Clara, etc.) as Myosh_Tino indicated.

Regards,
Andy

[TheStranger]

I don't know if that is a California spec, or just a very old spec (that California hangs on to, as they do). 

it may be an example of states aping each other to come up with efficient signage for freeways in the mid-50s, before interstate standards came out in 1957.  I have seen an old black and white photo for 94/Milwaukee/94 which I believe was in Illinois. 

I don't believe it is in my '57 interstate manual.

IIRC, though I forget if this was discussed previously on here or not...wasn't double-shielding in California a response to the 1964 renumbering, to cover up shields on pull-throughs of routes that had been truncated but previously co-signed on certain freeways?  (notable examples: 5/99 on the Golden State Freeway, 5/101 on the Santa Ana Freeway, 10/70/99 on the San Bernardino Freeway)

[emory]

I don't know if that is a California spec, or just a very old spec (that California hangs on to, as they do). 

it may be an example of states aping each other to come up with efficient signage for freeways in the mid-50s, before interstate standards came out in 1957.  I have seen an old black and white photo for 94/Milwaukee/94 which I believe was in Illinois. 

I don't believe it is in my '57 interstate manual.

IIRC, though I forget if this was discussed previously on here or not...wasn't double-shielding in California a response to the 1964 renumbering, to cover up shields on pull-throughs of routes that had been truncated but previously co-signed on certain freeways?  (notable examples: 5/99 on the Golden State Freeway, 5/101 on the Santa Ana Freeway, 10/70/99 on the San Bernardino Freeway)

There are double shield signs like this that exist where Interstate shields are covering up US shields, as Caltrans is notorious for re-using signs, but they've kept up the tradition and still use the double shields on brand new signs. The new Arroyo Seco Parkway (CA 110) exit signs on southbound I-5 are an example of this.

[agentsteel53]

there are double-shields which predate the 1964 renumbering.  here is a 1960 pair of US-99 shields, for example.



(coincidentally, this got renumbered in 1964 to CA-99.)

I believe the oldest California double shields I have seen are 1958 specification... black signs with the layout identical to the 1959 revision to green background. 

this is a 1957 spec sign (EM capitals as opposed to D, Div Hwys logo present) which implies that the double-shield would not exist:



that is a context which would have received shields on either side of the wording in 1958, but 1957 had them to one side... the implication is, no double shields in the 1957 spec, or going back to 1954 which is the first year that overhead signs regularly received shields in the first place. 

[agentsteel53]

the occasional odd sign such as Exit 77 truck regulatory signage in both directions of I-5

I had always thought this was furnished by the municipality which did not desire the trucks.  (Costa Mesa?)  and yes, being regulatory, it is white with black text... a Clearview no-no.

or the sign Jake mentioned on I-10

I don't think this one was put up by Caltrans.  it is possible, but another possibility is that the previous sign got knocked down, and CHP (who runs the weigh station) quickly ordered a replacement - to keep their weigh station signed as correctly as they need - as opposed to going through the Caltrans requisition process.

[SignBridge]

That's a great old 1950's photo of the Harbor Fwy! Calif. really was far ahead of the rest of the nation re: early freeway signing. My native New York was still installing 1930's type signing in the mid-1950's on the then new Long Island Expwy.

Hard to believe that many of these roads nationwide were originally built with virtually no effective median protection. And they would soon become very bloodstained because of it. It took the highway engineering profession well into the 1960's to reluctantly start installing steel guide rails, Jersey walls, etc. on a large scale.

I've seen video of the opening of the San Diego Fwy. under Mulholland Dr. in the early 60's and that was apparently built with the California style chain-link fence in the median, so I guess Caltrans got the message after the first 10 years of carnage. 

[agentsteel53]

I would like to see photos of the 1950s Long Island Expressway.  what is 1930s signage?  like this, or even older?



that has modern fonts but a definite 1930s style.

and yes, I see that California has put up a barrier to protect its bridge abutment... but screw oncoming traffic.

[SignBridge]

Yes agentsteel53, that's exactly the type of signing I'm talking about. When the L.I. Expwy. was being built thru Queens in about 1956,57, this is the type of signing that was built. (Ditto, the Cross Bronx Expwy!)And (no kidding!) some of it lasted until about 1972, when New York State DOT did a massive resigning of all the highways in the 5 boroughs of NY City.

Strangely enough, that same L.I. Expwy. was built with steel guide rail in the middle even as other new highways were being built without it; go figure !!??

[TheStranger]

I'll edit the post later to add a photo, but it seems that the larger-number style of gore point exit number signage found everywhere BUT California is starting to become more prevalent in Madera and Fresno Counties...wonder where they got the sign spec & are sourcing the new installations.

Examples, both on Route 99 -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10340482713/in/set-72157636676683316/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10340290904/in/set-72157636676683316