California Observations

[agentsteel53]

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.

some of these gantries are still around, albeit with new green signs.  I think the last white sign gantry on a side street disappeared around 2002.  I remember them scattered about in the 80s.

there is one white porcelain sign left, as far as I know, but it is a different style.



it's on Seagirt Blvd as of 2010.

[jrouse]

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

This is a demonstration project being undertaken by Caltrans District 6.

[myosh_tino]

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

This is a demonstration project being undertaken by Caltrans District 6.

Is the arrow-per-lane sign on westbound CA-180 at the 180/41 interchange (see photo and my drawing earlier in this discussion) also a demonstration project?

[SSOWorld]

They should make the MUTCD Standard mile markers more than a demonstration project - they do better than the old mile-by-county postmiles.

[hm insulators]

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.

Growing up in the Los Angeles area, I remember many stretches of freeway divided merely by a chain-link fence.

[myosh_tino]

They should make the MUTCD Standard mile markers more than a demonstration project - they do better than the old mile-by-county postmiles.

You've got to remember, the white postmiles are for maintenance purposes only and was never meant to be used by motorists for navigational purposes.  Would I like to see mile markers?  Sure!  Would I like to see Caltrans spend money installing mile markers instead of on maintenance or other highway improvements?  Absolutely not!

[jrouse]

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

This is a demonstration project being undertaken by Caltrans District 6.

Is the arrow-per-lane sign on westbound CA-180 at the 180/41 interchange (see photo and my drawing earlier in this discussion) also a demonstration project?

No, California has adopted the arrow per lane sign but has modified it to conform to our sign truss sizes.

[Alps]

there is one white porcelain sign left, as far as I know, but it is a different style.



it's on Seagirt Blvd as of 2013.

FTFY

[roadfro]

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.

I've always been curious by this also. In Nevada, for example, you usually only see an "ONLY" panel by itself on city street drop lanes (and even that is rare, since a combination of "FWY ONLY" or the erroneous "EXIT ONLY" are also used).

I wonder if it has to do with the fact that you are not exiting a freeway facility at this point, but just transitioning from one freeway facility to another... I only say this because California seemed to be an early adopter of the "Freeway Entrance" sign assemblies, so maybe there was some legal reasoning for the distinction?

[Occidental Tourist]

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.

Is this sign on the 605 in Clearview?

[agentsteel53]

Is this sign on the 605 in Clearview?

don't think so.  looks to be D stretched to E width.  or perhaps the same font as the Sabre Springs transit center sign on top of an overpass above I-15 near Escondido.  there's a few wacky font signs there too.

[SignBridge]

Roadfro, interesting theory, but Caltrans uses the "only" designation at regular street exits too, not just freeway transition ramps. But any input on this question is welcome!

[Brandon]

Roadfro, interesting theory, but Caltrans uses the "only" designation at regular street exits too, not just freeway transition ramps. But any input on this question is welcome!

However, on the topic of freeway to freeway (or tollway to freeway/tollway), versus exiting the freeway system, ISTHA uses "RAMP" instead of "EXIT" for the gore signs in this case.  The new gore signs along I-355 have "RAMP XX" with XX being the exit number at I-55 and I-88.  It makes it interesting in that for northbound I-355, I-88 is RAMP 20A, and Odgen Av (US-34) is EXIT 20B.

[agentsteel53]

speaking of RAMP - does anyone know California's rationale for using it?  they are scattered about the state.  I believe there is one on 163 southbound for either exit 2A or 2B (east and west Washington streets)

[Occidental Tourist]

speaking of RAMP - does anyone know California's rationale for using it?  they are scattered about the state.  I believe there is one on 163 southbound for either exit 2A or 2B (east and west Washington streets)

I think District 11 likes them a lot.  I don't recall seeing them used much outside of San Diego.

They make more logical sense than using the Exit sign for freeways.  If you want to sign, e.g., that Anaheim is the next 11 exits, you probably don't want motorists misapprehending that those 11 exits include a freeway interchange that may be sandwiched in between them.

[myosh_tino]

speaking of RAMP - does anyone know California's rationale for using it?  they are scattered about the state.  I believe there is one on 163 southbound for either exit 2A or 2B (east and west Washington streets)

I'm pretty sure there's a couple of RAMP gore signs on southbound I-680 at the I-580 interchange in Dublin.

Roadfro, interesting theory, but Caltrans uses the "only" designation at regular street exits too, not just freeway transition ramps. But any input on this question is welcome!

I think those are the exception rather than the norm.  I know the exit from southbound I-280 to Saratoga Avenue has an "ONLY" plaque but that's because it was added to an existing sign and there wasn't sufficient room for an "EXIT ONLY" plaque.  AFAIK, all new exit signs that involve a dropped lane on a non freeway-to-freeway exit has an "EXIT ONLY" plaque.

[SignBridge]

As I am prone to doing, I feel compelled to point out that the MUTCD (Sec. 2E-37) reads in part: The exit gore sign shall carry the word exit. So in using the word "ramp" once again we have various state DOT's screwing up the national consistency and standardization that the Manual tries to enforce.

This doesn't mean I always agree with everything in the MUTCD. But I don't understand why some states need to mess with something so simple and standard in freeway signing.

[TheStranger]

speaking of RAMP - does anyone know California's rationale for using it?  they are scattered about the state.  I believe there is one on 163 southbound for either exit 2A or 2B (east and west Washington streets)

I'm pretty sure there's a couple of RAMP gore signs on southbound I-680 at the I-580 interchange in Dublin.

Here's another example I photographed in 2011, I-5 southbound in National City at Route 54:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/5438283294/in/set-72157625897610841

[jrouse]

"RAMP" was an alternate message for the G84(CA) "EXIT" sign.  See http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/specs/G84.pdf.  Looking at the 2012 California MUTCD, it looks like Caltrans has eliminated the G84(CA) but we still have the sign spec posted for it.

[TheStranger]

Myosh_tino:

This sign assembly that you drew a replica of last year, along I-80 in Fairfield, has finally been installed:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5842.msg151644#msg151644

It's as garish as you can imagine, and while I get that whoever came up with it at CalTrans was trying to match the I-80 pullthrough to the format of the Route 12 Rio Vista/Suisun City setup, it predictably looks awkward.

[myosh_tino]

Myosh_tino:

This sign assembly that you drew a replica of last year, along I-80 in Fairfield, has finally been installed:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5842.msg151644#msg151644

It's as garish as you can imagine, and while I get that whoever came up with it at CalTrans was trying to match the I-80 pullthrough to the format of the Route 12 Rio Vista/Suisun City setup, it predictably looks awkward.

I thought so because I noticed Caltrans had a full freeway closure of I-80 eastbound in that vicinity about a week ago.  When I get a photo of it, I'll post it in the "Worst of Road Signs" thread even though it's a brand new sign! 

[TheStranger]

I thought so because I noticed Caltrans had a full freeway closure of I-80 eastbound in that vicinity about a week ago.  When I get a photo of it, I'll post it in the "Worst of Road Signs" thread even though it's a brand new sign! 

If anything, it really highlights the district-to-district differences that exist within CalTrans - not sure it's as severe in other states!

About the only things consistent statewide are the shades of green on retroreflective signs, a general eschewing of Clearview, and the next-three-exits signs.  Pullthroughs, route name signing practices, concurrency signage vary widely!

[Brandon]

I thought so because I noticed Caltrans had a full freeway closure of I-80 eastbound in that vicinity about a week ago.  When I get a photo of it, I'll post it in the "Worst of Road Signs" thread even though it's a brand new sign! 

If anything, it really highlights the district-to-district differences that exist within CalTrans - not sure it's as severe in other states!

Come to Illinois sometime.  You can have nine different interpretations of signage, signalization, reflectorization, and striping (nine IDOT districts).  One district uses FYAs, one likes to keep all the signs the same height (when possible) on a sign bridge, one uses supplemental signs for curve speed on the big right or left arrows, etc.

[TheStranger]

I thought so because I noticed Caltrans had a full freeway closure of I-80 eastbound in that vicinity about a week ago.  When I get a photo of it, I'll post it in the "Worst of Road Signs" thread even though it's a brand new sign! 

If anything, it really highlights the district-to-district differences that exist within CalTrans - not sure it's as severe in other states!

Come to Illinois sometime.  You can have nine different interpretations of signage, signalization, reflectorization, and striping (nine IDOT districts).  One district uses FYAs, one likes to keep all the signs the same height (when possible) on a sign bridge, one uses supplemental signs for curve speed on the big right or left arrows, etc.

And I assume only Chicagoland has the tiny expressway name legend on its pullthroughs and overheads!

[Brandon]

I thought so because I noticed Caltrans had a full freeway closure of I-80 eastbound in that vicinity about a week ago.  When I get a photo of it, I'll post it in the "Worst of Road Signs" thread even though it's a brand new sign! 

If anything, it really highlights the district-to-district differences that exist within CalTrans - not sure it's as severe in other states!

Come to Illinois sometime.  You can have nine different interpretations of signage, signalization, reflectorization, and striping (nine IDOT districts).  One district uses FYAs, one likes to keep all the signs the same height (when possible) on a sign bridge, one uses supplemental signs for curve speed on the big right or left arrows, etc.

And I assume only Chicagoland has the tiny expressway name legend on its pullthroughs and overheads!

Yes.  They are not used outside of District 1.  We also have a tenth way of doing things in the state - the Tollway (ISTHA).  This makes it very interesting around Chicagoland with two very different approaches on our expressway/tollway system.