AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: 605 Sign Replacement Project  (Read 2718 times)

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 975
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: October 18, 2017, 07:47:08 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2017, 09:54:32 PM »

Okay, how's this for a laugh? After the 2009 MUTCD recomends against using a street name and city name on the same sign, (page 183, Sec. 2E-10) I discovered an illustration in the Manual that does exactly that. Check out page 205, figure 2E-12 where the legend on the exit sign is "Northern Blvd, Greenvale" I'm surprised I never noticed it before this. It's in direct conflict with the Manual's own advice. Somebody screwed up!
Logged

djsekani

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 66
  • Location: Southern California
  • Last Login: September 03, 2017, 11:23:10 PM
Re: 605 Sign Replacement Project
« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2017, 02:22:29 AM »

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.

After someone actually "defaced" the 110-Pasadena overhead to add a 5-North shield on there, I guess CalTrans decided it was a good idea.
Logged

 


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.