Any ideas why CA's roads and signs are so different?
peacock
1. There are no exit numbers, except in a few areas.
2. Most of the freeways involve *really* tight interchanges.
3. They kicked out most of the US Hwys.
4. They built the Embarcadero Fwy. :-p
5. They do more signage errors than all the other DOT's combined…
6. They have US-101, a violation of the system. 101, IMO, should be 99.
7. They have I-238. :-P
8. They have an unpaved state highway.
9. They have *way* too many state highway freeways.
10. They have CA-86S. What the heck is this "S"?
11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
Not that there's anything *wrong* with Cali, it's just different.
--The Artist Formerly Known as Bobby--
ValHal 444
1) Exit numbers are frivolous, and useless. Kudos to California for saving the
money.
2) Go look at a map of Southern California. Its all pretty self-explanatory
from there.
3) I hate US Highways. The shields are ugly. Plus, again referring to the map,
theres a big blank space that seperates California from the rest of the
country, and US usually implies the highway going or connecting to more than
one state.
4) Good point! (They should have a state holiday dedicated to the celebration
of the elimination of this. The tearing down of this is comparable to the
Berlin Wall)
5) California uses better quality signs than other states, which means that
the average life-span is about four-times longer, which means "Attack of the
Greenout!". Actually, it is a oxymoron of sorts, considering California has
re-arranged routes and roads more than Lynette Jennings does furniture.
And to the true errors, I love the entairtaiment value!
6) Ummm . . . . . . yeah. Good point. They should get rid of the US
designation then.
7) Another good point.
8) EVIL REPULSIVE DOLTS!!! I have no idea where this highway your talking is,
but someone needs to tell someone in that DOT district.
9) THANK GOD FOR THIS!!! Less US Highways . . .
10) South? . . . of course, this implies that there is a North. Who knows.
This is the kind of thing Universities need to be studying!
11) This is the complete opposite of strange. I think other states are strange
for not doing this.
BTW, you forgot the active implementation of freeway names . . . oh yeah, and
the darker green colour they use on the signs.
on 52nd street
saving
>the
>money.
You can't argue that CalTrans has no intent to do it - they definitely were in
the process of doing it in Los Angeles in the early 80s, but apparantly funding
went dry.
>3) I hate US Highways. The shields are ugly. Plus, again referring to the
>map,
>theres a big blank space that seperates California from the rest of the
>country, and US usually implies the highway going or connecting to more than
>one state.
>
Uh, what are you talking about?
> 4) Good point! (They should have a state holiday dedicated to the
>celebration
>of the elimination of this. The tearing down of this is comparable to the
>Berlin Wall)
>
Are you referring to the Embarcadero Freeway?
Chris Sampang
In The SF Bay Area
==================
"It shouldn't surprise you at all..." - Billy Joel
==================
Freeways of San Francisco - sffwy.b0x.com
Friends of SoCal Highways - fixtraffic.org
Minding The Gap - mindthegap.b0x.com
on 52nd street
>the average life-span is about four-times longer, which means "Attack of the
>Greenout!". Actually, it is a oxymoron of sorts, considering California has
>re-arranged routes and roads more than Lynette Jennings does furniture.
>And to the true errors, I love the entairtaiment value!
ROFL, but they have only had ONE real route rearrangement, 1964.
> 9) THANK GOD FOR THIS!!! Less US Highways . . .
>
What is so bad about US highways? Just because a shield is ugly doesn't mean
that they don't serve a purpose. If you think shield looks or number joy are
enough to renumber roads, then why don't you and Tom from Ohio meet up?
> BTW, you forgot the active implementation of freeway names . . . oh
yeah,
>and
>the darker green colour they use on the signs.
Active? HAHAHAHA. Maybe 5 years ago, but judging from the sheer amount of
"Freeway 210", "THRU TRAFFIC 605", "Route 91 Freeway" signs, I beg to differ.
Michael G. Koerner
>
> I've noticed that *nothing* in Cali conforms to the other 47 states.
47?
> 1. There are no exit numbers, except in a few areas.
Assuming that 'Cali' = 'California', it is a CalTrans thing....
> 2. Most of the freeways involve *really* tight interchanges.
I noticed that, too. It is another CalTrans thing. Even in some of the
most HIGH POWERED interchanges in the entire USA (ie, the I-105/I-110
mega-interchange), CalTrans found a way to bury a *TIGHT* loop ramp into
the pile.
Even the newly completed I-15/CA 30(future I-210) interchange has a
tight loop ramp in its mix.
> 3. They kicked out most of the US Hwys.
A CalTrans thing....
> 4. They built the Embarcadero Fwy. :-p
It had higher aspirations....
> 5. They do more signage errors than all the other DOT's combined…
A CalTrans thing....
> 6. They have US-101, a violation of the system. 101, IMO, should be 99.
There once was a US 99. US 101 is fine where it sits.
> 7. They have I-238. :-P
Yet another CalTrans thing....
> 8. They have an unpaved state highway.
Many states have those.
> 9. They have *way* too many state highway freeways.
Many other states have those, too. No problem, as long as one knows
where they go.
> 10. They have CA-86S. What the heck is this "S"?
Ever been to New York?
(heheheheh)
> 11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
I like those and wish that the Federal MUTCD had a specific sign symbol
to represent that (like the Germans do).
> Not that there's anything *wrong* with Cali, it's just different.
>
> --The Artist Formerly Known as Bobby--
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Regards,
Michael G. Koerner
Appleton, WI
***NOTICE*** SPAMfilter in use, please remove ALL 'i's from the return
address to reply. ***NOTICE***
____________________________________________________________________________
ValHal 444
opinion. The underlying point is that California not having many US highways is
not a bad thing. My opinion that the shields are ugly only adds to that.
I apoligize for wording my response to the question about so few US roads
strangely. I meant to say that there are not many highways that connect
California to Nevada or Arizona, and US highways usually have to be in more
than one state. Most highways are completely contained in the state, thus the
lack of US highways.
Also, apoligies for my unclear answer on response 5. Go look at a 1970 atlas
(most signs are about that old) and look at the invasion of Interstate highways
that replaced state ones, along with the mass of new exits and freeways that
innundated the freeway system. Specifically, its all the GUIDE signs that were
re-arranged more than Lynette Jennings furniture.
OK and mabye active was the wrong word, but I lived there since 5 years ago
and I go back every year. They still are on the signs, albeit Caltrans seems to
no like the names on the Interstates (and who could miss the Orangeway greenout
error on the Orange Fwy? Is it still there?)
on 52nd street
>opinion. The underlying point is that California not having many US highways
>is
>not a bad thing. My opinion that the shields are ugly only adds to that.
Sorry, but I did not see the original post and as such could not tell what you
were responding to in the first place.
>Also, apoligies for my unclear answer on response 5. Go look at a 1970 atlas
>(most signs are about that old) and look at the invasion of Interstate
>highways
>that replaced state ones, along with the mass of new exits and freeways that
>innundated the freeway system.
Most of the "rearranging" was really greenout addition - by 1964-1970, I-10 and
I-5 were on their current routes, although I-15 was still on the I-215 routing.
A few changes did occur though (CA 14 becoming CA 91, US 6 becoming CA 14, CA
11 losing its multiplexes with US 6 and US 66 and eventually becoming I/CA 110)
but for the most part, there is a surprising amount of stability.
>They still are on the signs, albeit Caltrans seems to
>no like the names on the Interstates (and who could miss the Orangeway
>greenout
>error on the Orange Fwy? Is it still there?)
I think it's a very subjective thing - one freeway gets the treatment; another
gets more name signs (for example, CA 91 versus the 101 portion of the Santa
Ana Freeway).
robert cruickshank
peacock wrote:
>
> I've noticed that *nothing* in Cali conforms to the other 47 states.
We take pride in that fact. Oh, and what two states did you discount to
get to 48? Hopefully one of them was Texas...
> 1. There are no exit numbers, except in a few areas.
There are exit numbers, just not on a statewide basis. In Downtown LA
and along part of I-10 east of LA there are exit numbers.
> 2. Most of the freeways involve *really* tight interchanges.
Not all of them. Though if you think what roads like I-405 or I-105 give
you are tight, go take a drive on the Pasadena Freeway section of
CA-110.
Remember that California has some very high land values. Acquisition of
ROW is not cheap. In order to keep costs low and to reduce impact on the
communities Caltrans has kept some interchanges narrower than you might
see in, say, Kansas. Which makes sense.
> 3. They kicked out most of the US Hwys.
Not having grown up with them I don't see the harm in deleting some US
routes. They didn't wield the axe arbitrarily though. They only
eliminated US routes that were either long multiplexes (US-70, US-6
south of Bishop) or that were replaced by freeways (US 60, US 99). Where
a US route was not a multiplexed extension or where it hadn't be
substantially replaced by freeway, they left it alone (US 101, US 95).
> 4. They built the Embarcadero Fwy. :-p
A mistake which we finally got around to correcting.
> 5. They do more signage errors than all the other DOT's combined…
We also have more miles of road than any other state in the union.
However that doesn't explain why we certainly have a higher proportion
of signing bloopers. I must say, though, that while the signs may not
look good, they're rarely ever wrong.
> 6. They have US-101, a violation of the system. 101, IMO, should be 99.
It's not that big a violation. The east had too many of the 2duses and
the west got shortchanged. What else would you have numbered US-101?
It's a major north-south route...
> 7. They have I-238. :-P
And Pennsylvania has I-99. So?
> 8. They have an unpaved state highway.
Alaska has unpaved INTERSTATES.
> 9. They have *way* too many state highway freeways.
This is a very good thing. I don't know that there would be enough 3dis
to replace the various state route freeways, especially in LA. We did
replace CA-11 with I-110 and CA-7 with I-710 in 1984...but really, there
isn't much point to replacing well-known route numbers with I-shields.
Anyhow. Those state route freeways are quite useful roads indeed.
Without CA-91, CA-22, CA-55, CA-118...LA traffic would be a hell of a
lot worse than it is today.
> 10. They have CA-86S. What the heck is this "S"?
The S stands for Special. Or maybe it's Spiffy. Or Speedy. Damned if I
know.
> 11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
Grow up with them and then drive in states without them. You'll notice
the difference, and the benefit of California's policy, immediately.
> Not that there's anything *wrong* with Cali, it's just different.
Being different is good.
--
Robert I. Cruickshank
roadgeek, historian, progressive
Tyler H@I2/3y
> I've noticed that *nothing* in Cali conforms to the other 47 states.
>
> 1. There are no exit numbers, except in a few areas.
>
> 2. Most of the freeways involve *really* tight interchanges.
>
> 3. They kicked out most of the US Hwys.
>
> 4. They built the Embarcadero Fwy. :-p
>
>
> 6. They have US-101, a violation of the system. 101, IMO, should be 99.
>
> 7. They have I-238. :-P
>
> 8. They have an unpaved state highway.
>
> 9. They have *way* too many state highway freeways.
>
> 10. They have CA-86S. What the heck is this "S"?
>
> 11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
>
> Not that there's anything *wrong* with Cali, it's just different.
>
> --The Artist Formerly Known as Bobby--
California does do a lot of things correctly though. They have nice
pavement markings used uniformly throughout the state. Who cares if
their numbering is off? We all know it is there and not many common
folk even know that the interstate system is supposed to go from the
west "lowest" to the east "highest" number. The state highway traffic
signals are very nice. All 12 inch heads used with full LED's for
Yellow, Green, and Red on CA 111 through Palm Springs and the
surrounding areas. Well marked botts dotts and painted white stripes
too. Generally, Southern California roads for me are quite good. I
don't know much about nothern California though. Speaking of unpaved
US highways...Arizona has a few AZ 88 being one. SR Freeways are also
common in Arizona. This is probably because the govt. funding isn't
there to build the US or Interstate highways fast enough so the state
finances most of the project to speed things along.
SPUI
I'm almost positive it stands for spur.
peacock
"Michael G. Koerner" wrote:
>
> peacock wrote:
> >
> > I've noticed that *nothing* in Cali conforms to the other 47 states.
>
> 47?
I meant *inland* states, ones that have freeways *without* H's in them;
ones that have US routes.
> > 8. They have an unpaved state highway.
>
> Many states have those.
>
> > 9. They have *way* too many state highway freeways.
>
> Many other states have those, too. No problem, as long as one knows
> where they go.
Well… I count only five in *all* of MI.
The rest are Interstates.
Also, CA is the only state where a 2di ends at its own 3di (80 @ 280.)
Also, they use rilly complex interchanges where a more standard one
would do. But then again, so do the other DOT's… but Cali's stand out most.
--The Artist Formerly Known as BP--
SPUI
> "Michael G. Koerner" wrote:
> > > 9. They have *way* too many state highway freeways.
> > Many other states have those, too. No problem, as long as one knows
> > where they go.
> The rest are Interstates.
http://centralgreatlakeshwys.com/junctions/
I count 21.
Kenny Dancy
"robert cruickshank" <ri...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:3B85DD34...@u.washington.edu...
>
>
> peacock wrote:
[snip]
>
> > 11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
I like the freeway entrance signs. The sign is a good navigational aid. I
also like the way they put to directional sign under the shield instead of
above it.
Scott
<pea...@voyager.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Also, CA is the only state where a 2di ends at its own 3di (80 @ 280.)
I-80 and I-280 don't meet. I-80 ends at US 101.
--
Kurumi http://kurumi.com/ (that's right, no W's)
3di's, Conn. Roads, maps, SignMaker
MSgt, Panang Curry Appreciation Army
on 52nd street
><pea...@voyager.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Also, CA is the only state where a 2di ends at its own 3di (80 @ 280.)
>
>I-80 and I-280 don't meet. I-80 ends at US 101.
Of course, had I-280 been routed on the CA 1 Junipero Serra Fwy North routing
(19th/Park Presidio), this would've actually occured (80 ending at 101).
With I-480 being sent down Park Presidio in early 1960s plans, and the entire
cancellation of the west of 101 freeways, this became moot.
Sherman Cahal
> >
> > Many other states have those, too. No problem, as long as one knows
> > where they go.
> The rest are Interstates.
Kentucky has 10, which are all parkways with secret designations, although
one is posted (KY-4) and one was formerly designated in the last 10 years
before the shields were taken down.
You can't just keep going by Michigan as the standard for the rest of the
US.
> Also, CA is the only state where a 2di ends at its own 3di (80 @ 280.)
> Also, they use rilly complex interchanges where a more standard one
> would do. But then again, so do the other DOT's. but Cali's stand out
most.
Well, let's see here. California would also happen to have more cars than
any other state in the nation. It has tremendous congestion. Now let's
replace that 4-level high speed stack with a conventional cloverleaf and see
traffic snarl now...
Kentucky has one 4-level stack which is really heavily used due to airport
and major beltway proximity (I-71/75 and I-275). Take that away and let's
put in a cloverleaf or a volleyball and see what happens.
:--
--
--Sherman Cahal
http://www.cahaltech.com
http://kyroads.cjb.net
http://theblueboxzine.cjb.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
..
wrote :
>I've noticed that *nothing* in Cali conforms to the other 47 states.
>
>1. There are no exit numbers, except in a few areas.
Why bother, California drivers don't read signs anyway.
>2. Most of the freeways involve *really* tight interchanges.
Lack of room, thanks to greedy developers that want every square inch
of room they can get their grubby hands on.
>3. They kicked out most of the US Hwys.
California doesn't want outside crap.
>4. They built the Embarcadero Fwy. :-p
And it fell down.
>5. They do more signage errors than all the other DOT's combined…
One word answer: CALTRANS.
>6. They have US-101, a violation of the system. 101, IMO, should be 99.
No, 99 did exist.
>7. They have I-238. :-P
What can I say?
>8. They have an unpaved state highway.
It's probably smoother than the paved ones.
>9. They have *way* too many state highway freeways.
Whaddya expect, the car industry owns California
>10. They have CA-86S. What the heck is this "S"?
South?
>11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
So?
>Not that there's anything *wrong* with Cali, it's just different.
Different, as in strange? or different as in "totally fucked up" ??
Jeffrey Coleman Carlyle
I-64 in Virginia ends at I-264 and I-664.
--
// Jeffrey Coleman Carlyle: Computer Science Graduate Student at the
// University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Creator of StratoSetup,
// Windows Restart, comp.os.msdos.programmer FAQ; Kentucky "roadgeek";
// RULER OF EARTH! <www.rulerofearth.org> <www.KentuckyRoads.com>
Dyche Anderson
>
> I've noticed that *nothing* in Cali conforms to the other 47 states.
47????????? Uh, the US hasn't had that few states since 1959.
[snip]
> 9. They have *way* too many state highway freeways.
Huh? As in Michigan, where you say you live (as do I), California tries
to build the proper road for the proper usage, when possible. If that
happens to be a freeway with a state highway designation, so what? It
works, and quite well, thank you - both in California, Michigan, and a
few other states. I'm quite glad, for instance, that M-14 is a freeway -
not to mention all or parts of M-5, M-8, M-10, M-25, M-47, M-53, M-59,
M-60, and the under construction M-6. Also remember that US highways are
nothing more than state highways with funny shields and numbering that
continues from state to state. One can also then add US-10, 23, 27, 31,
127, 131 to that list. And parts of I-94, I-96, and I-75 were built as
freeways for US-12, US-16, ALT-US-24, US-10/23, ....
Dyche Anderson
peacock
> > Well. I count only five in *all* of MI.
> > The rest are Interstates.
> http://centralgreatlakeshwys.com/junctions/
> I count 21.
• M-59
• M-53
• M-8
• M-10
• M-5
Those are the *only* freeway ones. The other 16 must be divided highway/
peacock
> I-80 and I-280 don't meet. I-80 ends at US 101.
peacock
> Kentucky has 10, which are all parkways with secret designations, although
> one is posted (KY-4) and one was formerly designated in the last 10 years
> before the shields were taken down.
> You can't just keep going by Michigan as the standard for the rest of the
> US.
different. I'm not using MI as a standard, just an example.
> Well, let's see here. California would also happen to have more cars than
> any other state in the nation. It has tremendous congestion. Now let's
> replace that 4-level high speed stack with a conventional cloverleaf and see
> traffic snarl now...
I'm not talking about stacks, wise guy. I'm talking about like the
eastern BUS 80/80 mess, the 5-805 merge...
> Kentucky has one 4-level stack which is really heavily used due to airport
> and major beltway proximity (I-71/75 and I-275). Take that away and let's
> put in a cloverleaf or a volleyball and see what happens.
Well, we have stacks here in MI, too. I-75 at I-696, and I-475 at I-69.
Relace *them* with volleyballs and see what happens...
peacock
Jeffrey Coleman Carlyle wrote:
>
> "peacock" <pea...@voyager.net> wrote in message
> news:3b866642$0$1526$2c3e...@news.voyager.net...
> > Also, CA is the only state where a 2di ends at its own 3di (80 @ 280.)
>
> I-64 in Virginia ends at I-264 and I-664.
Didn't know that. ;-) however, Kurumi told me 80 doesn't end at 280.
peacock
Dyche Anderson wrote:
>
> peacock wrote:
> >
> > I've noticed that *nothing* in Cali conforms to the other 47 states.
>
> 47????????? Uh, the US hasn't had that few states since 1959.
I meant inland states.
> [snip]
> > 9. They have *way* too many state highway freeways.
>
> Huh? As in Michigan, where you say you live (as do I), California tries
> to build the proper road for the proper usage, when possible. If that
> happens to be a freeway with a state highway designation, so what? It
> works, and quite well, thank you - both in California, Michigan, and a
> few other states. I'm quite glad, for instance, that M-14 is a freeway -
> not to mention all or parts of M-5, M-8, M-10, M-25, M-47, M-53, M-59,
> M-60, and the under construction M-6.
Crud. I forgot a *lot* of state highways. And M-14 is slated to be
I-x94. And the "freeway" (i use that term loosely) part of 25 has no
interchanges, so it's essentially just a divided highway, like M-15
south of Bay City.
peacock
>
> >6. They have US-101, a violation of the system. 101, IMO, should be 99.
>
> No, 99 did exist.
for NY 17. They can "recycle" US-99 for US-101.
> >11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
>
> So?
Do any of the *other* states use Freeway Entrance signs, helpful as the
signs are?!
> >Not that there's anything *wrong* with Cali, it's just different.
>
> Different, as in strange? or different as in "totally messed up" ??
Different as in "nonconformist".
Daniel Faigin
wrote:
>1. There are no exit numbers, except in a few areas.
Caltrans has experiemented with exit #s (in the 1970s; a few remain
up). However, the cost of retrofitting the entire state is
prohibitive; I believe Caltrans would rather spend the money on
improving the infrastructure.
>2. Most of the freeways involve *really* tight interchanges.
Most of the freeways were built in the 1950s and 1960s, when we didn't
have the same standards.
>3. They kicked out most of the US Hwys.
No, AASHTO did. At some point, AASHTO instituted a rule pulling the US
highway designation from routes that didn't cross state boundaries and
were under 400 mi total. This eliminated many of the California US
highways.
>4. They built the Embarcadero Fwy. :-p
The problem was not that they built it (it was part of an emasculated
traffic plan for SF), but how they built it.
>5. They do more signage errors than all the other DOT's combined…
The relevant measure is signage errors per miles of highway; Caltrans
also has more miles of state hightways.
>6. They have US-101, a violation of the system. 101, IMO, should be 99.
The number US 101 was assigned by AASHTO back in 1926; the same time
99 was assign. He who controls the system cannot violate it.
>7. They have I-238. :-P
Assigned by AASHTO because, at the time, there were no other x80
numbers free.
>8. They have an unpaved state highway.
So? Many other states do as well (and which one is unpaved?)
>9. They have *way* too many state highway freeways.
One thinks of Amadeaus: Too many notes. Why, sir, is this a problem?
>10. They have CA-86S. What the heck is this "S"?
A temporary designation indicating a spur, pending completion of the
expressway, at which time the old 86 will be relinquished and the new
one renumbered. See my site.
>11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
Everyone actually thinks these are an improvement.
>Not that there's anything *wrong* with Cali, it's just different.
And is there anything wrong with being different? Must we all be
conformists?
Daniel
W/H: fai...@aero.org/fai...@pacificnet.net http://www.pacificnet.net/~faigin/
Mod., Mail.Liberal-Judaism (www.mljewish.org) Advisor, s.c.j.Parenting
Maintainer, S.C.J FAQ/RL (www.scjfaq.org) Daddy to Erin Shoshana
Maintainer, Calif. Highways List (www.cahighways.org)
Webmaven, Temple Beth Torah of Granada Hills (www.bethtorah-sfv.org)
Mark Roberts
[many good points]
Generally speaking, Daniel, I think you are giving this anonymous
poster way too much respect. If someone doesn't have enough respect for
him or herself to attach his or her own name to an opinion or
assertion, then I would reciprocate that lack of respect and
generally just ignore the troll.
--
Mark Roberts | "Members of the host Alameda team congratulate the boys from
Oakland, Cal.| Brazil after they defeated Mexico Rojo 3-2 in the championship
| game...." -- caption in the Oakland _Montclarion_, 8-21-2001
Daniel Faigin
wrote:
>Generally speaking, Daniel, I think you are giving this anonymous
>poster way too much respect. If someone doesn't have enough respect for
>him or herself to attach his or her own name to an opinion or
>assertion, then I would reciprocate that lack of respect and
>generally just ignore the troll.
A bit of advice, from one of the (ahem) older folks here. ALWAYS treat
people with respect, even if they don't treat you back the same. For
it is how YOU behave that will impact how people judge you, not to
whom you reacted.
Secondly, by treating them with respect, and answering the questions
with truth, often one can stop or reduce the reaction to the poster.
Exile on Market Street
> "Michael G. Koerner" wrote:
> >
> > peacock wrote:
> >
> > > 9. They have *way* too many state highway freeways.
> >
> > Many other states have those, too. No problem, as long as one knows
> > where they go.
> Well… I count only five in *all* of MI.
> The rest are Interstates.
Surprised I haven't seen a roadgeek trivia question sprout from this.
So I'll ask it. But first, an observation.
Most of the states that have many freeways signed as state routes meet
either or (more likely) both of the following criteria:
--they have numerous urban centers (not necessarily large cities) that
needed to be connected by freeways
--they began building freeways before the Interstate Highway Act was passed
You will note that state-route freeways are rare in the Mountain West and
western Plains states, and more common in the Northeast and California.
Now, the question:
How many freeways in your state bear state route designations? And how
many are signed as US routes (which were built using mostly state funds,
not Federal funds)? The entire route does not have to be a freeway, but
there should be at least one stretch of four-lane, controlled-access
highway incorporating at least two interchanges for the route to make the
list.
I'll start this off by noting that Pennsylvania has 18 US routes and 23
state routes (18 primary non-toll state routes, three primary toll state
routes and two state secondary routes) with freeway segments, and refer you
to Jeff Kitsko's site for the details (http://www.pahighways.com/exits/).
--
Sandy Smith, University Relations / 215.898.1423 / smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Managing Editor, _Pennsylvania Current_ cur...@pobox.upenn.edu
Penn Web Team -- Web Editor webm...@isc.upenn.edu
I speak for myself here, not Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
"That Tony Lombardo guy that you share your life with -- is he homosexual
too?"
--Late former mayor and talk-show host Frank Rizzo, to _Philadelphia Gay
News_ publisher Mark Segal on the first night of Rizzo's talk show
---------------------------(as reported in Segal's _PGN_ column 8/3/01)--
SPUI
"Mark Roberts" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9ol3oo....@shell.rawbw.com...
> Daniel Faigin <fai...@pacificnet.net> had written:
> [many good points]
>
> Generally speaking, Daniel, I think you are giving this anonymous
> poster way too much respect. If someone doesn't have enough respect for
> him or herself to attach his or her own name to an opinion or
> assertion, then I would reciprocate that lack of respect and
> generally just ignore the troll.
He has said several times that his name is Bobby Peacock.
--
Dan Moraseski - Going into 14th grade at MIT
http://spui.cjb.net - FL NJ MA route logs and exit lists
Editor of http://roadlinks.cjb.net (highway cat of Open Directory Project)
http://ridot.cjb.net - why RIDOT sucks
Mark Roberts
| with truth, often one can stop or reduce the reaction to the poster.
I have often found the opposite to be the case. It's the reaction
they're thriving on. It seems to be the case that people interact
different on Usenet than in "real life"....
Mark Roberts
| He has said several times that his name is Bobby Peacock.
I had missed that, because I generally had been ignoring those
posts. At the risk of invalidating a mild complaint about
meta-discussion that I just made elsewhere in MTR, I do want to
note that I'm talking about the larger trend of anonymous
posting that seems to have hit MTR. While Daniel Faigin makes good
points in his posts, I do have to disagree with regard to anonymous
posters. If you have an opinion and want to express it, it's kind
of cowardly -- and disrespectful of other participants -- to hide
behind a pseudonym to do it. The anonymous posts with fantasy
questions and assertions are the bedbugs of MTR and, in my opinion,
should be treated as such.
SPUI
> Daniel Faigin <fai...@pacificnet.net> had written:
>
> | Secondly, by treating them with respect, and answering the questions
> | with truth, often one can stop or reduce the reaction to the poster.
>
> I have often found the opposite to be the case. It's the reaction
> they're thriving on. It seems to be the case that people interact
> different on Usenet than in "real life"....
Depends on the person. In the case of Tom/xganon it seems to be a troll that
does "thrive on the reaction". However peacock, however annoying, seems to
be simply clueless.
Garrett Wollman
Exile on Market Street <smi...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote:
>How many freeways in your state bear state route designations? And how
>many are signed as US routes (which were built using mostly state funds,
>not Federal funds)?
Massachusetts:
US routes: 1, 3, 5 (multiplexed with I-91 briefly), 6, 20
(multiplexed with I-291), 202 (multiplexed with SR 2 briefly)
State routes: 1A, 2, 3, 24, 25, 28, 57, 79, 128, 140, 146, 213, Route
85 Connector
Interstate routes: 84 (ex-SR 15), 90, 91, 93, 95, 190, 290, 291, 295,
391, 395 (ex-SR 52), 495, SPUR 495
Vermont:
US routes: 4, 7
State routes: 289
Interstate routes: 89, 91, 93, 189
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
SPUI
"Garrett Wollman" <wol...@lcs.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:9me6pt$1b4e$1...@traf.lcs.mit.edu...
> In article <smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
> Exile on Market Street <smi...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
> >How many freeways in your state bear state route designations? And how
> >many are signed as US routes (which were built using mostly state funds,
> >not Federal funds)?
>
> Massachusetts:
>
> US routes: 1, 3, 5 (multiplexed with I-91 briefly), 6, 20
> (multiplexed with I-291), 202 (multiplexed with SR 2 briefly)
>
> State routes: 1A, 2, 3, 24, 25, 28, 57, 79, 128, 140, 146, 213, Route
> 85 Connector
Also 9 (a couple interchanges near I-495), 18, and 116. 85 connector isn't
really a freeway; the only interchange is with I-495/I-290, and there is a
traffic light west of 85.
>
> Interstate routes: 84 (ex-SR 15), 90, 91, 93, 95, 190, 290, 291, 295,
> 391, 395 (ex-SR 52), 495, SPUR 495
Unnumbered freeways:
Charlesgate (old US 1)
Logan Airport access
Plimoth Plantation Hwy (old 3)
Soldiers Field Rd/Storrow Dr (partly old US 1)
Ted Williams Tunnel (future I-90)
Jason
> > >11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
> >
> > So?
> Do any of the *other* states use Freeway Entrance signs, helpful as the
> signs are?!
Washington uses them. And I think (but I'm not sure) that Oregon uses them as well.
-J
arga...@my-deja.com
> You will note that state-route freeways are rare in the Mountain West and
> western Plains states, and more common in the Northeast and California.
State-route freeways are definitely rare in Nebraska and the Dakotas,
but not so rare in Kansas or Oklahoma. I have a question: is the
mileage (either centerline or lane mileage) of state route freeway
proportional to the state population?
Also, Colorado (pop. 3 million and rising) has a large number of
state-route freeways in metropolitan Denver, while Idaho (pop. 1
million) has none, so it would seem the mountain states are scattered
over the spectrum.
> How many freeways in your state bear state route designations? And how
> many are signed as US routes (which were built using mostly state funds,
> not Federal funds)? The entire route does not have to be a freeway, but
> there should be at least one stretch of four-lane, controlled-access
> highway incorporating at least two interchanges for the route to make the
> list.
I think I need further clarification of the parameters:
* Are toll freeways included? If so, should they be counted as state
route freeways if they were built prior to an Interstate designation
being applied? (I'm assuming not, in my response below--otherwise the
Kansas Turnpike would need to be included.)
* Are two-lane freeways included? (Again, I'm assuming
not--otherwise the Oakland segment of K-4 would need to be included.)
* Are noncontiguous freeway sections of the same route to be counted
separately? (I'm not doing so below.)
Answering (tentatively) for Kansas and Nebraska:
KANSAS
K-10 between Lawrence and Kansas City
U.S. 69 (Overland Parkway) south of I-35 in Johnson County
K-96 (Northeast Freeway/State Fair Freeway) in Wichita
U.S. 75 (Carbondale bypass) south of Topeka
FORMER K-58 (18th St. Expwy.) in Kansas City/northern Johnson County
U.S. 54-400 (Kellogg Ave.) in and around Wichita
U.S. 81 (Frank Carlson Memorial Highway) north of Salina
TOTALS: two (surviving) state-route freeways; four U.S.-route
freeways; six non-Interstate in all.
NEBRASKA
U.S. 75 (Kennedy Expressway) between Offutt A.F.B. just south of
Bellevue, north to the I-480 interchange just across the Douglas
County line
TOTALS: no state-route freeways (although several, including Neb. 2
between Nebraska City and Lincoln, and U.S. 77 around Lincoln, are
expressways and are served by extensive grade separations); one
U.S.-route freeway; one non-Interstate in all.
I think that if one adjusted for the various factors governing a
decision to build a full freeway rather than an expressway with some
at-grade crossings (whether signalized or not), such as anticipated
sideroad volumes and the like, one would still find that state D.O.T.s
tend to take different philosophical positions on the value of
creating a grade separation versus saving the initial cost, allowing
access at grade, and tolerating the resulting congestion and delay on
the expressway. This might have to do with how the legislative
framework for access control developed in each state.
In the meantime, the stylized fact is that Kansas is more willing to
bite the bullet and spend big bucks on constructing grade separations
for minor roads than Nebraska is. Has anyone done an analysis on
this?
P.S. In other countries which are not bound to follow the
A.A.S.H.T.O. "Green Book," it seems to be possible to compromise
between allowing at-grade intersections and spending big on full
interchanges, by building "slimline" grade separations with ramps
which remain paired almost all the way to the mainline and have sharp
10-15 M.P.H. curves--in Britain the old A43 (now A34) between Oxford
and the Wendlebury interchange on the M40 was given full access
control in this way in 1990 when it was dualled to become a connector
road for the newly complete M40. This allowed the Highways Agency to
avoid having grade crossings on an M40 connector while also removing
the need to have consultations to stop up the B4027 Islip-Kirtlington
and B430 Middleton Stoney-Brackley roads.
The Smith family
+-State Route Freeways:
-U-201 in Salt Lake is the only one that comes to mind...and it's
quite variable: In less than 20 miles, it goes from city street to
interstate grade freeway to substandard freeway to expressway to 2-lane
road.
+-US Route Freeways:
-US 40 from Silver Creek Junction (I-80) south to the outskirts of
Heber City. This (along with US 189 to Provo) forms something of a
1-quadrant outer beltway of SLC.
-US-6 has a Super-Two bypass around Price.
-US-89 has one interstate-grade interchange in Layton somewhere.
Although the rest of the road is expressway, they sign it "Exit 3xx",
as if US 89 throughout the state were a freeway with mileage based
exits.
+-Proposed Routes
-The hotly debated "Legacy Parkway" (from US-89 and I-15 at Lagoon to
I-215 in North Salt Lake will almost certainly be to freeway standard.
UrsusArctos
peacock
> of cowardly -- and disrespectful of other participants -- to hide
> behind a pseudonym to do it.
peacock
>
> One thinks of Amadeaus: Too many notes. Why, sir, is this a problem?
> >11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
>
> Everyone actually thinks these are an improvement.
I wish AASHTO would make them mandatory in the other states…
> >Not that there's anything *wrong* with Cali, it's just different.
>
> And is there anything wrong with being different? Must we all be
> conformists?
No, if you wanna be different, that's OK. I meant no negativity to
Californians in this post.
Alan Hamilton
Market Street) wrote:
>You will note that state-route freeways are rare in the Mountain West and
>western Plains states, and more common in the Northeast and California.
Could it be a matter of timing? Many of the NE and California routes
were built under more generous Federal funding in the 50s and 60s.
Now that other cities are getting large enough to warrant freeways,
the best they can hope for is a non-chargeable route. Since it
doesn't come with any money, a lot of DOTs consider the Interstate
designation not worth the bother.
>Now, the question:
>
>How many freeways in your state bear state route designations?
Arizona, not counting multiplexes with interstates:
AZ 51
AZ 101
AZ 202
AZ 143
AZ 153
US 60 (Superstition Freeway section)
AZ 210 in Tucson has a short controlled access stretch.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@arizonaroads.com
Arizona Roads -- http://www.arizonaroads.com
Alan Hamilton
Faigin) wrote:
>>7. They have I-238. :-P
>
>Assigned by AASHTO because, at the time, there were no other x80
>numbers free.
This is interesting juxtaposed with the state route freeways item. If
all those other freeways are okay as state routes, what's wrong with
CA 238?
Chris Lawrence
on Market Street" <smi...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote:
> How many freeways in your state bear state route designations? And how
> many are signed as US routes (which were built using mostly state funds,
> not Federal funds)? The entire route does not have to be a freeway, but
> there should be at least one stretch of four-lane, controlled-access
> highway incorporating at least two interchanges for the route to make
> the list.
Off the top of my head:
Mississippi:
US 78 and US 45 in Mississippi have freeway segments (actually, all of US
78 in Mississippi is freeway; US 45 around Corinth, Tupelo, and Meridian).
So is US 82 from Starkville to the Alabama line, and US 49 around
Clarksdale (to be extended south a few more miles as US 61... future
I-69). A short section of US 51 from I-20/55 north into Jackson is also a
freeway.
As for state highways, only MS 6 (unsigned US 278) and MS 7 around Oxford
are freeways. MS 304 from Robinsonville to Nesbit (and on to
Collierville) will be a state-signed freeway when it is finished (even
though it is technically I-69).
Tennessee:
US 27 (part of which is semi-signed I-124) is a freeway from Chattanooga
to some point in northern Hamilton County. US 51 has two freeway segments
northeast of Dyersburg (future I-69). US 23 from the Virginia line to the
North Carolina line is all freeway; some of it is numbered I-181 today,
and part is future I-26. A few feet of US 78 from old US 78 to the
Mississippi line is freeway too. I think part of US 31E in Nashville is
freeway. US 412 east of Dyersburg is built as a freeway for several
miles, but doesn't show up on the maps as a freeway.
As for state highways: bits and pieces of TN 155 (Briley Pkwy) are
freeway. TN 385 (Nonconnah Pkwy, Barret Pkwy) and 386 (n.e. of Nashville)
are freeways, as is TN 840. About a mile or so of TN 381 is freeway (the
northernmost mile or so), but isn't shown as freeway on the state map.
Secret TN 300 in NW Memphis is a freeway. About a mile of TN 176 (New
Getwell Rd) is a freeway too. There's a short state-route freeway in
Knoxville, but the number escapes me at the moment. Portions of TN 111
are freeway. IIRC there's an ARC corridor freeway section proposed in
central Tennessee, and the freeway to be named later from TN 385 to MS 304
will probably be state-numbered too (if TN 304 isn't taken yet, that's my
candidate route number). TN 22 also has a freeway segment near Martin.
Locally maintained freeways: Sam Cooper Blvd (abandoned I-40) and Plough
Blvd in Memphis.
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <ch...@lordsutch.com> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
Ralph Herman
"Daniel Faigin" <fai...@pacificnet.net> wrote in message
news:3b8a73f7...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:43:04 -0400, peacock <pea...@voyager.net>
> wrote:
>
> >1. There are no exit numbers, except in a few areas.
>
> Caltrans has experiemented with exit #s (in the 1970s; a few remain
> up). However, the cost of retrofitting the entire state is
> prohibitive; I believe Caltrans would rather spend the money on
> improving the infrastructure.
(snip)
Caltrans knows it is in violation of Fed MUTCD standards which require exit
numbering (and reference posts) on all freeways
Caltrans in the past few years had submitted a $28 million budget to install
exit numbering on all state freeways, the Legislature (not Caltrans) has not
approved the item. My gripe is that Caltrans can find tens of millions of
dollars more than $28 million to secretly repair design flaws on recently
completed I-105, but Caltrans can't find the funds in their budget to
install exit numbering as part of routine overhead sign inspections. They
certainly can find the funds to include exit numbering on new freeway
signage.
In the total Caltrans budget, $28 million is chump change.
Ralph
William Lynch
So are you saying that the exit numbering is more
important than a potential freeway closure or failure?
Personally, I rather like the fact that Caltrans has cash
on hand for emergency repairs like that. And having
a line item built into a budget (usually) guarantees a
reasonable effort on the project. No one in the world
spends as much on seismic repairs as Caltrans, so
keeping all of the line items separate is quite necessary.
Daniel Faigin
<al...@arizonaroads.com> wrote:
>This is interesting juxtaposed with the state route freeways item. If
>all those other freeways are okay as state routes, what's wrong with
>CA 238?
Personally, I don't like it, but I'm not the numbering purist that
many on this list are. I see my role not as advocate as change, but as
historian, simply reporting the facts. Why they wanted that one
segment to be I-238 I have no idea. But they did it; it's there. Sure,
they could change it (the cheapest would be just to make it CA 238). I
certainly don't feel the expense of a massive renumbering just to fix
it is worth it; I'd rather Caltrans spend its money either building
new routes or widening old ones (or, heaven's forfend, finishing the
NB HOV lane on I-405 between El Segundo and the Valley, so I could get
home faster in my vanpool).
Daniel Faigin
<rlah...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Caltrans knows it is in violation of Fed MUTCD standards which require exit
>numbering (and reference posts) on all freeways
>
>Caltrans in the past few years had submitted a $28 million budget to install
>exit numbering on all state freeways, the Legislature (not Caltrans) has not
>approved the item.
Therefore, your gripe is with the legislature, not Caltrans, and you
should be coordinating a lobbying effort to get the specific funding.
>My gripe is that Caltrans can find tens of millions of
>dollars more than $28 million to secretly repair design flaws on recently
>completed I-105, but Caltrans can't find the funds in their budget to
>install exit numbering as part of routine overhead sign inspections.
That is because the design flaws lead to sinking of the freeway, which
is an issue of public safety. I don't think you can portray exit
numbering as an issue of public safety.
Mark Roberts
| many on this list are. I see my role not as advocate as change, but as
| historian, simply reporting the facts. Why they wanted that one
| segment to be I-238 I have no idea. But they did it; it's there. Sure,
| they could change it (the cheapest would be just to make it CA 238). I
| certainly don't feel the expense of a massive renumbering just to fix
| it is worth it; I'd rather Caltrans spend its money either building
| new routes or widening old ones (or, heaven's forfend, finishing the
| NB HOV lane on I-405 between El Segundo and the Valley, so I could get
| home faster in my vanpool).
Early in 1999, I noticed a construction sign on I-680 in
Concord for "I-242". I wish I had gotten a picture of that one. It
would have given the fantasy-assertion crowd hereabouts enough
spastic fits to power Oregon.
Ralph Herman
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 04:29:07 GMT, "Ralph Herman"
> <rlah...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Caltrans knows it is in violation of Fed MUTCD standards which require
exit
> >numbering (and reference posts) on all freeways
> >
> >Caltrans in the past few years had submitted a $28 million budget to
install
> >exit numbering on all state freeways, the Legislature (not Caltrans) has
not
> >approved the item.
>
> Therefore, your gripe is with the legislature, not Caltrans, and you
> should be coordinating a lobbying effort to get the specific funding.
No, my gripe is with Caltrans. Had they aggressively lobbied, the
legislature might have been more receptive, especially if future federal
highway funding may be in jeopardy. The FHWA exit numbering requirement for
interstates has been in the Fed MUTCD more than 20 years.
LIke I stated previously, $28 million is nothing to billions in the
Caltrans budget. They could spread it over several years... they could
apply for federal highway aid to cover much of the cost.... hell, they could
even apply for a FHWA demonstration project for metric freeway exit signing,
but instead Caltrans does nothing. BTW, when was the last time Caltrans had
ANY state or district sign upgrade program?
>
> >My gripe is that Caltrans can find tens of millions of
> >dollars more than $28 million to secretly repair design flaws on
recently
> >completed I-105, but Caltrans can't find the funds in their budget to
> >install exit numbering as part of routine overhead sign inspections.
>
> That is because the design flaws lead to sinking of the freeway, which
> is an issue of public safety. I don't think you can portray exit
> numbering as an issue of public safety.
That's not fair, Daniel. Of course, I-105 need to be fixed... my gripe is
the way Caltrans paid for the repairs. Tens of millions of dollars were
re-directed by Caltrans in an attempt to cover-up their I-105 engineering
screw-up. If the I-105 repair was such a critical safety issue, why didn't
Caltrans submit a request for an appropriation to repair the problem? I
think we both know why they didn't go to the legislature, and my point is
they didn't have to, because money was available in the Caltrans budget.
Caltrans is playing games. All the other states where able to complete the
federal requirements for exit numbering and statewide reference posts.
Caltrans is the ONLY state that hasn't placed exit numbers all their
interstate routes.
If I had to choose between exit numbering and discretionary sound wall
installations, exit numbering and reference posts would win hands down.
AFAIK, no driver has been killed or injured because a sound wall was not
installed.
Strange, isn't it? Caltrans was able to divert tens of millions of dollars
to secretly repair their in house engineering fiasco, but cries poverty when
asked to complete a federal requirement every other state in the US has
completed years ago.
Ralph
Ralph Herman
"William Lynch" <bozo....@big.top> wrote in message
news:3B8B35D6...@big.top...
No I'm not. I'm saying IMO funding is available to do the exit numbering.
I am saying that Caltrans was caught red handed doing a fiscal coverup on
the I-105 repairs, and IMO cannot be trusted when they claim no money is
available for the exit numbers. If the I-105 problems might have resulted
in a freeway closure or failure, they should have *IMMEDIATELY* gone public
and asked for emergency funding. IIRC, they did not ask for additional
funds. Maybe it wasn't all that urgent. Embarrassing as hell, but not
urgent.
>
> Personally, I rather like the fact that Caltrans has cash
> on hand for emergency repairs like that. And having
> a line item built into a budget (usually) guarantees a
> reasonable effort on the project. No one in the world
> spends as much on seismic repairs as Caltrans, so
> keeping all of the line items separate is quite necessary.
>
>
The I-105 repairs were not a seismic project , unless you consider the water
table rising to historic levels a seismic event. BTW, consultants had
warned Caltrans the design for the "state-of-the-art" I-105 was flawed from
the beginning.
Ralph
Brandon Gorte
> > > Well. I count only five in *all* of MI.
> > > The rest are Interstates.
> > http://centralgreatlakeshwys.com/junctions/
> > I count 21.
> 21?!?! Let's see…
>
> • M-59
> • M-53
> • M-8
> • M-10
> • M-5
> Those are the *only* freeway ones. The other 16 must be divided highway/
How about:
M 14, M 20 (short section), M 66 (combined with I-194), M 60, M 39
(how did you forget the Southfield?), and all the US shielded
freeways: US-31, US-131, US-27, US-127, US-23, US-10, US-12 (near
Willow Run). (I'm sure I'm missing more than a few on this short
list.)
Brandon Gorte
bmg...@hotmailNOSPAM.com
Joliet, IL
David J. Greenberger
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:43:04 -0400, peacock <pea...@voyager.net>
> wrote:
>
> >1. There are no exit numbers, except in a few areas.
>
> Caltrans has experiemented with exit #s (in the 1970s; a few remain
> up). However, the cost of retrofitting the entire state is
> prohibitive; I believe Caltrans would rather spend the money on
> improving the infrastructure.
Couldn't Caltrans install exit number panels on all new signs, slowly
phasing in exit numbers as signs are replaced?
I don't think it would be terribly confusing. A piece of NYC's Henry
Hudson Parkway is, for no reason I can see, missing its exit numbers,
but I don't think non-roadgeeks even notice.
--
David J. Greenberger
David J. Greenberger
> Do any of the *other* states use Freeway Entrance signs, helpful as the
> signs are?!
They're used on the Long Island (NY) parkways (but not on any of the
other parkways). I also find them helpful.
--
David J. Greenberger
David J. Greenberger
> How many freeways in your state bear state route designations? And how
> many are signed as US routes (which were built using mostly state funds,
> not Federal funds)? The entire route does not have to be a freeway, but
> there should be at least one stretch of four-lane, controlled-access
> highway incorporating at least two interchanges for the route to make the
> list.
Here are the ones I know of in New York (there are probably many more):
US 1 (overlap with I-95)
US 6 (overlap with NY 17 and SR 987C)
NY 7
US 9
NY 9A
NY 13
NY 15 (overlap with I-86/NY 17 and I-390)
NY 17
NY 17C? (borderline)
NY 27
NY 28
NY 96? (not sure)
NY 100 (overlap with NY 9A)
NY 117
NY 135
NY 198
NY 199
NY 201
US 209
NY 304
NY 363
NY 390
NY 400
NY 440
NY 481
NY 495
NY 531
NY 590
NY 690
NY 695
NY 878
SR 900G
SR 907A
SR 907B
SR 907C
SR 907D
SR 907H
SR 907K
SR 907L
SR 907M
SR 907P
SR 907V
SR 907W
SR 908A
SR 908B
SR 908E
SR 908F
SR 908G
SR 908J
SR 908K
SR 908M
SR 908T
SR 909C
SR 912M
SR 940T
SR 947A
SR 954J
SR 957A
SR 982L
SR 987C
SR 987F
SR 987G
--
David J. Greenberger
peacock
Ouch. Mea culpa. I'm not counting "semi-freeways" like the 12 Willow Run
North Bypass. That has signals. I'm not counting US ones either.
peacock
Yeesh- wy so many lettered ones?!
Jim Ellwanger
"David J. Greenberger" <gren...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Couldn't Caltrans install exit number panels on all new signs, slowly
> phasing in exit numbers as signs are replaced?
They could if they ever replaced any of their signs (grumble, grumble).
--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com>
<http://trainman1.home.mindspring.com/> is completely improvised.
"Also: players don a variety of hats."
Steve Ruge
> Couldn't Caltrans install exit number panels on all new signs, slowly
> phasing in exit numbers as signs are replaced?
CalTrans replaces signs? The only times I have seen CalTrans replace signs
is when someone physically hits them (truck, car, etc.) Heck they can't
even clean and light the existing signs.
I know this is a separate topic already discussed ad naseum here but it
just pisses me off how lazy CalTrans can be when it comes to signage and
lighting maintenance.
--
macst...@mac.com
Fullerton, CA 92831
http://homepage.mac.com/macstevstr
Brandon Gorte
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:43:04 -0400, peacock <pea...@voyager.net>
> wrote:
>
> >1. There are no exit numbers, except in a few areas.
>
> Caltrans has experiemented with exit #s (in the 1970s; a few remain
> up). However, the cost of retrofitting the entire state is
> prohibitive; I believe Caltrans would rather spend the money on
> improving the infrastructure.
Then how come Texas (which is a bigger state) could? Even New York
and Illinois (excluding the Tollways) have exit numbers.
> >2. Most of the freeways involve *really* tight interchanges.
>
> Most of the freeways were built in the 1950s and 1960s, when we didn't
> have the same standards.
Other states (Michigan, New York, Illinois) have freeways that are
just as old, and they actually update their interchanges.
> >5. They do more signage errors than all the other DOT's combined…
>
> The relevant measure is signage errors per miles of highway; Caltrans
> also has more miles of state hightways.
Again, how come Texas, Illinois, and New York don't have as many
errors even though they have amost as many miles of freeways.
> Assigned by AASHTO because, at the time, there were no other x80
> numbers free.
I-180 wasn't being used as an interstate number. You know, you can
actually duplicate route numbers in a state as long as they aren't of
the same type (interstate vs state vs US). There's nothing wrong with
both SR-180 and I-180 being in the same state.
> >11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
>
> Everyone actually thinks these are an improvement.
One should be able to tell if the road is a freeway from the other
signage (and the fact that there is an over/underpass at the
interchange).
Larry Stone
Brandon Gorte <bmg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I-180 wasn't being used as an interstate number. You know, you can
>actually duplicate route numbers in a state as long as they aren't of
>the same type (interstate vs state vs US). There's nothing wrong with
>both SR-180 and I-180 being in the same state.
In California, that would be wrong. Legislatively, California makes no
distinction between state, U.S., and Interstate highways.
>> >11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
>>
>> Everyone actually thinks these are an improvement.
>
>One should be able to tell if the road is a freeway from the other
>signage (and the fact that there is an over/underpass at the
>interchange).
Haven't traveled much in California, have you Brandon. To go back to my
old home in the Bay Area, please tell, if you are driving along El Camino
Real (CA-82), a non-freeway, how you distinguish between it's interchange
with CA-92, a freeway, in San Mateo and it's interchange with CA-84, a
non-freeway, in Redwood City. The 82/84 interchange is a grade separated
interchange between two surface streets. The presence of a bridge tells
you nothing nor will the signage other than the presence of a "Freeway
Entrance" sign.
Freeway vs. non-freeway is a legal distinction with pedestrians and
certain types of vehicles (e.g. bicycles) not allowed on freeways (except
for certain specificaly signed exceptions. Putting a "Freeway Entrance"
sign at the entrance makes it clear where the prohibition starts. Of
course, those sort of restrictions exist in other states but they just
expect the operator or pedestrian to correctly guess where they are
prohibited.
--
-- Larry Stone
la...@stonejongleux.com
http://www.stonejongleux.com/
Garrett Wollman
Larry Stone <la...@stonejongleux.com> wrote:
>In California, that would be wrong. Legislatively, California makes no
>distinction between state, U.S., and Interstate highways.
How California legislative routes should not have any bearing on what
numbers are presented to the public. Route numbers are signed to
assist travelers, not state legislators and DOT staff. (New York
seems to understand this best, with its separate Reference Route and
Touring Route designations.) Interstate route numbers are signed to
help inter-state travelers find their way around the National System
of Interstate and Defense Highways. (And I-238 does cause confusion
to travelers: I remember traveling with my parents about ten years ago
and being totally confused by it, since it wasn't long enough to show
up on our maps and we all knew that there was no I-38 in the Bay Area
for it to be a loop of. [We were headed from Reno to Palo Alto, and
my parents didn't want to drive through the city.])
>Freeway vs. non-freeway is a legal distinction with pedestrians and
>certain types of vehicles (e.g. bicycles) not allowed on freeways (except
>for certain specificaly signed exceptions.
In many other states, these restrictions are explicitly signed at
entrance ramps. I personally don't much care either way.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
ValHal 444
state-route freeways in metropolitan Denver, while Idaho (pop. 1
million) has none, so it would seem the mountain states are scattered
You are wrong or mistaken. Mabye Denver Metro has about 3 million, but not
Colorado. Colorado state has almost 5 million (I use the word almost broadly),
with only a couple hundred thousand living somewhere other than Pueblo to Ft.
Collins.
I have yet to respond to the other 24 responses as of 8/30 . . so if youve
already been corrected, forgive me.
Eric Fischer
> CalTrans replaces signs? The only times I have seen CalTrans replace signs
> is when someone physically hits them (truck, car, etc.) Heck they can't
> even clean and light the existing signs.
They *have* been replacing them in San Francisco recently. I don't
know why, since most of the new ones are pretty much identical to
the originals, except with more errors. The only significant change
I've seen is the renamed John Daly Blvd/Junipero Serra Blvd exit
(formerly, I think, Daly City/Westlake District) on I-280, where the
new name is so long they have to use tiny letters to make it fit.
The worst signs I've seen lately are the new ones at Quarry Road on
CA 82 in Palo Alto, CA, in Helvetica with the capital and lowercase
letters in different font sizes. I don't know whether this one is
Caltrans's fault or Palo Alto's, though.
eric
ValHal 444
installations, exit numbering and reference posts would win hands down.
AFAIK, no driver has been killed or injured because a sound wall was not
installed.
(snip)
And so are you saying that people have been killed because of no exit numbers?
I dont know . . . if Caltrans wants to cry poverty to not install them, Im not
going to care. Theyre not any more crucial than having painted lanes go over
bott dots. Even less than that, actually.
$28 million is chump change to Caltrans; but frivolous speniding is not
justified by any amount.
Oh, and to digress a bit; I think everybody needs to quit their bitching about
Caltrans not buying cheap crap-signs and replacing them every five years, like
CDOT does. Its more efficent to buy long-lasting signs, and, although illogical
. . .
"Wheneth the greenout fail, shall not ye fret; for jocular value of ye shall
be guarenateed to the peasents and rich liketh."
Finally, if I seem bias to Caltrans, let me clear things up right now.
Caltrans names their freeways, has many freeways, and uses lit street signs on
all signals. Anotherwards: Caltrans is always right. CDOT is retarded and can
be compared with many African countries and throughly laughed at.
Speaking of Colorado, hers a list of all the SH freeways in the state.
(Obviously excluding the internal definition of a SH as my standard. If one
wonders what this defintion would add, Ill make it easy and you can just start
counting all the objects around the computer, all the people you know, and the
bladetion/design Powers Fwy. (SH, anyone?)
Steve Ruge
valh...@aol.com (ValHal 444) wrote:
> Oh, and to digress a bit; I think everybody needs to quit their
bitching about
> Caltrans not buying cheap crap-signs and replacing them every five years, like
> CDOT does. Its more efficent to buy long-lasting signs, and, although
illogical
> . . .
>
> "Wheneth the greenout fail, shall not ye fret; for jocular value
of ye shall
> be guarenateed to the peasents and rich liketh."
Yes but when Caltrans leaves their signs with missing route shields that
have fallen down and NOT been replaced for over 3 years now, such as the
install on the 101 Fwy SB at the 5-10 Jct that is inexcusable.
Any sign, cheap or not, that has faded so badly and been greened out so
many times that the greeout is hanging off the sign NEEDS to be replaced.
There is NO EXCUSE for these signs to remain standing. Also, at the bare
minimum could they possibly send a cleaning crew to clean the signs. In
many cases that would help so much. The haphazard method of checking
lighting on the signs is laughable also. I had to turn in a work order
consistently for over a year just to get a small, easily accessible sign
relamped. There is NO excuse for that.
Yes, for what CalTrans has they do a good job but they could do a hell of
a lot better in things like signs and lamping. These are the things
tourists/visitors see here in SoCal. Yes they should look at maps and plan
their trips. Many don't.
Guess I'm spoiled coming from Illinois. Most of the signs on the
expressways there were regularly cleaned, lit, and readable even with the
Salt and road dust /exhaust conditions common to the Chicago area.
I'm not sayin CalTrans as a whole sucks but they could use some
improvement in this area.
Sorry to bring this topic up but I think it is both an interesting one and
one that needs to be addressed by CalTrans. I'm almost waiting for my
"friend" who works up in the Santa Clarita district of CalTrans to come in
here and defend them again.
</end soapbox> LOL
Ralph Herman
"ValHal 444" <valh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010830225820...@mb-fk.aol.com...
> If I had to choose between exit numbering and discretionary sound wall
> installations, exit numbering and reference posts would win hands down.
> AFAIK, no driver has been killed or injured because a sound wall was not
> installed.
>
> (snip)
>
> And so are you saying that people have been killed because of no exit
numbers?
I would think so, since the FHWA requires them.
snip
Ralph
Ralph Herman
"Steve Ruge" <macst...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:macstevstr-30...@192.168.1.101...
And I might also add that freeway signing standards for lane drops and
auxiliary lanes (EXIT ONLY yellow/black strip at the bottom of the BGSs)
have changed during the past 40 years, and only a handful of the Caltrans
overhead BGS signage has been modified (sign legend and sign placement) to
the FHWA standards that have been in place of the last 20 years.
But Caltrans seems to have plenty of time to erect BGSs for memorial
highways and memorial interchanges, while route shields are missing on
freeway BGS.
Ralph
arga...@my-deja.com
(although I wish the F.H.W.A. would develop and promulgate its signing
standards in the same way California does). However, I wonder how
many of these signs are porcelain-on-steel. Caltrans has been using
porcelain-on-aluminum at least since the mid-1980's, but button-copy
signs in general have so much excess durability that I'm sure there's
a fairly substantial 'overhang' of old porcelain-on-steel signs.
According to a Caltrans sign handbook I have seen, it is not possible
to revise a message (either to add or delete characters or route
shields) on a porcelain-on-steel sign without using overlay
plates--i.e., greenout. With porcelain-on-aluminum, however, it is
possible to carry out the revision by adding or removing characters
and route shields, and in fact Caltrans H.Q. Traffic Engineering
encourages the districts to do precisely this, rather than use
greenout, for a neater final appearance. Districts are supposed to
fiddle with overlays on porcelain-on-aluminum ONLY IF an expeditious
install is required. For that matter, states like Kansas use
demountable copy (with whole-surface retroreflectorization against
high-intensity green sheeting) for precisely this reason.
The handbook is not especially clear on the reason why
porcelain-on-aluminum and porcelain-on-steel require different
handling. I think it is because porcelain shatters when it is drilled
to install rivets to attach overlays or new lettering, and an overlay
plate better conceals the resulting surface crazing and the rust that
eventually develops in the steel substrate. However, I'm not sure
whether the overlays are glued or riveted in place.
It's also possible Caltrans specified nonremovable copy (the type that
required retroactive installation of reflective buttons, using butyl)
for its porcelain-on-steel signs throughout the entire period those
signs were installed, before going over to demountable button copy
with die-cut letters for porcelain-on-aluminum sometime in the
mid-1980's when the porcelain-on-aluminum contract was first let.
Perhaps someone knows more about this?
Daniel Faigin
<gren...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Couldn't Caltrans install exit number panels on all new signs, slowly
>phasing in exit numbers as signs are replaced?
The problem is that Caltrans doesn't replace signs; they are patched
instead. We still have signs up from the 1950s.
Daniel Faigin
wrote:
>How California legislative routes should not have any bearing on what
>numbers are presented to the public. Route numbers are signed to
>assist travelers, not state legislators and DOT staff.
In California, the decision has been made to keep (with one or two
exceptions) the signed route number the same as the legislative route
number. This is the reason for the massive renumbering that took place
in 1964. So, the routes are signed to assist the public, but those
changes must be reflected in the legislative number (for example, the
renumbering of Route 30 to Route 210, which is a change for the
better, was done legislatively.
In the case of 180, there is a route 180, whose number dates back to
1934, in the area around Yosemite. Changing that number would confuse
the driving public. This is why 180 is not available.
>of Interstate and Defense Highways. (And I-238 does cause confusion
>to travelers: I remember traveling with my parents about ten years ago
>and being totally confused by it, since it wasn't long enough to show
>up on our maps and we all knew that there was no I-38 in the Bay Area
>for it to be a loop of.
That's a map problem. All the maps I've seen show I-238 clearly as a
continuation of CA 238. Further, no one really looks at the numbers
anyway; we look at the freeway names and the end destinations.
>[We were headed from Reno to Palo Alto, and
>my parents didn't want to drive through the city.])
Which city? Oh, that city. [I think it is presumptuous of SF to be
"the city". What's LA? Chopped Liver? Oakland? Spam?
>>Freeway vs. non-freeway is a legal distinction with pedestrians and
>>certain types of vehicles (e.g. bicycles) not allowed on freeways (except
>>for certain specificaly signed exceptions.
>
>In many other states, these restrictions are explicitly signed at
>entrance ramps. I personally don't much care either way.
The additional reason for the signs is yet another measure to make
people aware that the rules are changing; for example, they can't get
off anywhere; speeds will be faster, etc. They also make it easy, in
the maze of concrete we have in places like LA, where the freeways are
depressed from the main road, of distinguishing the freeway entrance
from a normal street or long driveway.
Daniel Faigin
>If I had to choose between exit numbering and discretionary sound wall
>installations, exit numbering and reference posts would win hands down.
>AFAIK, no driver has been killed or injured because a sound wall was not
>installed.
However, a sound wall makes a *big* difference in quality of life to
those that live near the freeway. Exit numbers do not. The people that
live near the freeway vote and are active, and can make life miserable
for Caltrans officials, either directly or by proxy through their
elected representatives. Locals don't care about exit numbers, and
tourists don't vote in California.
So, if you were Caltrans, where would you put your priorities.
Daniel Faigin
<rlah...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>But Caltrans seems to have plenty of time to erect BGSs for memorial
>highways and memorial interchanges, while route shields are missing on
>freeway BGS.
If you read the resolutions with those names, you'll see that such
signs are not funded by Caltrans, and the installation costs are
reimbursed by the folks paying for the signs. For example:
(From ACR 25)
Resolved, That the Department of Transportation is hereby
requested to determine the cost of appropriate plaques and markers,
consistent with the signing requirements for the state highway
system, showing this special designation and, upon receiving
donations from nonstate sources covering the cost, to erect those
plaques and markers; and be it further
Garrett Wollman
Daniel Faigin <fai...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>On 30 Aug 2001 16:30:59 GMT, wol...@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
>wrote:
>>my parents didn't want to drive through the city.])
>Which city? Oh, that city. [I think it is presumptuous of SF to be
>"the city". What's LA? Chopped Liver?
Not on any feasible route from Reno to Palo Alto and thus irrelevant
to the discussion.
Steve Ruge
arga...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I wouldn't want to try to defend Caltrans on its installed signage
> (although I wish the F.H.W.A. would develop and promulgate its signing
> standards in the same way California does). However, I wonder how
> many of these signs are porcelain-on-steel. Caltrans has been using
> porcelain-on-aluminum at least since the mid-1980's, but button-copy
> signs in general have so much excess durability that I'm sure there's
> a fairly substantial 'overhang' of old porcelain-on-steel signs.
There are still a number of what appear to be porcelain-on-steel installs,
especially on the 5 Fwy in various installs. (I am assuming they are
these kind of installs because the letters look painted on and the
reflectors glued - these are some of the worst signs still in service
because they are dirty as hell and never cleaned or can't be cleaned.) I
guess greeen out WHEN MAINTAINED BY CALTRANS (Ha Ha) would be acceptable.
What is really bad is that on some of these porcelain-steel installs they
have not even bothered to install green-out simply riveting the new marker
over the old. On some of these, where routes have gone from US to
California you can see the old US shields peeking out from the installed
California route markers.
>
> According to a Caltrans sign handbook I have seen, it is not possible
> to revise a message (either to add or delete characters or route
> shields) on a porcelain-on-steel sign without using overlay
> plates--i.e., greenout. With porcelain-on-aluminum, however, it is
> possible to carry out the revision by adding or removing characters
> and route shields, and in fact Caltrans H.Q. Traffic Engineering
> encourages the districts to do precisely this, rather than use
> greenout, for a neater final appearance. Districts are supposed to
> fiddle with overlays on porcelain-on-aluminum ONLY IF an expeditious
> install is required. For that matter, states like Kansas use
> demountable copy (with whole-surface retroreflectorization against
> high-intensity green sheeting) for precisely this reason.
I would be interested in seeing this handbook. Do you have a title I could
go look up or would it be something to ask for in a library here locally?
> The handbook is not especially clear on the reason why
> porcelain-on-aluminum and porcelain-on-steel require different
> handling. I think it is because porcelain shatters when it is drilled
> to install rivets to attach overlays or new lettering, and an overlay
> plate better conceals the resulting surface crazing and the rust that
> eventually develops in the steel substrate. However, I'm not sure
> whether the overlays are glued or riveted in place.
I suspect from the many missing shields in the LA area that they were
glued to some and rivited to others.
>
> It's also possible Caltrans specified nonremovable copy (the type that
> required retroactive installation of reflective buttons, using butyl)
> for its porcelain-on-steel signs throughout the entire period those
> signs were installed, before going over to demountable button copy
> with die-cut letters for porcelain-on-aluminum sometime in the
> mid-1980's when the porcelain-on-aluminum contract was first let.
>
> Perhaps someone knows more about this?
Thanks for taking time to explain this. It offers some insight. But it is,
as you said above, not an accurate defense for poor sign maintenance and
lighting maintenance standards. I fail to see how sending a cleaning crew
around to the freeways at 3-4 AM to clean signs can be so hard. Many of
the signs simply need to be cleaned. Those that can't SHOULD be replaced.
There is also no excuse for the poor lighting practices of signs,
reflectorized or not. Again send the crews around during the 3-6 AM hour
when traffic volumes are lower and fix these signs. They all have
fixtures on them, they should be illuminated.
To a lesser extent there are even problems with street lighting being out
in various areas for a long period of time.
Why are these such maintenance issues for Caltrans? Budget funding is not
a decent excuse.
Sorry, it just bothers me that we have all these nice freeways here in
SoCal and then we apply hap-hazard maintenance procedures to them. We
have a beautiful new interchange at the CA 91/I-5 JCT and it has goofy
signage that looks like a contractor in 3rd grade installed. Mismatched
fonts, inaccurate sized arrows, and these are permanent green "guidance"
signs. Are there no standards or a standard sign shop at CalTrans any
more? What has happened to uniformity?
Yes, I could do something about reporting each of these issues. I would be
reporting until 2008 since almost every freeway I drive on here has some
major outages. (I understand minor outages for lighting - tubes fail,
etc.). It seems (as I previously said) that one has to beg and beg and
beg CalTrans to fix anything.
</end soapbox for now>
Daniel Faigin
I believe they are are feasible routes from Reno to Palo Alto (and why
you would go anywhere near the 238 is beyond me. Wouldn't you just
take I-80 to I-880, and thence to the Dumbarton Bridge (across 84)
directly into Palo Alto?
On 31 Aug 2001 18:57:53 GMT, wol...@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
wrote:
>In article <3b8fda0d....@newsproxy.pacificnet.net>,
>Daniel Faigin <fai...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>>On 30 Aug 2001 16:30:59 GMT, wol...@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
>>wrote:
>>>[We were headed from Reno to Palo Alto, and
>>>my parents didn't want to drive through the city.])
>
>>Which city? Oh, that city. [I think it is presumptuous of SF to be
>>"the city". What's LA? Chopped Liver?
>
>Not on any feasible route from Reno to Palo Alto and thus irrelevant
>to the discussion.
>
>-GAWollman
>
>--
>Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
>wol...@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom
>Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
>MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
W/H: fai...@aero.org/fai...@pacificnet.net http://www.pacificnet.net/~faigin/
Larry Stone
Daniel Faigin <fai...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>Are you trying to tell me that Sacramento and Oakland are not cities?
>I believe they are are feasible routes from Reno to Palo Alto (and why
>you would go anywhere near the 238 is beyond me. Wouldn't you just
>take I-80 to I-880, and thence to the Dumbarton Bridge (across 84)
>directly into Palo Alto?
Depending on traffic, I might take I-80 to I-680 to I-580 to I-238 to
I-880, than as mentioned (or then via the San Mateo Bridge) or I-80 to I-5
to I-205 to I-580 to I-238 to I-880, or even I-80 to I-680 to CA-24 to
CA-13 to I-580 to I-238 to I-880. Lots of ways to do it and on a summer
Sunday, I-80 to I-880 might well be the slowest of them.
Ralph Herman
"Daniel Faigin" <fai...@pacificnet.net> wrote in message
news:3b8fdba6....@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
> On 31 Aug 2001 02:58:20 GMT, valh...@aol.com (ValHal 444) wrote:
>
> >If I had to choose between exit numbering and discretionary sound wall
> >installations, exit numbering and reference posts would win hands down.
> >AFAIK, no driver has been killed or injured because a sound wall was not
> >installed.
>
> However, a sound wall makes a *big* difference in quality of life to
> those that live near the freeway. Exit numbers do not. The people that
> live near the freeway vote and are active, and can make life miserable
> for Caltrans officials, either directly or by proxy through their
> elected representatives. Locals don't care about exit numbers, and
> tourists don't vote in California.
> So, if you were Caltrans, where would you put your priorities.
I would charge the property owners for the sound wall installations. In a
majority of instances, homes in Southern California were built after the
right of way was designated for the freeway. Why should I have to pay for
the walls, they are not safety related, do not increase road capacity, and
are butt ugly. You want sound walls, fine... you pay for them. And while
you're at it, design the sound walls so you don't feel like your driving at
the bottom of a concrete flood control channel.
Oh, by the way, I live two blocks from the Ventura Freeway, and I wouldn't
expect you (or anyone else) to pay for my choice of residence.
And if I was Caltrans, I would also try to be in compliance with Fed MUTCD
standards, especially since the Fed MUTCD will soon replace the Caltrans
Traffic Manual. The Fed MUTCD requires (not suggests) exit numbering on all
freeway class roadways.
Can't wait to see how Caltrans is going to dance around those pesky exit
numbers when the Fed MUTCD becomes the California bible.
Ralph
Ralph Herman
> <rlah...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >But Caltrans seems to have plenty of time to erect BGSs for memorial
> >highways and memorial interchanges, while route shields are missing on
> >freeway BGS.
>
> If you read the resolutions with those names, you'll see that such
> signs are not funded by Caltrans, and the installation costs are
> reimbursed by the folks paying for the signs. For example:
>
> (From ACR 25)
> Resolved, That the Department of Transportation is hereby
> requested to determine the cost of appropriate plaques and markers,
> consistent with the signing requirements for the state highway
> system, showing this special designation and, upon receiving
> donations from nonstate sources covering the cost, to erect those
> plaques and markers; and be it further
>
Section 2E.08 Memorial Highway Signing
Guidance:
Freeways and expressways *should not* (my emphasis) be signed as memorial highways. If a route,
bridge, or highway component is officially designated as a memorial, and if notification
of the memorial is to be made on the highway right-of-way, such notification should
consist of installing a memorial plaque in a rest area, scenic overlook, recreational area,
or other appropriate location where parking is provided with the signing inconspicuously
located relative to vehicle operations along the highway.
Option:
If the installation of a memorial plaque off the main roadway is not practical, a memorial
sign may be installed on the mainline.
Standard:
Where such memorial signs are installed on the mainline, (1) memorial names
shall not appear on directional guide signs, (2) memorial signs shall not interfere
with the placement of any other necessary highway signing, and (3) memorial signs
shall not compromise the safety or efficiency of traffic flow. The memorial signing
shall be limited to one sign at an appropriate location in each route direction.
(end FHWA)
Should not. When a road agency has enough trouble maintaining their signage, why would... oh, I get it, feel good legislation. Nothing like another Caltrans sign policy to confuse those pesky tourists.
Ralph
Alan Hamilton
Faigin) wrote:
>In California, the decision has been made to keep (with one or two
>exceptions) the signed route number the same as the legislative route
>number. This is the reason for the massive renumbering that took place
>in 1964. So, the routes are signed to assist the public, but those
>changes must be reflected in the legislative number (for example, the
>renumbering of Route 30 to Route 210, which is a change for the
>better, was done legislatively.
The problem is that the legislative routes only half match the signed
routes. Show me the route signed as State Route 10 (knowing Caltrans,
there may be some CA 10 markers, but you get my point). And if they'd
sign I-238 as State Route 238, that would solve that whole problem.
It's not an impossibility to track the type as well as the number.
Arizona does this -- I-10 is "Interstate 10", not "State Route 10".
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@arizonaroads.com
Arizona Roads -- http://www.arizonaroads.com
Hank Stokes
buttonings fallen off years ago that you can hardly read even if you stood
in front of it.
The way they sign exit lanes is a joke. When they widened the
fwys/reconfigurated the interchanges etc. they don't move the sign
placement. It's not uncommon to see exit only pointing to the middle of the
fwy.
"peacock" <pea...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:3b85a284$0$1531$2c3e...@news.voyager.net...
> I've noticed that *nothing* in Cali conforms to the other 47 states.
>
> 1. There are no exit numbers, except in a few areas.
>
> 2. Most of the freeways involve *really* tight interchanges.
>
> 3. They kicked out most of the US Hwys.
>
> 4. They built the Embarcadero Fwy. :-p
>
> 5. They do more signage errors than all the other DOT's combined.
>
> 6. They have US-101, a violation of the system. 101, IMO, should be 99.
>
> 7. They have I-238. :-P
>
> 8. They have an unpaved state highway.
>
> 9. They have *way* too many state highway freeways.
>
> 10. They have CA-86S. What the heck is this "S"?
>
> 11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
>
> Not that there's anything *wrong* with Cali, it's just different.
>
> --The Artist Formerly Known as Bobby--
Hank Stokes
"Jason" <jaso...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:e8484f01.01082...@posting.google.com...
> peacock <pea...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:<3b8982c6$0$1522$2c3e...@news.voyager.net>...
>
>
> > > >11. They use the "freeway entrance" signs.
> > >
> > > So?
> > Do any of the *other* states use Freeway Entrance signs, helpful as the
> > signs are?!
>
> Washington uses them. And I think (but I'm not sure) that Oregon uses them
as well.
>
> -J
Hank Stokes
> >1. There are no exit numbers, except in a few areas.
>
> up). However, the cost of retrofitting the entire state is
> prohibitive; I believe Caltrans would rather spend the money on
> improving the infrastructure.
>
Prohibitive? Oh my god....putting those little tabs and exit signs surely
would bankrupt California. It's not like asking them to rebuild every damn
interchange in the state.
Hank Stokes
I agree with you absolutely. Caltrans signage condition is a national
disgrace. The most they will do is patching the moldy signs to death. As
for the missing signs, I've known a lot of them are stolen for dormitory
decoration.
Hank Stokes
> The worst signs I've seen lately are the new ones at Quarry Road on
> CA 82 in Palo Alto, CA, in Helvetica with the capital and lowercase
> letters in different font sizes. I don't know whether this one is
> Caltrans's fault or Palo Alto's, though.
>
> eric
Parts of Chicagoland fwys and Lake Co roadways are infested with these
upper/lower case font size differential signs. A real eyesore.
Ralph Herman
"Hank Stokes" <hanks...@wi.rr.us> wrote in message
news:Jd1k7.203768$GN.28...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
to energy efficient lighting and traffic signals a few years ago.
Especially the energy inefficient mercury vapor dinosaurs that still grace
many of LA County's freeways.
I am convinced the Caltrans operations people never leave the State of
California. They haven't a clue. And they get pissed as hell whenever a
taxpayer questions their procedures.
*They* are the supposed "professionals." If *I* have to bring
non-conforming signing and delineation to their attention, then there is a
serious problem within Caltrans. IMO, it is *not* a money problem, but
rather a *management* problem.
Ralph
Michael G. Koerner
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Regards,
Michael G. Koerner
Appleton, WI
***NOTICE*** SPAMfilter in use, please remove ALL 'i's from the return
address to reply. ***NOTICE***
____________________________________________________________________________
David J. Greenberger
> Yeesh- wy so many lettered ones?!
See http://www.empirestateroads.com/sr/ -- all those 900-series routes
with letter suffixes are not actually posted as such, except on the
little green reference markers. The major ones (including just about
every one I listed) are signed prominently by name; the minor ones
aren't signed at all.0
--
David J. Greenberger
Steve Ruge
<hanks...@wi.rr.us> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, for what CalTrans has they do a good job but they could do a hell of
> > a lot better in things like signs and lamping. These are the things
> > tourists/visitors see here in SoCal. Yes they should look at maps and plan
> > their trips. Many don't.
> >
>
> I agree with you absolutely. Caltrans signage condition is a national
> disgrace. The most they will do is patching the moldy signs to death. As
> for the missing signs, I've known a lot of them are stolen for dormitory
> decoration.
That would have to be one big dorm room wall to take a BGS down. LOL.
I understand what you are saying regarding some of the smaller ones.
However, there are BGS that have been hit by trucks since I moved here in
1999 and that are STILL not replaced. I cannot believe that even if
CalTrans has to contract out for sign fabrication and installation these
signs cannot be replaced in a more timely manner. Maybe the "lampers" are
also in charge of sign installs. "We did our one relamp today, now let's
go home."
Steve Ruge
<hanks...@wi.rr.us> wrote:
Yes, if I recall correctly heading SB on I-94 at the US-41 Jct there are
some of these signs for the US 41 Waukegan exit.
arga...@my-deja.com
> I would be interested in seeing this handbook. Do you have a title I could
> go look up or would it be something to ask for in a library here locally?
Bibliographic details are as follows:
Caltrans. District 7 Traffic Operations Branch and Headquarters
Division of Traffic Engineering. 'Overhead Signing and Contract Sign
Plans'. 1989; 97 pp. Blue cover, stapled spine, mostly typescript
within.
It is essentially a manual for preparing contract signing plans.
> Thanks for taking time to explain this. It offers some insight.
You're welcome--and thanks for the on-the-ground report re. surviving
(barely) porcelain-on-steel signs.
> There is also no excuse for the poor lighting practices of signs,
> reflectorized or not. Again send the crews around during the 3-6 AM hour
> when traffic volumes are lower and fix these signs. They all have
> fixtures on them, they should be illuminated.
I have to say that dark signs are a problem even here in the Wichita
area, where the vast majority of overhead signs have high-intensity
sheeting, were more recently installed, and are in better condition
than most California freeway signs. Practically all of the overhead
signs on Kellogg Ave. (U.S. 54-400 and, in spite of the name, a
full-blown freeway for 10 miles) have luminaries, but only the ones
for the Central Business District and I-135 are kept lit. And we have
street lighting problems too. Lights just seem to be hard for
American road-maintaining authorities to deal with--in Britain
lighting tends to be handled better, largely because many county
councils have toll-free numbers decalled onto lampposts for reporting
outages, and there are more pedestrians who need the lamplight and
look for the decals when the lights are gone.
> Are there no standards or a standard sign shop at CalTrans any
> more? What has happened to uniformity?
There are good standards--probably the best in the U.S.--but no M.T.R.
participants to go through the signs one by one and make sure all the
rules are followed. (Perhaps one of us could talk Caltrans into
recruiting us as volunteer proofreaders . . .)
Seriously, though, it seems like there has been a breakdown somewhere
in contract administration. All permanent freeway guide signing is
state-furnished in California, meaning it is installed by Caltrans
sign crews, but the signs themselves are fabricated by contractors who
bid for one of the main sign contracts, and then fabricate individual
signs on that contract by working from the sign specs and signing
plans. There is no Caltrans sign shop as such.
The nearest equivalent is the large warehouse in Los Angeles where
contractors deliver the finished signs, which are then distributed to
their install locations in the various districts. Signing plans have
to be approved by the District Traffic Engineer or, in Los Angeles
(District 7), the District Sign Coordinator, and then there is further
paperwork for authorizing shipment of the sign from warehouse to
install location, verifying delivery of the sign from the contractor,
etc. However, the handbook (which has most of this information) says
nothing about inspecting the signs themselves. An error on a sign
bound for San Francisco might not leap out at a sign warehouse
employee who lives in Los Angeles, for instance.
It does indicate that Caltrans engineers are under pressure to recycle
salvaged sign hardware. Even old porcelain-on-steel signs are not
supposed to be replaced unless the substrate is chipped and rusted,
and there are ancient truss members which used to be part of butterfly
signing assemblies in the 1940's but are now being used as part of
cantilever signs. In one case Caltrans discovered that it was more
expensive to buy new than to modify an old truss and truck it more
than 500 miles, so engineers are supposed to study salvage inventories
to find old hardware which might be usable (and, one might think, make
some design compromises to use it).
Districts also have to operate within their budgets and it is possible
that Caltrans H.Q. does not make suitable allowances for larger
districts which have more freeway miles, hence more freeway signing,
and accumulated those miles at a time when the state of the art in
signing relied on technologies such as porcelain-on-steel which do not
age gracefully. I think Caltrans may not even have an inventory of
signs as-installed which is capable of distinguishing among
porcelain-on-steel, porcelain-on-aluminum, laminated panel, and other
sign types, which vary somewhat in maintenance costs; if district
budgeting is based on average costs, this would aggravate the problem.
Steve Ruge
>
> > Are there no standards or a standard sign shop at CalTrans any
> > more? What has happened to uniformity?
>
> There are good standards--probably the best in the U.S.--but no M.T.R.
> participants to go through the signs one by one and make sure all the
> rules are followed. (Perhaps one of us could talk Caltrans into
> recruiting us as volunteer proofreaders . . .)
Unfortunately, due to the design of LA/Orange Co freeways there is
usually little if any room to pull over to do these inspections. The
only reason I know so much about the signs so far is that I have been
stuck in traffic many times with nothing else to do. LOL I would love
to be able to run around and report inconsistencies to CalTrans. As I
stated previously I doubt they would do anything about the reports
unless I also had the time to continually nag them until the repairs
were completed.
>
> Seriously, though, it seems like there has been a breakdown somewhere
> in contract administration. All permanent freeway guide signing is
> state-furnished in California, meaning it is installed by Caltrans
> sign crews, but the signs themselves are fabricated by contractors who
> bid for one of the main sign contracts, and then fabricate individual
> signs on that contract by working from the sign specs and signing
> plans. There is no Caltrans sign shop as such.
>
> The nearest equivalent is the large warehouse in Los Angeles where
> contractors deliver the finished signs, which are then distributed to
> their install locations in the various districts. Signing plans have
> to be approved by the District Traffic Engineer or, in Los Angeles
> (District 7), the District Sign Coordinator,
I wonder just who this "District Sign Coordinator" is and why he
allows such crappy signage to be installed. Again, the brand new CA
91/I-5 Jct has crappy signs that are brand new and were JUST
installed. These signs are pissing me off so much that I may just have
to take a ride out there and snap pics of them. They also have a
brilliant sign install where they place the Junction sign for the 91
(SB I-5 approach) immediately behind an overpass so that you cannot
even see the sign or get an idea of lane placement until you are past
the overpass and almost on the interchange itself. Bravo CalTrans!
> It does indicate that Caltrans engineers are under pressure to recycle
> salvaged sign hardware. Even old porcelain-on-steel signs are not
> supposed to be replaced unless the substrate is chipped and rusted,
That is funny. There is (or was) a BGS install on the SB I-405 I
believe just outside Seal Beach that has a big old hole rusting right
through the middle of it with a nice stream of rust running down into
the copy of the sign. Again, does no one not even occasionally
inspect the sign installs once complete for basic maintenance and
cleaning needs?
You also have to like how CalTrans will not order bigger pull through
BGS signs (Route Shield, San Diego, Arrows) when they widen the
freeway. Again, the 405 SB. There is an area where they added lanes
and the existing BGS was not wide enough. What to do? Add a smaller
BGS next to it with the single content of a down arrow. Worse for some
reason instead of integrating the outline of the sign seemlessly onto
this new panel they just hung a stock outlined panel next to it.
Basically you have the original BGS outlined, legend and then this new
BGS with only an arrow and completely outlined itself. It looks sloppy
and unprofessional. Big surprise. Maybe I should grab a pic of that
soon too. Hey, I could open my own CalTrans Freeway Idiots website.
There's certainly enough material.
peacock
peacock
"Michael G. Koerner" wrote:
>
> SOP in Minnesota.
What does SOP stand for?
Jeffrey Coleman Carlyle
--
// Jeffrey Coleman Carlyle: Computer Science Graduate Student at the
// University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Creator of StratoSetup,
// Windows Restart, comp.os.msdos.programmer FAQ; Kentucky "roadgeek";
// RULER OF EARTH! <www.rulerofearth.org> <www.KentuckyRoads.com>
----
"peacock" <pea...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:3b941442$0$1523$2c3e...@news.voyager.net...
ValHal 444
(Obviously excluding the internal definition of a SH as my standard. If one
wonders what this defintion would add, Ill make it easy and you can just start
counting all the objects around the computer, all the people you know, and the
bladetion/design Powers Fwy. (SH, anyone?)
(snip)
I apoligize for that message. I still have yet to read the responses to it, and
Im not sure if anyone cares, but my message somehow got truncated. I have no
idea what "bladetion/Powers Fwy." is . . . . please dont let this bias you into
thinking Im a crackpot.
William Lynch
OK, we promise not to let that last message effect the fact that
we all think of you as a crackpot. ;-)
Daniel Faigin
<rlah...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I would charge the property owners for the sound wall installations. In a
>majority of instances, homes in Southern California were built after the
>right of way was designated for the freeway.
Perhaps after the route was determined; it is unlikely they were built
after the freeway was constructed, and certainly not with promises of
todays capacity, or any indication of what the noise in reality would
be.
Given you say you are near the Ventura Freeway, consider the homes
along the stretch of the San Diego between Victory and Sherman Way,
where sound walls are currently going up. These homes were built
before the freeway was constructed. Should they have to pay for the
soundwalls? The notion of soundwalls wasn't part of the CalTrans
vocabulary back in the early 1960s when that part of the 405 was
built.
Nowadays, new freeways get soundwalls as a matter of habit.
>Oh, by the way, I live two blocks from the Ventura Freeway, and I wouldn't
>expect you (or anyone else) to pay for my choice of residence.
I live about 20 blocks from the 405 (near Woodman and Lassen), and I
can hear the freeway noise. Admittedly, I can only hear it outside,
and it is certainly not as bad as the banda music from across the
wash.
With respect to the MUCTD: To me, signage is the least of Caltrans
priorities. I'd rather see them finish the HOV construction that is
planned, and work on completing the unfinished routes (710), and
building a few new ones (such as the metropolitan bypass) and
completing the 405/101 interchange upgrade.
Daniel
Daniel Faigin
<al...@arizonaroads.com> wrote:
>The problem is that the legislative routes only half match the signed
>routes. Show me the route signed as State Route 10 (knowing Caltrans,
>there may be some CA 10 markers, but you get my point).
It's right there on the post miles: 10. There is no distinction made
on the basis of sign type.
>And if they'd
>sign I-238 as State Route 238, that would solve that whole problem.
I concur.
>It's not an impossibility to track the type as well as the number.
>Arizona does this -- I-10 is "Interstate 10", not "State Route 10".
Does Arizona define it as Route 10 or Interstate 10 in the legislative
definition?
Daniel Faigin
<rlah...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>And who is charged for their maintenance, Daniel??
Maintenance? What's that? Seriously, I don't think those signs are
maintained.
>Section 2E.08 Memorial Highway Signing
>
>Guidance:
>
>Freeways and expressways *should not* (my emphasis) be signed as
Should, not shall. In other words, it is an objective, not a
requirement.
>Where such memorial signs are installed on the mainline, (1) memorial =
>names
>shall not appear on directional guide signs, (2) memorial signs shall =
>not interfere
>with the placement of any other necessary highway signing, and (3) =
>memorial signs
>shall not compromise the safety or efficiency of traffic flow. The =
>memorial signing>
>shall be limited to one sign at an appropriate location in each route =
>direction.
From what I"ve seen, Caltrans memorial signage complies with the
above. They are not on direction guide signs (they are on small signs
on the side), they don't interfere with other signs, and they don't
compromise safety, and there is one sign in each direction.
>Should not. When a road agency has enough trouble maintaining their =
>signage, why would... oh, I get it, feel good legislation. Nothing =
>like another Caltrans sign policy to confuse those pesky tourists.
It probably gets the politicians some points at home to remember such
people. I don't think the tourists notice it one bit.
Richard C. Moeur
>
> Does Arizona define it as Route 10 or Interstate 10 in the legislative
> definition?
Arizona does not have "legislative definitions" comparing
to those in California. The State Transportation Board,
not the legislature, is the final authority on state routes
(with concurrence from AASHTO & FHWA on US and Interstate
routes as appropriate, of course).
To answer the question: All routes on the state system
in Arizona are designated and defined by their route
number (and suffix as appropriate).
--
Richard C. Moeur, P.E., WC7RCM, E.C.I., whatever...
Practicing Traffic Engineer (I'll get it right someday...)
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
"Life is just one W1-5 after another, until the W14-1"
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
the Arizona Department of Transportation. Really.
WWW: http://members.aol.com/rcmoeur/
E-Mail: rcm...@aol.com, NOT rcm...@earthlink.net. Tnx!