This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
To the person who wants this page deleted:
Do you seriously think that saying that California sucks is a good reason for wanting anything deleted? I agree not notable process has been made, but things take time and this shall become noticable as the project that finally brought exit numbers in California. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) .
Looks more like vandalism based on the fact that it was nominator's 2-4 first edits. And I always seriously doubt the faith of a user who starts his or her reason with "California sucks". Zzyzx11(Talk) 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur with your analysis. --Coolcaesar 22:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Wind loading issues, it's frustrating trying to find a source for this
I remember seeing an article somewhere that the reason for why Caltrans didn't want to put on exit tabs was wind loading issues, but I can't find it. If I recall correctly, the problem is that California signs are traditionally very thin sheets of metal that look very "floppy" if not attached to anything. They're bolted to the support truss behind them that gives them structural integrity, but that means that exit tabs have to be bolted to that truss as well with their own support structures. And those structures impose additional weight, which means the calculations for wind loading (and earthquakes) have to be redone for the entire structure. With many of the older sign gantries, the original planners weren't expecting any additional weight, so the result is that the entire gantry needs to be demolished and replaced. Rather than do all that work, Caltrans got permission to just squeeze the exit numbers onto the existing signs instead. I'll have to keep looking for that source, though, before I can put that in the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)