The things you find on GSV lol:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8578858,-113.2130008,3a,24.7y,183h,87.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skyiaveMl_QPDn_huQE6cSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8578858,-113.2130008,3a,24.7y,183h,87.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skyiaveMl_QPDn_huQE6cSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11045.0
I was more surprised to see that Conde's is still open next to the Sentinel School. :-D Time has not been kind to Old US 80, most of the places between Gila Bend and Fortuna Foothills fringes on the definition of "ghost town" these days.
I like the way the railroad is trying to skirt around the MUTCD requirement of using a YIELD sign instead of a STOP sign at grade crossings.
Quote from: cjk374 on August 07, 2017, 04:18:55 PM
I like the way the railroad is trying to skirt around the MUTCD requirement of using a YIELD sign instead of a STOP sign at grade crossings.
I'm wondering if the Goldwater Range has some sort of hand in that sign being placed. Most roads south of I-8 are used for bombing range access. I've found that a lot of military sourced signage isn't in compliance with the MUTCD and is generally very poor in quality.
Is
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2017, 04:23:31 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on August 07, 2017, 04:18:55 PM
I like the way the railroad is trying to skirt around the MUTCD requirement of using a YIELD sign instead of a STOP sign at grade crossings.
I'm wondering if the Goldwater Range has some sort of hand in that sign being placed. Most roads south of I-8 are used for bombing range access. I've found that a lot of military sourced signage isn't in compliance with the MUTCD and is generally very poor in quality.
Is
Railroad crossbucks and other signage is usually the responsibility of the railroad itself. The advanced warning signs are the responsibility of whoever maintains the road.
It appears that Union Pacific (the owner of the line, based on the DOT tags) wanted to install stop signs, but didn't want to get larger ones and the maintainers were too lazy to remove the yield signs and this is the result.
Quote from: cjk374 on August 07, 2017, 04:18:55 PM
I like the way the railroad is trying to skirt around the MUTCD requirement of using a YIELD sign instead of a STOP sign at grade crossings.
Not quite. A STOP sign is acceptable at passive grade crossings, provided certain conditions are met.
Quote from: roadman on August 08, 2017, 10:04:52 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on August 07, 2017, 04:18:55 PM
I like the way the railroad is trying to skirt around the MUTCD requirement of using a YIELD sign instead of a STOP sign at grade crossings.
Not quite. A STOP sign is acceptable at passive grade crossings, provided certain conditions are met.
Yes...if sight distance is a problem (my paraphrase). But it looks as though you should have no problem with that.
I like that sign. It is very unique indeed.
And how about the green (instead of yellow) clearance height sign on the overpass?
Quote from: cjk374 on August 08, 2017, 12:20:01 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 08, 2017, 10:04:52 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on August 07, 2017, 04:18:55 PM
I like the way the railroad is trying to skirt around the MUTCD requirement of using a YIELD sign instead of a STOP sign at grade crossings.
Not quite. A STOP sign is acceptable at passive grade crossings, provided certain conditions are met.
Yes...if sight distance is a problem (my paraphrase). But it looks as though you should have no problem with that.
I would suspect that other factors were involved, such as speed and frequency of trains, not to mention trains in opposing directions approaching the crossing at the same time.