Is Massachusetts the only state that does this? Their reassurance shields are huge and need two posts to support them.
Indiana has a few fairly large ones, but not as big as I'm seeing on Streetview for Massachusetts (example on I-495 (https://goo.gl/maps/8a6XXnBAceSKojZA9)).
* Indiana example on I-465 (https://goo.gl/maps/sbFMUi1MWDx6F1tN7)
* Indiana example on I-275 (https://goo.gl/maps/bgDxDjxZzLxcgrpJA)
Pretty standard to see 36x36 reassurance shields on almost every freeway. Even California has a State Highway variant that is oversized.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8374/8598682037_f712834b52_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/e6QuAz)
"Your momma is, in fact, smaller than this sign. (But not by much.)"
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9258256,-73.770133,3a,16.9y,6.13h,94.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIdv3wMPuowOFXanrtJVMLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 20, 2019, 06:00:41 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9258256,-73.770133,3a,16.9y,6.13h,94.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIdv3wMPuowOFXanrtJVMLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Is this possibly the largest Interstate shield in existence? (Or rather, one of, since I see there's one on the other side too.)
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 20, 2019, 06:21:16 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 20, 2019, 06:00:41 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9258256,-73.770133,3a,16.9y,6.13h,94.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIdv3wMPuowOFXanrtJVMLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Is this possibly the largest Interstate shield in existence? (Or rather, one of, since I see there's one on the other side too.)
Could have been, but it isn't now (booth torn down in favor of all-electronic)
MN 55/149 in Eagan has these monsters:
https://goo.gl/maps/7M8Ja8zHC1N3bDJd6
SC 61/165 outside Summerville - https://goo.gl/maps/vpEmA7MZZ1mhPYsg8
VA 280 and SR 928 outside Harrisonburg - https://goo.gl/maps/kzcx4zVFD4iRjum59
Here's the Junction I-840 sign along US 220/Battleground Avenue in Greensboro:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi840str418x.JPG&hash=efbf4a89fb51502f01c119f43474229a9f44a1fd)
The first signs I remember seeing and saying to myself "why are those so big?" are the ones installed when NY 631 was extended south along NY 31 and the new Baldwinsville Bypass. Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1683299,-76.2996469,3a,27.6y,277.29h,88.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb29sOJi4en93rybbwOsDFQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) one of the signs.
When a left turn lane was added to the intersection of NY 5/US 20 and Half Acre Rd west of Auburn, there were unnecessarily huge reassurance signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9258487,-76.6255932,3a,25.6y,300.95h,87.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUuLweiy6kTSmb20dIlzh_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) installed. There were huge signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9258945,-76.625215,3a,15y,356.58h,90.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sr-PngXHZaTybBbL9T5jSQA!2e0!5s20160101T000000!7i13312!8i6656) installed for the lower priority side of Half Acre Rd too, but they appear to have been removed. The other direction of Half Acre Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9258813,-76.6253208,3a,15y,157.93h,93.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soWhL7YYb3vv3-gCMF_0dJg!2e0!5s20160101T000000!7i13312!8i6656) had large signs too, but those have been replaced with more reasonably sized ones (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9253305,-76.625137,3a,15.3y,33.78h,91.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saeTpu6komwGU8c4K2UlcGA!2e0!5s20160101T000000!7i13312!8i6656).
Here are the 36x36 Interstate reassurance shields that were post mounted that I have my back yard:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48331989426_e9ec4fd5b8_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gCW5Aw)IMG_4375 (https://flic.kr/p/2gCW5Aw) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48331988676_bfa4ac1fdd_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gCW5nA)IMG_4376 (https://flic.kr/p/2gCW5nA) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
I also have some oversized California State highway shields that were post mounted as well (CA 180 and CA 210) along with a County Route Marker:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48332116452_41f4f23c66_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gCWJmC)IMG_4387 (https://flic.kr/p/2gCWJmC) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48332114777_401b497d37_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gCWHRK)IMG_4389 (https://flic.kr/p/2gCWHRK) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Ginormous US-211 shields on junction assemblies on Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park:
(https://i.imgur.com/QN39kFe.jpg)
Not as large as its granddad, but still larger than normal.
US 23 @ Oh 37 in Delaware.
https://goo.gl/maps/BGmNKVT68vcpFi5FA
Quote from: kurumi on July 20, 2019, 01:31:29 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8374/8598682037_f712834b52_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/e6QuAz)
"Your momma is, in fact, smaller than this sign. (But not by much.)"
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 20, 2019, 04:30:21 PM
SC 61/165 outside Summerville - https://goo.gl/maps/vpEmA7MZZ1mhPYsg8
VA 280 and SR 928 outside Harrisonburg - https://goo.gl/maps/kzcx4zVFD4iRjum59
Quote from: bob7374 on July 20, 2019, 04:53:15 PM
Here's the Junction I-840 sign along US 220/Battleground Avenue in Greensboro:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi840str418x.JPG&hash=efbf4a89fb51502f01c119f43474229a9f44a1fd)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 21, 2019, 10:15:01 AM
Ginormous US-211 shields on junction assemblies on Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park:
(https://i.imgur.com/QN39kFe.jpg)
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 23, 2019, 10:17:38 PM
Not as large as its granddad, but still larger than normal.
US 23 @ Oh 37 in Delaware.
https://goo.gl/maps/BGmNKVT68vcpFi5FA
None of the above examples are reassurance signs.
Reassurance signs are when you are already on a route, confirming the direction and route number. The above examples are junction signs, and depending on the importance of the junction larger is often better!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2019, 07:56:28 AM
None of the above examples are reassurance signs.
Reassurance signs are when you are already on a route, confirming the direction and route number. The above examples are junction signs, and depending on the importance of the junction larger is often better!
Personally, I would reworded the thread title to include trailblazer signs as well as junction signs. If one just said
signs; many would've thought & posted oversized BGS examples.
To be fair, some of the prior reply/postings
did include some oversized reassurance signs; Revive 755's example of the I-495 assembly in MA being one of them.
At least that one is for a freeway; MA has installed similar oversized reassurance markers on smaller roads as well. MA 114 along Lafayette St. in Marblehead (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4932512,-70.8829252,3a,75y,300.46h,84.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smRcZnmYvEiOMeF-401ty8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
This oversized shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5282689,-70.903054,3a,75y,319.35h,76.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKwRnCRv9jRJG6mV8RYbT7w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for this trailblazer assembly for MA 114 along North St. in Salem is even worse size-wise. Overkill IMHO. Making that assembly look even more ridiculous is that it only uses one-post.
Ever just say "screw it" and put reassurance markers on a Traffic sign?
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0464764,-79.7613594,3a,34.3y,112.17h,89.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQvnTl9vOd0gB97dzEKQpVg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Kulerage on July 24, 2019, 09:01:58 PM
Ever just say "screw it" and put reassurance markers on a Traffic sign?
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0464764,-79.7613594,3a,34.3y,112.17h,89.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQvnTl9vOd0gB97dzEKQpVg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That's NHDOT's standard way of doing it.
Hoover had a few of these, though they may be gone by now:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4622/39657149131_ff7900f236_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23qnfNx)
South of Melrose, Florida:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5599/29780681034_79e3b4d96c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MnBLVQ)
Max, I would seriously pay admission to tour your house. You've got a veritable sign museum going on.
Quote from: J3ebrules on July 25, 2019, 12:25:18 AM
Max, I would seriously pay admission to tour your house. You've got a veritable sign museum going on.
I still have a 36x36 US 13 BGS shield that needs to up. I'll probably have an update for the sign garden once I get enough pallets to fill up the length of the dog run.
Quote from: Kulerage on July 24, 2019, 09:01:58 PM
Ever just say "screw it" and put reassurance markers on a Traffic sign?
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0464764,-79.7613594,3a,34.3y,112.17h,89.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQvnTl9vOd0gB97dzEKQpVg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That seems to be North Carolina's way of doing it now.
Though they did put an I-87 / US-64 / US-264 reassurance marker in a traditional layout up last month outside of Raleigh. But then there's other ones that are on the traffic sign layout with all three of them in a row.
Quote from: formulanone on July 24, 2019, 09:40:07 PMSouth of Melrose, Florida:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5599/29780681034_79e3b4d96c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MnBLVQ)
First time I've seen Series F numerals used on a County Route shield.
Quote from: Kulerage on July 24, 2019, 09:01:58 PM
Ever just say "screw it" and put reassurance markers on a Traffic sign?
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0464764,-79.7613594,3a,34.3y,112.17h,89.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQvnTl9vOd0gB97dzEKQpVg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Not an uncommon practice in many states - makes for a easier and cleaner install than having to deal with multi-piece assemblies.
Quote from: 1 on July 24, 2019, 09:06:25 PM
Quote from: Kulerage on July 24, 2019, 09:01:58 PM
Ever just say "screw it" and put reassurance markers on a Traffic sign?
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0464764,-79.7613594,3a,34.3y,112.17h,89.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQvnTl9vOd0gB97dzEKQpVg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That's NHDOT's standard way of doing it.
Sadly they're starting to move away from it on new sign installs.
After thinking more about specifically reassurance shields, I remembered this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1055994,-75.9682945,3a,75y,227.42h,85.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL_hdFA1s0pJ_XfaN1okUSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on NY 201. It's pretty big, even for a freeway.
Quote from: Michael on July 26, 2019, 10:00:33 PM
After thinking more about specifically reassurance shields, I remembered this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1055994,-75.9682945,3a,75y,227.42h,85.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL_hdFA1s0pJ_XfaN1okUSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on NY 201. It's pretty big, even for a freeway.
That is not new if your from NJ, many places (especially circles) have large ones.
The odd ones are in Michigan on US 127 and US 10. The 127 shield is large while the 10 shield is small where both routes overlap, however someone on here said all MI freeway concurrencies have one large and one small to show which route is the dominating highway designation and which is along for the ride. US 127 in Mount Pleasant is the main route while US 10 is the guest so to speak so it gets a regular sized shield while the primary 127 gets a large one.
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.3925004,-98.3894068,3a,37.5y,209.07h,84.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy9Fh-JowEjO5_rSjvMHVTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I-410 / TX-130 in San Antonio.
The I-410 shield is rather large compared to the small TX-130 shield.
Massachusetts was the state that popped into my head as soon as I read the title of this thread lol
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 29, 2019, 04:48:41 PM
Massachusetts was the state that popped into my head as soon as I read the title of this thread lol
Massachusetts' misaligned banners tick me off. If the assembly is going to look like Lennie, least put the damn hat in the right place.
Quote from: formulanone on July 30, 2019, 07:08:00 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 29, 2019, 04:48:41 PM
Massachusetts was the state that popped into my head as soon as I read the title of this thread lol
Massachusetts' misaligned banners tick me off. If the assembly is going to look like Lennie, least put the damn hat in the right place.
While I'm certainly not condoning MassHighway/MassDOT's practice of such; they're not the only ones. I've seen some I-95 shields in Delaware and a handful of NJ 24 shields that feature misaligned (giving an appearance of left/right-justified) banners.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2019, 10:13:30 AM
Quote from: formulanone on July 30, 2019, 07:08:00 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 29, 2019, 04:48:41 PM
Massachusetts was the state that popped into my head as soon as I read the title of this thread lol
Massachusetts' misaligned banners tick me off. If the assembly is going to look like Lennie, least put the damn hat in the right place.
While I'm certainly not condoning MassHighway/MassDOT's practice of such; they're not the only ones. I've seen some I-95 shields in Delaware and a handful of NJ 24 shields that feature misaligned (giving an appearance of left/right-justified) banners.
As larger shields are mounted on twin telescopic or U-channel posts (P5 post in MassDOT parlance), the banner is mounted to the left post to maintain the breakaway capabilities of the posts. Centering the banner above the shield would require a bracket connecting the two posts together, which would defeat the breakaway feature of the twin post assembly. As I've noted in other threads, on recent signing projects MassDOT has been transitioning from twin P5 posts to single steel beam posts for larger assemblies on Interstate and freeway mainlines.
Quote from: roadman on July 31, 2019, 01:25:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2019, 10:13:30 AM
Quote from: formulanone on July 30, 2019, 07:08:00 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 29, 2019, 04:48:41 PM
Massachusetts was the state that popped into my head as soon as I read the title of this thread lol
Massachusetts' misaligned banners tick me off. If the assembly is going to look like Lennie, least put the damn hat in the right place.
While I'm certainly not condoning MassHighway/MassDOT's practice of such; they're not the only ones. I've seen some I-95 shields in Delaware and a handful of NJ 24 shields that feature misaligned (giving an appearance of left/right-justified) banners.
As larger shields are mounted on twin telescopic or U-channel posts (P5 post in MassDOT parlance), the banner is mounted to the left post to maintain the breakaway capabilities of the posts. Centering the banner above the shield would require a bracket connecting the two posts together, which would defeat the breakaway feature of the twin post assembly. As I've noted in other threads, on recent signing projects MassDOT has been transitioning from twin P5 posts t0 steel beam posts for larger assemblies on Interstate and freeway mainlines.
Makes more sense, hearing it that way.
Quote from: roadman on July 31, 2019, 01:25:34 PM
As larger shields are mounted on twin telescopic or U-channel posts (P5 post in MassDOT parlance), the banner is mounted to the left post to maintain the breakaway capabilities of the posts. Centering the banner above the shield would require a bracket connecting the two posts together, which would defeat the breakaway feature of the twin post assembly.
MnDOT installs double-posted signs with connecting posts all the time. Here's a classic example (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7520171,-93.2857803,3a,18.7y,132.72h,88.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBJ-0hosrwcpMqPbolbs_ig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) using one large shield, or another example (https://i.imgur.com/jmANDoC.jpg) using three smaller shields plus banners and arrows. Are you saying that these are not effective breakaway posts?
Was reminded of this oversized Ohio shield, south of Columbus, Along US 23, yesterday.
https://goo.gl/maps/HVUcgToWLUB5cXUQ6
https://goo.gl/maps/U3mZWFvLfsjBu6f47
Wow that dwarfs the green guide sign in photo one.
Neither one is a reassurance sign.
Not so ridiculous, but for FDOT it can be. At least use a directional header that matches.
https://goo.gl/maps/9HgWndK8EE3jkAYH8
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 31, 2019, 06:00:15 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 31, 2019, 01:25:34 PM
As larger shields are mounted on twin telescopic or U-channel posts (P5 post in MassDOT parlance), the banner is mounted to the left post to maintain the breakaway capabilities of the posts. Centering the banner above the shield would require a bracket connecting the two posts together, which would defeat the breakaway feature of the twin post assembly.
MnDOT installs double-posted signs with connecting posts all the time. Here's a classic example (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7520171,-93.2857803,3a,18.7y,132.72h,88.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBJ-0hosrwcpMqPbolbs_ig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) using one large shield, or another example (https://i.imgur.com/jmANDoC.jpg) using three smaller shields plus banners and arrows. Are you saying that these are not effective breakaway posts?
Correct. In a dual post breakaway assembly, the posts are designed to work independently of each other when struck. For a sign that is mounted just off the shoulder, it is just as likely that an errant vehicle will strike only the left post than hitting both of them. Because of this, the connecting piece between the posts will create resistance to the posts, and they will not break away as designed. This increases the potential for either of the posts or the connecting piece piercing the vehicle. As for the 'brace' in your first photo, that would easily penetrate a car's windshield if the sign were struck.
I seriously doubt that either of the assemblies you posted (sorry for the pun) would be considered acceptable under either NCHRP 350 or MASH (Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware) standards.
Quote from: roadman on August 01, 2019, 11:10:30 AM
I seriously doubt that either of the assemblies you posted (sorry for the pun) would be considered acceptable under either NCHRP 350 or MASH (Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware) standards.
You might want to alert MnDOT to that, then. They've been installing signs like that for years.
Quote from: Michael on July 26, 2019, 10:00:33 PM
After thinking more about specifically reassurance shields, I remembered this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1055994,-75.9682945,3a,75y,227.42h,85.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL_hdFA1s0pJ_XfaN1okUSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on NY 201. It's pretty big, even for a freeway.
Yeah, that one is massive. I remember being almost shocked by it when they first installed it.
NYSDOT Region 9 must have went through a period where they loved these giant signs. There are a few along NY 434, such as this one (https://goo.gl/maps/6khet8gUGwidt27cA). If my memory serves me, these were installed in the mid-2000s (as was the giant NY 201 sign, which was installed in 2005 when the flyover was completed).