BGS gantries with extra signs on it

[Mergingtraffic]

One thing that annoys me, is when you have a BGS sign gantry, but the DOT thinks it's not enough, so they'll add an extra sign to the pole that repeats the BGS or they add extra signs to the pole.  It makes it look sloppy.

1) Why do you need an I-278 shield on the pole when the BGS is perfectly clear to motorists?



2) Look at all the extra signs on this pole.

[renegade]

They've got to put them someplace ...

[kphoger]

They've got to put them someplace ...

Kansas puts them on a separate post.

example

[hotdogPi]

They've got to put them someplace ...

Kansas puts them on a separate post.

example

KDOT needs to read the forum rules:

Avoid posting multiple times in a row. Posts may be edited by the original author at any time. Multiple posts may be merged into one by the moderators at their discretion.

[Scott5114]

They've got to put them someplace ...

Kansas puts them on a separate post.

example

I've seen them post them on the gantry legs in Johnson County. Must be KDOT regional practice.

I've always liked the practice, though, because it means that only the most important routes are on the BGSes, keeping them clutter-free, while the less important concurrent routes are still signed, on the off-chance you're following one of them.

[shadyjay]

On viaducts such as I-278 (and FDR and, well, many of the limited access' of NYC), you don't have any room for auxillary signs to have their own post, so its easier to just strap it to an existing BGS gantry post.  But that I-278 shield seems quite redundant.  If anything, I'd put it on the left post of the gantry, since the right lane is exit only.  Or, use it to replace the one in the BGS itself.  But that would be blasphemy!

[D-Dey65]

Sometimes this practice can be useful. Every now and then I've thought of instances where gantry legs could be used for additional signs. None of which I can think of at the moment, but there are instances where I thought it'd be a good idea.

[JoePCool14]

Gonna be honest... I'm kind of shocked this is even a thread. IDOT (D1 at least) loves using gantries to add signs to the side. Usually they're speed limit signs, ramp speed signs, lane use restrictions, etc.

In fact as a side note, IDOT just loves using whatever kind of poles they can for their signs. I've noticed they've been using utility poles to mount signs on more frequently as of late, and wow it is incredibly tacky.  Doesn't matter if the post is too far from the roadway, at a massive slant, or covered in vegetation. They'll use it.

I'm sorry to go on another IDOT rant, I just can't stand their practices at least in the field.

[SkyPesos]

To me, it looks like the top right sign on example 2 will fall off in the next few minutes.

[vdeane]

Around Rochester on NY 590, there are a couple locations with random NY 104 east sheilds on them.  The reason is because of a bridge inspection several years ago that revealed issues with the Irondequoit Bay Bridge, resulting in overweight trucks being banned from it until it could be fixed, and signage was quickly cobbled together.  There were signs next to them that said "No trucks with R permits" for a few months, but the "NY 104 east" signs weren't removed at the same time for some reason, and remain to this day.

Actually, the other location is actually a light pole and looks like a reassurance shield, even though it's not on NY 104.