Span Wire Vs Mast Arm

[PurdueBill]

Probably because of seeing so many in Indiana, where INDOT does span wire setups right (massively overbuilt), I don't mind them.  But in my native Massachusetts, MassDOT and their predecessors (MassHighway and DPW) build flimsier ones in comparison that sag and don't look right when you see photos side by side.  INDOT does massively overbuild span wire setups but it does seem to pay off.  I've seen failed ones in Massachusettts, Ohio, and Delaware, but not Indiana.

It pains me to see places like West Lafayette taking down span wire assemblies left behind by INDOT that had decades of life left in them just because they didn't look good for the streetscape (e.g., Northwestern and Stadium; Northwestern and Lindberg; Grant and Wood; State and River; River and Howard; River and Harrison Bridge offramp just to name a few) to replace them with fancy mast arm assemblies.  Do like South Bend did and paint them.  Coat of black paint on masts and signals and they appear as all new.  A LOT less waste, and could have reused what INDOT left in place free of charge.

[kphoger]

Mast arm.  But I also like stoplights mounted to bridges.

[jakeroot]

Mast arm.  But I also like stoplights mounted to bridges.

Like bridge assemblies (what I would call a gantry), or actual bridges?

[kphoger]

Mast arm.  But I also like stoplights mounted to bridges.

Like bridge assemblies (what I would call a gantry), or actual bridges?

Actual bridges.  Like this.

[jakeroot]

Mast arm.  But I also like stoplights mounted to bridges.

Like bridge assemblies (what I would call a gantry), or actual bridges?

Actual bridges.  Like this.

Ahh, okay. Would something more modern like this count as well? http://bit.ly/2QvZgRE

I'm totally cool with bridge mounting too, as long as it's not too high up.

[DaBigE]

Then we have the mother of all bridge mounts: https://goo.gl/maps/xnU51UXQEcE2 (at least in the state of Wisconsin)

I'm totally cool with bridge mounting too, as long as it's not too high up.

Too high? If the MUTCD is followed, that should not be possible, in theory.

The top of the signal housing of a vehicular signal face located over any portion of a highway that can be used by motor vehicles shall not be more than 25.6 feet above the pavement.

[roadman65]

I like Mast arms but in Florida we use both and some span wires are okay, but dislike the ones where they drape two side by side cables like on US 98 in Lakeland north of I-4 or even in some Orlando set ups.  One span wire can hold up to 30 or more heads over a wide intersection ( I am talking diagonally) but lately two wires holding two directions each are installed around Orlando and Lakeland.

In Tampa and surrounding Hillsborough County, they seem to be using one wire instead of the two (the support cable on top that sags, and the power supply cable that is level) that Florida always had between concrete strain poles and going like New York, but using super fat (5 feet diameter) metal poles which look so gawky to the eyes.  Mast arms are appearing less frequently in the Bay Area despite in the Panhandle and South Florida span wires are getting hard to find.

[jakeroot]

I'm totally cool with bridge mounting too, as long as it's not too high up.

Too high? If the MUTCD is followed, that should not be possible, in theory.

The top of the signal housing of a vehicular signal face located over any portion of a highway that can be used by motor vehicles shall not be more than 25.6 feet above the pavement.

I would personally consider 25.6 feet to be too high up, even if set back. If they lowered the signals from the bridge and/or added some pole-mounted signals (to reduce neck craning), that would make it better.

Then we have the mother of all bridge mounts: https://goo.gl/maps/xnU51UXQEcE2 (at least in the state of Wisconsin)

Holy shit, that's gotta be a record! The record holder in WA is probably this junction in Bellevue, where a measly 18 signals are attached to the bridge in some manner, but it's dwarfed by the number in your Wisconsin example. There's so many, I keep losing count! In no part thanks to Wisconsin's usually excellent signal placement requirements.

[roadman65]

Speaking of signals attached to bridges, I noticed NJ most signals that are around overpasses seem to have those needed placement under the structures to be on side mount pedestal poles.

Even NJ with their first SPUI intersection in East Windsor, NJDOT or the NJTA opted to not attach them to the bridge but to place them on poles next to or the horizontal mount arms under the structure. I guess NJDOT has an issue with that or just never thought of.

[DaBigE]

Then we have the mother of all bridge mounts: https://goo.gl/maps/xnU51UXQEcE2 (at least in the state of Wisconsin)

Holy shit, that's gotta be a record! The record holder in WA is probably this junction in Bellevue, where a measly 18 signals are attached to the bridge in some manner, but it's dwarfed by the number in your Wisconsin example. There's so many, I keep losing count! In no part thanks to Wisconsin's usually excellent signal placement requirements.

If I counted the plans correctly, there are 24 attached in some fashion to the bridge structure (vertically in the web, horizontally from the flange, or suspended vertically from the web, but below the flange).

[jakeroot]

Then we have the mother of all bridge mounts: https://goo.gl/maps/xnU51UXQEcE2 (at least in the state of Wisconsin)

Holy shit, that's gotta be a record! The record holder in WA is probably this junction in Bellevue, where a measly 18 signals are attached to the bridge in some manner, but it's dwarfed by the number in your Wisconsin example. There's so many, I keep losing count! In no part thanks to Wisconsin's usually excellent signal placement requirements.

If I counted the plans correctly, there are 24 attached in some fashion to the bridge structure (vertically in the web, horizontally from the flange, or suspended vertically from the web, but below the flange).

I think a SPUI's tight right-of-way seems to necessitate bridge placement. Armed with this knowledge, I scoured other SPUIs in WA that might have a few. I found one with a slightly-more-impressive 22 in Vancouver. I can't think of any other situation that would require such a high number of signals beneath a bridge.

Speaking of signals attached to bridges, I noticed NJ most signals that are around overpasses seem to have those needed placement under the structures to be on side mount pedestal poles.

Even NJ with their first SPUI intersection in East Windsor, NJDOT or the NJTA opted to not attach them to the bridge but to place them on poles next to or the horizontal mount arms under the structure. I guess NJDOT has an issue with that or just never thought of.

I went on street view to check out that SPUI. NJ, as usually, has the best signal placement of any northeastern state. I quite like what they did, and appreciate them trying to keep the signals closer to eye level, something that's harder to do with bridge placement unless they are dropped down in some way.

[paulthemapguy]

Then we have the mother of all bridge mounts: https://goo.gl/maps/xnU51UXQEcE2 (at least in the state of Wisconsin)

Holy shit, that's gotta be a record! The record holder in WA is probably this junction in Bellevue, where a measly 18 signals are attached to the bridge in some manner, but it's dwarfed by the number in your Wisconsin example. There's so many, I keep losing count! In no part thanks to Wisconsin's usually excellent signal placement requirements.

I would guess that the record holder in this regard would be somewhere along an Interstate in Texas, but I'm not gonna do any extensive research to back up that guess 

[Henry]

Mast arms for me (although lamppost-mounted signals are even cooler!)

[DaBigE]

Mast arms for me (although lamppost-mounted signals are even cooler!)

Are we talking one mounted to a light pole via a monotube or mast arm, or directly on the light pole support itself? Got the best of both here in one intersection.

[mroad860]

Depends on the situation. Span wire seems more appropriate for any rural area or rural village area where other utility wires are on poles. Some states do it right (NY, CT, FL) where they make the signals look neatly mounted and balanced.

Mast arms (thinner, shorter) look better for an area that has all of its utilities buried underground. NYC, NJ, CA

I'm not a fan of the thicker mast arms. They almost appear toy-like in appearance. They look more appropriate for a shopping area full of big box stores

Ground pedestal or light pole mounted signals looks best (used to be more common in Mass). Aside from overhead visibility issues. Some places (like Ireland) only use overhead signals when needed but most are on ground pedestals which have a neat appearance and there seems to be little visibility issue

[Amtrakprod]

I'm totally cool with bridge mounting too, as long as it's not too high up.

Too high? If the MUTCD is followed, that should not be possible, in theory.

The top of the signal housing of a vehicular signal face located over any portion of a highway that can be used by motor vehicles shall not be more than 25.6 feet above the pavement.

I would personally consider 25.6 feet to be too high up, even if set back. If they lowered the signals from the bridge and/or added some pole-mounted signals (to reduce neck craning), that would make it better.

For some reason Belmont has way too high cantilevers to a point that I think it is dangerous: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3762972,-71.1588352,3a,60y,116.94h,91.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFW9EjgwtIInOFR0gLGCtFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[jakeroot]

I'm totally cool with bridge mounting too, as long as it's not too high up.

Too high? If the MUTCD is followed, that should not be possible, in theory.

The top of the signal housing of a vehicular signal face located over any portion of a highway that can be used by motor vehicles shall not be more than 25.6 feet above the pavement.

I would personally consider 25.6 feet to be too high up, even if set back. If they lowered the signals from the bridge and/or added some pole-mounted signals (to reduce neck craning), that would make it better.

For some reason Belmont has way too high cantilevers to a point that I think it is dangerous: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3762972,-71.1588352,3a,60y,116.94h,91.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFW9EjgwtIInOFR0gLGCtFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

They may be within legal height (barely -- too high IMO) but I wouldn't think those were within the "cone of vision".

[Henry]

Mast arms for me (although lamppost-mounted signals are even cooler!)

Are we talking one mounted to a light pole via a monotube or mast arm, or directly on the light pole support itself? Got the best of both here in one intersection.

I was thinking more like these examples in Washington, DC, where the signals are mounted directly on top of the pole.

[Amtrakprod]

I'm totally cool with bridge mounting too, as long as it's not too high up.

Too high? If the MUTCD is followed, that should not be possible, in theory.

The top of the signal housing of a vehicular signal face located over any portion of a highway that can be used by motor vehicles shall not be more than 25.6 feet above the pavement.

I would personally consider 25.6 feet to be too high up, even if set back. If they lowered the signals from the bridge and/or added some pole-mounted signals (to reduce neck craning), that would make it better.

For some reason Belmont has way too high cantilevers to a point that I think it is dangerous: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3762972,-71.1588352,3a,60y,116.94h,91.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFW9EjgwtIInOFR0gLGCtFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

They may be within legal height (barely -- too high IMO) but I wouldn't think those were within the "cone of vision".

Yeah, when I was at the stop line I couldn't see the signals and had to reverse


iPhone

[jakeroot]

Mast arms for me (although lamppost-mounted signals are even cooler!)

Are we talking one mounted to a light pole via a monotube or mast arm, or directly on the light pole support itself? Got the best of both here in one intersection.

I was thinking more like these examples in Washington, DC, where the signals are mounted directly on top of the pole.

Those are just "poles" or "pedestals", not really lamp-posts. The only time you really see true "lamp + signals" in DC is on some of the newer "short arm" mast arm installs, like this. I'm not sure I've seen lamps positioned above post-only signals in DC, like in WI example above.

Yeah, when I was at the stop line I couldn't see the signals and had to reverse

Did you stop at the stop line?

[Amtrakprod]

Mast arms for me (although lamppost-mounted signals are even cooler!)

Are we talking one mounted to a light pole via a monotube or mast arm, or directly on the light pole support itself? Got the best of both here in one intersection.

I was thinking more like these examples in Washington, DC, where the signals are mounted directly on top of the pole.

Those are just "poles" or "pedestals", not really lamp-posts. The only time you really see true "lamp + signals" in DC is on some of the newer "short arm" mast arm installs, like this. I'm not sure I've seen lamps positioned above post-only signals in DC, like in WI example above.

Yeah, when I was at the stop line I couldn't see the signals and had to reverse

Did you stop at the stop line?

Yes, it's way too high, I had to put my head out the window.

[jakeroot]

Yeah, when I was at the stop line I couldn't see the signals and had to reverse

Did you stop at the stop line?

Yes, it's way too high, I had to put my head out the window.

Geez. Sounds like someone didn't do any cone of vision study.

[Amtrakprod]

Yeah, when I was at the stop line I couldn't see the signals and had to reverse

Did you stop at the stop line?

Yes, it's way too high, I had to put my head out the window.

Geez. Sounds like someone didn't do any cone of vision study.

Yeah, maybe has to do with electric bus lines

[roadfro]

Yeah, when I was at the stop line I couldn't see the signals and had to reverse

Did you stop at the stop line?

Yes, it's way too high, I had to put my head out the window.

Geez. Sounds like someone didn't do any cone of vision study.

Per MUTCD Section 4D.15 and figure 4D-5, the top of a signal head 40 feet from the stop line can be as high as 21 feet off the ground, ranging up to 25.6 feet high for a signal head 53 feet or more from the stop line.

[jakeroot]

Yeah, when I was at the stop line I couldn't see the signals and had to reverse

Did you stop at the stop line?

Yes, it's way too high, I had to put my head out the window.

Geez. Sounds like someone didn't do any cone of vision study.

Per MUTCD Section 4D.15 and figure 4D-5, the top of a signal head 40 feet from the stop line can be as high as 21 feet off the ground, ranging up to 25.6 feet high for a signal head 53 feet or more from the stop line.

Thanks, I did not know the rules were that liberal; they should really be looked at again. I don't really mind signals that far overhead, as there can be numerous physical restrictions (trolley wire, perhaps), but at least use some signals on poles so that they aren't the only thing to look at.