News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Largest wastes of overhead assemblies?

Started by mcdonaat, July 12, 2012, 01:42:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

national highway 1

"Set up road signs; put up guideposts. Take note of the highway, the road that you take." Jeremiah 31:21


thenetwork


ET21

I-294 north at US-14 (The gantry in the background)

The local weatherman, trust me I can be 99.9% right!
"Show where you're going, without forgetting where you're from"

Clinched:
IL: I-88, I-180, I-190, I-290, I-294, I-355, IL-390
IN: I-80, I-94
SD: I-190
WI: I-90, I-94
MI: I-94, I-196
MN: I-90


Ned Weasel

Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 06, 2014, 10:58:57 AM
Huntsville, AL:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.735973,-86.58877&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.735889,-86.588706&panoid=L16SrRWyIb_Fc5H0W84U_w&cbp=12,316.02,,0,2.51
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.736667,-86.589284&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.736582,-86.589234&panoid=QUYUYgi_hA2l8ycIraEOCQ&cbp=12,325.77,,0,-1.29
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.72153,-86.622923&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.72153,-86.622923&panoid=GSEnb3tMit-ebV44Cfy8tw&cbp=12,243.09,,0,-0.53

Would these count?
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.720147,-86.619141&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.720147,-86.619141&panoid=NDL-3Pe2BdnOVG6sx-WCYQ&cbp=12,104.45,,0,3.98
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.72009,-86.591168&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.72009,-86.591168&panoid=1Z_sRsCH4UeQCnpPWmUUpg&cbp=12,249.11,,0,-4.44

The only cases where I would question the efficiency of use of resources are the first two, since the exact same signs could be just as easily supported by two single-support overhead sign structures, in both cases.  But as for the other examples, I wouldn't consider them wasteful at all, because the width among the signs is clearly enough to warrant a double-support overhead sign structure, and the only reason they span as much space as they do is that either there is insufficient space in the median to install a support structure, or there is no median at all.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: stridentweasel on September 06, 2014, 02:10:16 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 06, 2014, 10:58:57 AM
Huntsville, AL:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.735973,-86.58877&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.735889,-86.588706&panoid=L16SrRWyIb_Fc5H0W84U_w&cbp=12,316.02,,0,2.51
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.736667,-86.589284&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.736582,-86.589234&panoid=QUYUYgi_hA2l8ycIraEOCQ&cbp=12,325.77,,0,-1.29
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.72153,-86.622923&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.72153,-86.622923&panoid=GSEnb3tMit-ebV44Cfy8tw&cbp=12,243.09,,0,-0.53

Would these count?
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.720147,-86.619141&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.720147,-86.619141&panoid=NDL-3Pe2BdnOVG6sx-WCYQ&cbp=12,104.45,,0,3.98
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.72009,-86.591168&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.72009,-86.591168&panoid=1Z_sRsCH4UeQCnpPWmUUpg&cbp=12,249.11,,0,-4.44

The only cases where I would question the efficiency of use of resources are the first two, since the exact same signs could be just as easily supported by two single-support overhead sign structures, in both cases.  But as for the other examples, I wouldn't consider them wasteful at all, because the width among the signs is clearly enough to warrant a double-support overhead sign structure, and the only reason they span as much space as they do is that either there is insufficient space in the median to install a support structure, or there is no median at all.

I would think by the time 2 structures are built next to each other for a single sign, you're putting more effort into it than a single structure across the entire road.  Thus, I think the 1st 2 are fine as well.  The only thing that could be added is a pull-thru sign, but other than being a bit unusual due to the left exit, I think they are good.

PurdueBill

Quote from: thenetwork on August 23, 2014, 11:19:31 AM
The I-76/I-77 multiplex through Downtown Akron:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/virtual_freeway_tours/1329335013/in/set-72157601881948299

That sign is now on a full sign bridge that carries a VMS.  The little sign almost gets lost next to the much larger VMS, which is further to the left than it otherwise would be in order to accommodate the little sign needing to be over the #3 lane.

As I recall, that particular sign (installed in the 2002-03 replacement on I-76) never had its lighting turned on.  Seems like a tiny little sign like that would be more important to make conspicuous.

national highway 1

"Set up road signs; put up guideposts. Take note of the highway, the road that you take." Jeremiah 31:21



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.