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

Ridiculously large reassurance signs

Started by CapeCodder, July 19, 2019, 10:42:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Michael

After thinking more about specifically reassurance shields, I remembered this one on NY 201.  It's pretty big, even for a freeway.


roadman65

Quote from: Michael on July 26, 2019, 10:00:33 PM
After thinking more about specifically reassurance shields, I remembered this one 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.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

sprjus4


paulthemapguy

Massachusetts was the state that popped into my head as soon as I read the title of this thread lol
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com Now featuring all of Ohio!
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 361/425. Only 64 route markers remain

formulanone

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.

PHLBOS

#30
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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

#31
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.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

formulanone

#32
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.

MNHighwayMan

#33
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 using one large shield, or another example using three smaller shields plus banners and arrows. Are you saying that these are not effective breakaway posts?

Hot Rod Hootenanny

Was reminded of this oversized Ohio shield, south of Columbus, Along US 23, yesterday.
https://goo.gl/maps/HVUcgToWLUB5cXUQ6
https://goo.gl/maps/U3mZWFvLfsjBu6f47
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

roadman65

Wow that dwarfs the green guide sign in photo one.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

kphoger

Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

roadman65

Not so ridiculous, but for FDOT it can be.  At least use a directional header that matches.
https://goo.gl/maps/9HgWndK8EE3jkAYH8
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

roadman

#38
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 using one large shield, or another example 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.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

MNHighwayMan

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.

SGwithADD

Quote from: Michael on July 26, 2019, 10:00:33 PM
After thinking more about specifically reassurance shields, I remembered this one 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.  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).



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.