Noticing on a few freeway expansion projects that were cancelled that the overhead assemblies remain, even if it's spanning four lanes, and it has one tiny sign on it. Examples below:
New Orleans - you can only exit, since no expressway continues straight. http://goo.gl/maps/N3xl
Shreveport - can't see because of the sunlight, but its spanning the width of three lanes. All it says is 220 West By-Pass. http://goo.gl/maps/fPDl
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.okhighways.com%2F041103%2Fus77sgantry.JPG&hash=f58fa7ce559c4f31a67fe31dbe92335e6d17c482)
(Photo courtesy Eric Stuve/okroads)
Apparently this once carried a single Lane Ends sign, but it was later made inapplicable and taken down. So... there's just a pointless gantry.
That's a very nice jungle gym!
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 12, 2012, 01:42:03 AM
Noticing on a few freeway expansion projects that were cancelled that the overhead assemblies remain, even if it's spanning four lanes, and it has one tiny sign on it. Examples below:
New Orleans - you can only exit, since no expressway continues straight. http://goo.gl/maps/N3xl
Shreveport - can't see because of the sunlight, but its spanning the width of three lanes. All it says is 220 West By-Pass. http://goo.gl/maps/fPDl
Both of these are probably in place to accomodate the signing needs of future roadway widening or extension.
The first example in particular shows the potential for continuing the through lanes, in which case more overhead signs will be necessary. It made sense to construct the full truss at this time to avoid removing median barrier rail to install the truss footings in the future.
This sign bridge on I-77 NB used to have a pull-through and the exit sign (http://goo.gl/maps/lrNr), but then the signs were replaced. (Insert rant about previous signs being 2003 installs with reflective lettering that were replaced solely because they had underlighting components which could have been removed/turned off but they went to the trouble and expense of completely replacing the signs after only 3 years.) The pull-through was not replaced, and the exit sign was replaced with an identically small sign that looks weird on that sign bridge all alone.
CA has some entirely blank green signs. one I can think of offhand is on I-5 southbound in Orange County, in the median. ostensibly, it once listed distances to places like Oceanside and San Diego - or the next three exits.
I never really thought this sign needed its own full length overhead gantry. I think a cantilever design would work just fine.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5026%2F5582743673_1439a09cc0_z.jpg&hash=94b617a2288bcef82373c58fb3277412c2495a26)
Then there is this (http://goo.gl/maps/dgkJ) gantry on I-476 (for the likes of me, I have no photo offhand). Exits 9, 13, and 16 all have gantries like this with one single sign.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 12, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
I never really thought this sign needed its own full length overhead gantry. I think a cantilever design would work just fine.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5026%2F5582743673_1439a09cc0_z.jpg&hash=94b617a2288bcef82373c58fb3277412c2495a26)
Then there is this (http://goo.gl/maps/dgkJ) gantry on I-476 (for the likes of me, I have no photo offhand). Exits 9, 13, and 16 all have gantries like this with one single sign.
What is the purpose of the grated panels on gantries like this? I believe I have seen some photos of signs in WV with similar grating.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 12, 2012, 11:20:53 AM
What is the purpose of the grated panels on gantries like this? I believe I have seen some photos of signs in WV with similar grating.
PennDOT probably just wanted to glorify the look of the highway. Both I-95 and I-676 through Center City Philadelphia have these gantries.
Those tubular gantries that ODOT is now using. They're ugly and look too big.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 12, 2012, 10:42:25 AM
CA has some entirely blank green signs. one I can think of offhand is on I-5 southbound in Orange County, in the median. ostensibly, it once listed distances to places like Oceanside and San Diego - or the next three exits.
CA 134 in Pasadena had a couple of blank green signs, but about 10 years ago, a "Colorado Blvd/Orange Grove Blvd" sign was pasted over one of the blank signs. The other one is right at the Orange Grove overpass. I guess they're saving them for the 710 extension...
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Warrendale,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.667586,-80.094538&spn=0.02054,0.045447&sll=41.349849,-79.710059&sspn=0.020328,0.045447&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Warrendale,+Marshall,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.665676,-80.09426&panoid=P4HNIb9Rrri54fNOWe9XFQ&cbp=12,322.27,,0,-3.91 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Warrendale,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.667586,-80.094538&spn=0.02054,0.045447&sll=41.349849,-79.710059&sspn=0.020328,0.045447&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Warrendale,+Marshall,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.665676,-80.09426&panoid=P4HNIb9Rrri54fNOWe9XFQ&cbp=12,322.27,,0,-3.91)
NB I-79 to NB US-19 ramp in Cranberry area....
Apparently there was supposed to be a spur ramp across US-19 to an industrial park... it never came to be but this remains.
The sign itself is kind of a waste, because you are already well on the ramp, and you have no choice to make the movement that sign indicates.
Also, I'm gonna throw out an honorable mention to this one on the Parkway East....
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Warrendale,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.442211,-79.816017&spn=0.02074,0.045447&sll=41.349849,-79.710059&sspn=0.020328,0.045447&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Warrendale,+Marshall,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.44221,-79.824224&panoid=Lm2xtqaWZurmEOhKB0Z9kg&cbp=12,258.75,,0,-4.81 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Warrendale,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.442211,-79.816017&spn=0.02074,0.045447&sll=41.349849,-79.710059&sspn=0.020328,0.045447&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Warrendale,+Marshall,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.44221,-79.824224&panoid=Lm2xtqaWZurmEOhKB0Z9kg&cbp=12,258.75,,0,-4.81)
There are now VMS's using it (not pictured in the GSV image is one since added in the Eastbound direction), so it's not longer overkill... But for decades only the sign for the exit used the structure.
It's an Exit Only sign, that needs to be over the left lane. But this is one of the few stretches of parkway where the median is wide enough they could've probably had a post(s) there for a much smaller structure.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 12, 2012, 11:20:53 AM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 12, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
I never really thought this sign needed its own full length overhead gantry. I think a cantilever design would work just fine.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5026%2F5582743673_1439a09cc0_z.jpg&hash=94b617a2288bcef82373c58fb3277412c2495a26)
Then there is this (http://goo.gl/maps/dgkJ) gantry on I-476 (for the likes of me, I have no photo offhand). Exits 9, 13, and 16 all have gantries like this with one single sign.
What is the purpose of the grated panels on gantries like this? I believe I have seen some photos of signs in WV with similar grating.
It appears to me that the grating is being used as a "sub-panel" to attach the sign to the support. And I suspect PennDOT used a full span instead of a cantilever due to the contraints at this location, which would likely preclude installing the larger diameter upright a traditional cantilever would need.
At least in this case the full span is reasonably proportioned to the sign panel on it. On the Big Dig in Boston, nearly all the OH supports are these massive monotube structures that were painted off-purple.
I recall a bunch of gantries like the PA one shown with the mesh behind the signs down in WV, I believe in/around Charleston, but the mesh was removed when the old button copy signs were replaced a few years ago. It made me wonder if the mesh was simply like a glare blocker around the signs....if it was somehow structural, they wouldn't have removed it when installing like-sized new signs.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 12, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
I never really thought this sign needed its own full length overhead gantry. I think a cantilever design would work just fine.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5026%2F5582743673_1439a09cc0_z.jpg&hash=94b617a2288bcef82373c58fb3277412c2495a26)
That sign structure was erected circa 1991 as part of a sign renewal/update along I-95. The reasoning behind using that type of structure (when new it was fully-painted brown) was likely due to: 1. Aesthetics (remember this sign and others like are located near Center City) and 2. As Roadman stated, limited space for posts.
While cantilever sign structures do exist for that style; it's usually used for smaller/lower height BGS'. PennDOT may have thought that that particular BGS was too tall for a cantilever gantry in that style.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 12, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
Then there is this (http://goo.gl/maps/dgkJ) gantry on I-476 (for the likes of me, I have no photo offhand). Exits 9, 13, and 16 all have gantries like this with one single sign.
If memory serves, those structures were selected in anticipation of future VMS boards being mounted on them as well. Obviously, those plans have long since changed since there are independent VMS sign structures mounted all over I-476.
Speaking of I-476; within the past year, the old overhead truss gantry near Exit 16B (for I-76 west) that once originally held button-copy BGS for both the exit and a pull-through sign that had
Allentown as a control city for I-476 North prior to the road south of there even opening, is now completely bare. The BGS for I-76 West that was there since 476 south of 76 opened in Dec. '91 was taken down about a year ago when PennDOT placed cattle-shutes along I-476 during the Schuylkill River Bridge construction project. The new BGS for the exit is now mounted on a separate cantilever gantry
just prior to the underpass and just after Exit 16A (for I-76 East/PA 23).
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 12, 2012, 11:20:53 AMWhat is the purpose of the grated panels on gantries like this? I believe I have seen some photos of signs in WV with similar grating.
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 12, 2012, 04:44:08 PMIt made me wonder if the mesh was simply like a glare blocker around the signs.
Correct, The mesh mounting behind the signs are indeed intended to be glare blockers.
IIRC, signs along I-95 near the Fort McHenry Tunnel also sport similar-styled sign gantries.
When MassHighway purged the use of pull-through signs in the 90s in many of its sign replacement projects, many older sign gantries that once held 2 BGS', now hold just one. The gantry along I-95 South at the MA 133 (Exit 54) is an example of that. The gantry was originally erected as part of the 1974 widening project and featured the exit sign and a pull-through sign that read "
95 SOUTH - Danvers - Boston". When MassHighway replaced the BGS' during the 90s, the exit BGS (for MA 133) was replaced but the pull-through sign was taken down.
Along NJ 24 Westbound, I believe there's still an an empty overhead sign gantry that once held a blank BGS panel for the longest time. The BGS was taken down years ago. While the BGS was obviously intended for a future interchange, I'm not sure if that intercahnge was for an existing road that crossed but didn't connect or for a future highway that never came to be.
All of them in Wichita and Oklahoma City. :rolleyes:
These things could survive a direct nuclear blast.
http://goo.gl/maps/cEJb (http://goo.gl/maps/cEJb)
http://goo.gl/maps/IodK (http://goo.gl/maps/IodK)
Honorable mention goes to central Texas:
http://goo.gl/maps/hLwT (http://goo.gl/maps/hLwT) (both sides say the same thing)
http://goo.gl/maps/N0dL (http://goo.gl/maps/N0dL) (same deal)
I could swear I've seen some with nothing but a speed limit sign on a mini-BGS, but I can't find any on Google Maps right now.
Not quite as egregious as some of the other examples here, but a couple on I-75 near Chattanooga strike me as overkill:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1090.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi370%2Flongestaugust%2F2011%2520Road%2520Trip%2FI-75%2520Tennessee%2FDSCN4547.jpg&hash=51c8841e50fd1ae09ac4d52edbbe686c44b0b6e0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1090.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi370%2Flongestaugust%2F2011%2520Road%2520Trip%2FI-75%2520Tennessee%2FDSCN4548.jpg&hash=57135e7c1b76dc0bb4d628e077456238509d6700)
Quote from: Central Avenue on July 12, 2012, 08:00:38 PM
Not quite as egregious as some of the other examples here, but a couple on I-75 near Chattanooga strike me as overkill:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1090.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi370%2Flongestaugust%2F2011%2520Road%2520Trip%2FI-75%2520Tennessee%2FDSCN4547.jpg&hash=51c8841e50fd1ae09ac4d52edbbe686c44b0b6e0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1090.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi370%2Flongestaugust%2F2011%2520Road%2520Trip%2FI-75%2520Tennessee%2FDSCN4548.jpg&hash=57135e7c1b76dc0bb4d628e077456238509d6700)
Don't you mean by Tuscaloosa? Just kidding :P seems like something better served by a partial overhead or just a rural standalone sign.
I wonder if anyone knows the story behind this empty gantry on I-880 south after the Marina Blvd onramp?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7116%2F7558975858_2f590a744c_c.jpg&hash=f7cc88a5e5c69e1e26159338d0325df7d465479f)
(Unfortunately, the gantry isn't the main focus of the pic, the shield is)
Quote from: Central Avenue on July 12, 2012, 08:00:38 PM
Not quite as egregious as some of the other examples here, but a couple on I-75 near Chattanooga strike me as overkill:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1090.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi370%2Flongestaugust%2F2011%2520Road%2520Trip%2FI-75%2520Tennessee%2FDSCN4547.jpg&hash=51c8841e50fd1ae09ac4d52edbbe686c44b0b6e0)
Didn't we have a thread complaining about excessively long sign cantilevers, particularly in TN, not too long ago?
I don't suppose any of the above cases were bridges instead of cantilevers due to foundation issues - bad soil that would require an excessively deep shaft, utility conflicts, etc.?
Here's one on I-91 South in North Haven, CT - seems like a waste for just a VMS:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=north+haven,+ct&hl=en&ll=41.343699,-72.86903&spn=0.000641,0.00142&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.677964,93.076172&t=k&hnear=North+Haven,+New+Haven,+Connecticut&z=20
And there used to be one on I-95 SB in Groton, CT just after Exit 86. I never remember seeing a single sign on it ever, though it spanned the whole roadway. Not sure what its purpose was.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fnj_24%2Fw5.jpg&hash=6d507bf80150a10a97e36797493cbb9550583ce1) = unbuilt Exit 5 on NJ 24
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fi-80%2Fehov.jpg&hash=ad6bc4139ae1b27a7d5d2259e8921347c4e660d5) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fi-80%2Fhov.jpg&hash=e13f1c13ede0d895e1bbacee67ab164f1461734c) = former HOV lane on I-80
Baltimore had some empty or nearly-so gantries due to canceled freeways; the western end of I-170 had an empty gantry at the end of the never-used lanes, and in the opposite direction there were the famous signs on a gantry over a never-used ramp. Off I-95 NB there was the full gantry with a sign for the default movement to Moravia Rd. and a blank sign to its right that used to advertise the Future Exit (Windlass) that never happened.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 12, 2012, 11:20:53 AM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 12, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
I never really thought this sign needed its own full length overhead gantry. I think a cantilever design would work just fine.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5026%2F5582743673_1439a09cc0_z.jpg&hash=94b617a2288bcef82373c58fb3277412c2495a26)
Then there is this (http://goo.gl/maps/dgkJ) gantry on I-476 (for the likes of me, I have no photo offhand). Exits 9, 13, and 16 all have gantries like this with one single sign.
What is the purpose of the grated panels on gantries like this? I believe I have seen some photos of signs in WV with similar grating.
It's not grating. It's velcro.
One on the 710 stub in Pasadena:
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images710/i-710_nb_exit_034_04.jpg)
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on July 12, 2012, 08:23:59 PM
I wonder if anyone knows the story behind this empty gantry on I-880 south after the Marina Blvd onramp?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7116%2F7558975858_2f590a744c_c.jpg&hash=f7cc88a5e5c69e1e26159338d0325df7d465479f)
(Unfortunately, the gantry isn't the main focus of the pic, the shield is)
I think that gantry was supposed to have a variable message sign. Caltrans typically uses this type of tubular sign support for it's VMSes.
Usually signs like these have a control city (focal point) along with the road name in a white patch. Sign is too small for the cantilever structure. :meh:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ozroads.com.au%2FNSW%2FFreeways%2FF6%2F28.JPG&hash=6fef3222bd8f9524648d3f4ac33687733e312671)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 12, 2012, 10:42:25 AM
CA has some entirely blank green signs. one I can think of offhand is on I-5 southbound in Orange County, in the median. ostensibly, it once listed distances to places like Oceanside and San Diego - or the next three exits.
For years after VDOT reconstructed I-64 through Hampton, VA the northbound pull-through sign at the VA 134 / Magruder Blvd exit was entirely covered with a greenout patch. After being left covered up for no apparent reason for several years, it was replaced... in Clearview.
Quote from: Steve on July 12, 2012, 11:29:29 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fi-80%2Fehov.jpg&hash=ad6bc4139ae1b27a7d5d2259e8921347c4e660d5) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fi-80%2Fhov.jpg&hash=e13f1c13ede0d895e1bbacee67ab164f1461734c) = former HOV lane on I-80
Did I-287 happen to previously have an HOV lane too? I noticed empty gantries over the left lanes for many miles in north Jersey but never really found out a reason (or really bothered researching it). They looked just like those you posted.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 13, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Did I-287 happen to previously have an HOV lane too? I noticed empty gantries over the left lanes for many miles in north Jersey but never really found out a reason (or really bothered researching it). They looked just like those you posted.
Yes they did. The scoop behind them:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/23/nyregion/whitman-says-she-will-end-car-pool-lanes.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Quote from: Alex on July 13, 2012, 01:31:28 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 13, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Did I-287 happen to previously have an HOV lane too? I noticed empty gantries over the left lanes for many miles in north Jersey but never really found out a reason (or really bothered researching it). They looked just like those you posted.
Yes they did. The scoop behind them:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/23/nyregion/whitman-says-she-will-end-car-pool-lanes.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Once again, we see a classic example of the "logic" most of our political leaders demonstrate. "Not enough people are using our HOV lanes. So, instead of building more park and ride lots and other facilities to support carpooling and bus ridership, let's just open the lanes to all traffic."
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2012, 02:51:55 PM
Quote from: Alex on July 13, 2012, 01:31:28 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 13, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Did I-287 happen to previously have an HOV lane too? I noticed empty gantries over the left lanes for many miles in north Jersey but never really found out a reason (or really bothered researching it). They looked just like those you posted.
Yes they did. The scoop behind them:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/23/nyregion/whitman-says-she-will-end-car-pool-lanes.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Once again, we see a classic example of the "logic" most of our political leaders demonstrate. "Not enough people are using our HOV lanes. So, instead of building more park and ride lots and other facilities to support carpooling and bus ridership, let's just open the lanes to all traffic."
The problem came with building HOV lanes in the first place. The problem is there are so many different origins and destinations due to how spread out NJ is that it's really hard to get people going the same direction unless it's to New York.
Quote from: Steve on July 12, 2012, 11:29:29 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fnj_24%2Fw5.jpg&hash=6d507bf80150a10a97e36797493cbb9550583ce1) = unbuilt Exit 5 on NJ 24
I mentioned that one in my earlier post (thanks for posting the photo BTW), but didn't list the Exit number. What was the story behind that once-proposed interchange? Was it for an existing road or a new expressway?
Via InDOT on I-80/94:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2249.jpg&hash=f68415487ae933e85cb80618eaf2360432e2229e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2250.jpg&hash=43a5217cffe89f32accc36154f0416483312ed96)
Would a cantilevered sign work better?
What's more odd is in the background, where you see the sign with 65 SOUTH / 80 WEST / 94 WEST / 6 WEST on the right - possibly making the motorist think he's in the wrong lane, since there's no "pull through" sign over the mainline lanes.
I passed through that area last month and thought it was signed rather poorly and quite confusingly.
Quote from: Steve on July 13, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2012, 02:51:55 PM
Quote from: Alex on July 13, 2012, 01:31:28 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 13, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Did I-287 happen to previously have an HOV lane too? I noticed empty gantries over the left lanes for many miles in north Jersey but never really found out a reason (or really bothered researching it). They looked just like those you posted.
Yes they did. The scoop behind them:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/23/nyregion/whitman-says-she-will-end-car-pool-lanes.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Once again, we see a classic example of the "logic" most of our political leaders demonstrate. "Not enough people are using our HOV lanes. So, instead of building more park and ride lots and other facilities to support carpooling and bus ridership, let's just open the lanes to all traffic."
The problem came with building HOV lanes in the first place. The problem is there are so many different origins and destinations due to how spread out NJ is that it's really hard to get people going the same direction unless it's to New York.
Which only a certain portion of the commute traffic on 80 in particular is headed to, so former Gov. Whitman did it right in this case.
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Sainte-Julie,+QC&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&ll=45.578459,-73.33937&spn=0.004859,0.013078&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=36.811263,107.138672&oq=Sainte-Juli&hnear=Sainte-Julie,+Lajemmerais,+Qu%C3%A9bec&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=45.578459,-73.33937&panoid=gOS16lHW_KK9GHEdPF6ZBg&cbp=12,246.49,,0,-1.62
There are several of those in the Greater Montreal Area.
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on July 15, 2012, 12:59:03 AM
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Sainte-Julie,+QC&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&ll=45.578459,-73.33937&spn=0.004859,0.013078&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=36.811263,107.138672&oq=Sainte-Juli&hnear=Sainte-Julie,+Lajemmerais,+Qu%C3%A9bec&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=45.578459,-73.33937&panoid=gOS16lHW_KK9GHEdPF6ZBg&cbp=12,246.49,,0,-1.62
There are several of those in the Greater Montreal Area.
Does anyone know why?
The Eastbound FL 528 in Orlando, FL has one full length gantry crossing both EB and WB lanes between Exits 2 and 3 just for an EB VMS. They could easily of used a cantilever sign or have it span only the EB lanes.
I-4 EB at FL 528, had two full length gantries going EB that were just replaced with cantilever ones as it only had the exit guide for Exit 72. It never had pull through signs for I-4 EB as the right lane does exit exclusively for FL 528 and it did denote that along with the second lane from the right could also exit, but not exclusive. Instead they chose the simpler method.
Georgia now uses them on I-95 since it is six lanes from both state borders and it allows the exit guide to be centered over all lanes.http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/5171739205/in/photostream
However there are some that GaDOT does not center, but use the full gantry.http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/5172342814/in/photostream
By contrast, at least some of the across-the-road gantries on I-93 northbound through Medford and Somerville MA are coming down, concurrent with a re-signing project. Since MA seems to have lost its enthusiasm for pull-throughs, they've started marking exits with a BGS on a small gantry anchored off the right-shoulder. At Exit 31 northbound (MA16), they actually mounted the small gantry right in front of the large one.
I have a good example, but Google doesn't have Street View of it, and I don't have photos of it (sorry). It's definitely not the biggest waste of a single gantry, but it's a good contender for the title of "most numerous sequence of full gantries with each having only a single sign panel"--the new signs for Exits 202 and 204 on the Kansas Turnpike/I-70. There are five in a row eastbound, and six in a row westbound.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lawrence,+KS&hl=en&ll=38.992096,-95.266367&spn=0.004478,0.010568&sll=38.498779,-98.320078&sspn=4.582223,10.821533&hnear=Lawrence,+Douglas,+Kansas&t=k&z=17
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lawrence,+KS&hl=en&ll=38.994406,-95.216553&spn=0.008956,0.021136&sll=38.498779,-98.320078&sspn=4.582223,10.821533&hnear=Lawrence,+Douglas,+Kansas&t=k&z=16
You might be able to get the idea from satellite view if you zoom and pan. Seriously-- Each of these gantries is for a single, standard-sized advance exit guide sign or exit direction sign. Why the Turnpike didn't use cantilevered signs will probably always be a mystery to me. Oh, and the 1/2 mile advance signs for Exit 204 have a really dumb error: they use full-size numbers and a slash instead of a standard fraction with reduced-size numbers (so, they actually read "1/2 MILE"). Maybe someone in the area has the time+energy to grab a photo--
Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2012, 06:28:31 PM
Via InDOT on I-80/94:
{pictures}
Would a cantilevered sign work better?
I don't think so. I feel like the sign is too big and there's too much empty space to the right of it. It would be nice to see another sign on the assembly, either "I-80/94...Chicago...Left 4 lanes" or "Exit 10--IN-53/Broadway...2 miles".
I-71 in both directions between I-270 and Oh 161
http://goo.gl/maps/kuwGt (http://goo.gl/maps/kuwGt) 71 SB
http://goo.gl/maps/tbdj5 (http://goo.gl/maps/tbdj5) 71 NB
Quote from: Central Avenue on July 12, 2012, 08:00:38 PM
Not quite as egregious as some of the other examples here, but a couple on I-75 near Chattanooga strike me as overkill:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1090.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi370%2Flongestaugust%2F2011%2520Road%2520Trip%2FI-75%2520Tennessee%2FDSCN4547.jpg&hash=51c8841e50fd1ae09ac4d52edbbe686c44b0b6e0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1090.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi370%2Flongestaugust%2F2011%2520Road%2520Trip%2FI-75%2520Tennessee%2FDSCN4548.jpg&hash=57135e7c1b76dc0bb4d628e077456238509d6700)
Maybe they were scared of doing a cantilever or they are going to put pull through signs or VMS signs on there sometime in the future? That part of I-75 was widened within the past six years, and the Volkswagen Dr. exit is new.
Quote from: Special K on July 12, 2012, 09:01:31 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 12, 2012, 01:42:03 AM
Noticing on a few freeway expansion projects that were cancelled that the overhead assemblies remain, even if it's spanning four lanes, and it has one tiny sign on it. Examples below:
New Orleans - you can only exit, since no expressway continues straight. http://goo.gl/maps/N3xl
Shreveport - can't see because of the sunlight, but its spanning the width of three lanes. All it says is 220 West By-Pass. http://goo.gl/maps/fPDl
Both of these are probably in place to accomodate the signing needs of future roadway widening or extension.
The first example in particular shows the potential for continuing the through lanes, in which case more overhead signs will be necessary. It made sense to construct the full truss at this time to avoid removing median barrier rail to install the truss footings in the future.
For the first example, I don't think the roadway is ever going to be extended, even though it was designed for that when it was built.
Most VMS signs in Oregon use its own full road width gantry.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 14, 2012, 09:36:59 PM
What's more odd is in the background, where you see the sign with 65 SOUTH / 80 WEST / 94 WEST / 6 WEST on the right - possibly making the motorist think he's in the wrong lane, since there's no "pull through" sign over the mainline lanes.
I passed through that area last month and thought it was signed rather poorly and quite confusingly.
I can see where the confusion lies. However, that sign was built with consideration for drivers entering from Central Avenue, who can't enter I-80/94 westbound until after passing I-65. Besides, drivers have two more times to get it right, with the proper signs assigned to the proper lanes. It could be done with that first sign too, but you know good ol' INDOT. :)
Regarding the original topic, that entire Borman Project sees a waste of overhead assemblies for single signs...especially where cantilevers would easily apply.
Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2012, 06:28:31 PM
Via InDOT on I-80/94:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2249.jpg&hash=f68415487ae933e85cb80618eaf2360432e2229e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2250.jpg&hash=43a5217cffe89f32accc36154f0416483312ed96)
Would a cantilevered sign work better?
It's likely the sign and span are too large for a cantilever design.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2012, 08:52:03 PM
The Eastbound FL 528 in Orlando, FL has one full length gantry crossing both EB and WB lanes between Exits 2 and 3 just for an EB VMS. They could easily of used a cantilever sign or have it span only the EB lanes.
Cantilever supports and large VMS panels generally don't play well together, as evidenced by past failures and near-failures that have happened in Virginia and New Jersey. The reason for this is that, due to wind gusting by large trucks, the "depth" of the VMS panel creates an addtional torsional moment on the structure, specifically at the attachment points between the horizontal and the uprights. While some states (like CT) have been using a modified cantilever design (full end frame upright) for VMSes, it's generally more cost-effective to build a simple full-span truss instead. Note that MassDOT is one of several state agencies that specifically disallow the use of cantilever supports to mount VMSes for both cost reasons and possible long-term fatigue issues.
As for the "complete span" structure in Orlando, overhead supports for large VMS panels generally require larger "spread footing" foundations instead of the more typical cored foundations most sign trusses are mounted on. Placing a spread footing in a narrow median is very difficult, and requires long-term lane closures or shifts to properly accomplish. As a result, most states elect to install the complete span supports instead for constructability reasons.
Quote from: roadman on August 21, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
Cantilever supports and large VMS panels generally don't play well together, as evidenced by past failures and near-failures that have happened in Virginia and New Jersey. The reason for this is that, due to wind gusting by large trucks, the "depth" of the VMS panel creates an addtional torsional moment on the structure, specifically at the attachment points between the horizontal and the uprights. While some states (like CT) have been using a modified cantilever design (full end frame upright) for VMSes, it's generally more cost-effective to build a simple full-span truss instead. Note that MassDOT is one of several state agencies that specifically disallow the use of cantilever supports to mount VMSes for both cost reasons and possible long-term fatigue issues.
I find it quite interesting that California, a state that doesn't use separate exit tabs on guide signs because of wind-loading, has a large number of VMSes mounted on cantilevered structures...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fvms_ca.jpg&hash=e8a49ea91079ee2606f15efe840857cddf39e305)
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 21, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
]I find it quite interesting that California, a state that doesn't use separate exit tabs on guide signs because of wind-loading, has a large number of VMSes mounted on cantilevered structures...
What I find interesting that CalTrans has chosen to replace 40 to 50 year old freeway signs, but then mount those new signs on 40 to 50 year old sign support structures. Especially given the changes in AASHTO wind zones and design requirements that have occurred in just the past 15 years, let alone 50.
And it's my understanding that the "wind loading" argument was so CalTrans could avoid a lengthy round of environmental reviews (something about the added "shadow effect" by having larger signs and separate exit tabs) before they put up the new signs. So the result for drivers is substandard signs on old supports that are likely to start failing within the next decade.
This is a common sight in Georgia now because of the ridiculous directive that no more cantilevers will be built, only an elevated "balanced butterfly" is allowed. It's like taking engineering back to the stone ages. All of these HOT lane signs would look fabulous if supported on a left pole in the center divider. Instead, I-85 in north Atlanta has about 50 gantries along 15 miles, many for only 1 sign. What a waste of money and added eyesore. None are parallel to the horizon either, they're all crooked like something out of "Hee-Haw".
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fgantry.png&hash=56c77dda729ec7eabfe7730b8ef33c1da5883437)
I-405 north at Harbor Blvd. I don't think that overhead sign gantry was there before the whole upgrade of the 73/Fairview/Harbor Blvd interchange.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Costa+Mesa,+CA%27&hl=en&ll=33.688317,-117.915487&spn=0.010016,0.021136&sll=33.641132,-117.918669&sspn=0.160347,0.338173&t=m&hnear=Costa+Mesa,+Orange,+California&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.688256,-117.915159&panoid=rR7ldIgzD2U2czt18K8SVw&cbp=12,292.75,,0,8.77
I always thought of the 'sign assembly' as just the signs themselves, with the structure supporting the signs being a gantry or support.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.staticflickr.com%2F6156%2F6206519580_7da1d12806.jpg&hash=24b52320e04dce5ebd361044c6a4fce590f806ce) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/6206519580/)
sept29 046 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/6206519580/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr
Thankfully, this gantry has been torn down as of last week. There was just a single sign westbound for the Riverview exit (used to also had a pull-through but that was over 30 years ago) but nothing eastbound. This one was in existence from the day this section of highway opened, just for good measure.
Quote from: NE2 on August 25, 2012, 06:57:17 PM
I always thought of the 'sign assembly' as just the signs themselves, with the structure supporting the signs being a gantry or support.
I have always understood "gantry" to refer to the overhead-type supports only... see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gantry , which characterizes it as a "framework of steel bars" "bridg[ing] over or around something". Then it seems natural to include the signs being supported as being part of the gantry: "This next gantry shows that US-2 exits ahead..."
Whereas a clump of state route signs on a few pole is not a gantry since it's not going around or over something. It makes more sense to use "assembly" to refer to such a cluster.
(Arguably monotube gantries are not true gantries by the definition Wiktionary gives because it's not a framework. But their definition is odd for stipulating that it must be made out of steel. If some state were to use wood trusses to hold up their signs I would still call them gantries.)
Quote from: architect77 on August 25, 2012, 02:16:30 PM
This is a common sight in Georgia now because of the ridiculous directive that no more cantilevers will be built, only an elevated "balanced butterfly" is allowed. It's like taking engineering back to the stone ages. All of these HOT lane signs would look fabulous if supported on a left pole in the center divider. Instead, I-85 in north Atlanta has about 50 gantries along 15 miles, many for only 1 sign. What a waste of money and added eyesore. None are parallel to the horizon either, they're all crooked like something out of "Hee-Haw".
Could it be that Georgia was concerned about the weight and placement of the transponder-reading antennae above the HOV/toll lanes?
Not that it really ought to matter, as VDOT and the holder of the Capital Beltway toll concession (http://www.495expresslanes.com/) (2 lanes each way) are using cantilevered structures to hold up the toll collection hardware.
I-95 (JFK Highway) northbound, Harford County, Maryland.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc00753.jpg&hash=936fb4a6141f39d2cf62c608131ddc8c6627faae)
^ I believe there used to be a pull-through sign for I-95 NB to the left of that exit 74 sign. Notice how there's that one spot on the gantry that's a bit brighter than the rest.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 09, 2012, 12:01:31 PM
^ I believe there used to be a pull-through sign for I-95 NB to the left of that exit 74 sign. Notice how there's that one spot on the gantry that's a bit brighter than the rest.
That is quite possible.
MdTA used to have many pull-through signs on the JFK Highway that read either just I-95 North or I-95 North - New York or (
many years ago) I-95 North - NJ Turnpike (I wonder if there wasn't someone in a senior position at MdTA that used to work for the NJTA in the (
distant) past).
Never any mention of Philadelphia.
Though the BGS panel for Md. 152 is Clearview, and thus relatively recent vintage.
Is it me or is the lower portion of that pic (below the BGS) appear superimposed? Note the difference in color shading.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 11, 2012, 09:36:15 AM
Is it me or is the lower portion of that pic (below the BGS) appear superimposed? Note the difference in color shading.
I see what you mean.
It's not superimposed, but I did crop it with Photoshop, and optimized it with three "scans" (for the benefit of folks with a slower connection).
I will re-save it later today. Thanks for pointing that out.
looks like the file got corrupted during the save or the upload. the result is typical of JPEG image corruption.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 11, 2012, 10:23:00 AM
looks like the file got corrupted during the save or the upload. the result is typical of JPEG image corruption.
Yeah, I think you are correct. Will re-save and re-upload later on today.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 09, 2012, 12:01:31 PM
^ I believe there used to be a pull-through sign for I-95 NB to the left of that exit 74 sign. Notice how there's that one spot on the gantry that's a bit brighter than the rest.
They replaced signs throughout I-95 in northeastern Maryland in June 2012. Only took northbound at night once this summer, so no updated photos.
Here is what was displayed at Exit 74 before (June 25, 2010):
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland095/i-095_nb_exit_074_04.jpg)
Quote
Yeah, I think you are correct. Will re-save and re-upload later on today.
And to add to the image issue, your file upload was compromised / was incomplete. Have had that issue happen many times over the years with AARoads.
Quote from: Alex on September 11, 2012, 02:56:54 PM
And to add to the image issue, your file upload was compromised / was incomplete. Have had that issue happen many times over the years with AARoads.
What is curious about that image is that it looked O.K. when I initially uploaded it to my ISP's site (yes, I still use an
independent ISP) and put the link here.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2012, 03:13:46 PM
MdTA used to have many pull-through signs on the JFK Highway that read either just I-95 North or I-95 North - New York or (many years ago) I-95 North - NJ Turnpike (I wonder if there wasn't someone in a senior position at MdTA that used to work for the NJTA in the (distant) past).
Never any mention of Philadelphia.
I've always thought that to be an annoyance. Surely they could've at least put up Newark or Wilmington, but I suppose a majority of the I-95 traffic is heading through to New York, so those cities wouldn't matter to them. I've always thought DelDOT should get back at them by not mentioning Baltimore, and just put Washington, D.C. as a control city for I-95 southbound. :biggrin:
What's weird is that when I first saw the Joppa exit pic, it looked fine. Today it looks weird. Strange.
The exit tab on the new sign looks even worse than the old one. Maybe it's the Clearview contributing to that in my mind, but I guess I just don't get Maryland's thing for expansive tabs with EXIT way to one side, the number way to the other, and nothing in between. Why not make the tab a little narrower or use larger text to fill in?
The text looks disproportionately large on the new sign too, in part because of the comparatively microscopic exit tab characters. Bring back the old sign!
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 11, 2012, 03:22:39 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2012, 03:13:46 PM
MdTA used to have many pull-through signs on the JFK Highway that read either just I-95 North or I-95 North - New York or (many years ago) I-95 North - NJ Turnpike (I wonder if there wasn't someone in a senior position at MdTA that used to work for the NJTA in the (distant) past).
Never any mention of Philadelphia.
I've always thought that to be an annoyance. Surely they could've at least put up Newark or Wilmington, but I suppose a majority of the I-95 traffic is heading through to New York, so those cities wouldn't matter to them. I've always thought DelDOT should get back at them by not mentioning Baltimore, and just put Washington, D.C. as a control city for I-95 southbound. :biggrin:
Actually, Maryland does mention Philadelphia
once (!) on a mileage sign - on the northbound side of I-95 in Savage, Howard County, just after the rest area and before Md. 32.
I think the image below shows that sign that is the only mention that the City of Brotherly Love gets on I-95 in Maryland:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc00178.jpg&hash=00983926887fe540474af6ca7a20243b945970d4)
There are two others north of Baltimore. One after exit 64 (I-695) listing Philadelphia at 92 miles, and another one about 15 miles north of there listing Philadelphia at 74 miles.
^^ Hey, look! Another dumb VMS with information that belongs on roadside metal signs! ^^
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Actually, Maryland does mention Philadelphia once (!) on a mileage sign - on the northbound side of I-95 in Savage, Howard County, just after the rest area and before Md. 32.
I think the image below shows that sign that is the only mention that the City of Brotherly Love gets on I-95 in Maryland:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc00178.jpg&hash=00983926887fe540474af6ca7a20243b945970d4)
Quote from: amroad17 on September 11, 2012, 08:32:06 PM
There are two others north of Baltimore. One after exit 64 (I-695) listing Philadelphia at 92 miles, and another one about 15 miles north of there listing Philadelphia at 74 miles.
Okay, so signs for Philadelphia do exist, but they're very few and far between it appears. I've always thought the control city 'New York' was unique for I-95 in Maryland, so I wouldn't mind new pull through signs including that and may be Wilmington or Philadelphia as well.
The pull-through signs could have both Philadelphia and New York on them.
Quote from: amroad17 on September 11, 2012, 09:28:37 PM
The pull-through signs could have both Philadelphia and New York on them.
That's basically what I was trying to get at.
Quote from: Alex on September 11, 2012, 02:56:54 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 09, 2012, 12:01:31 PM
^ I believe there used to be a pull-through sign for I-95 NB to the left of that exit 74 sign. Notice how there's that one spot on the gantry that's a bit brighter than the rest.
They replaced signs throughout I-95 in northeastern Maryland in June 2012. Only took northbound at night once this summer, so no updated photos.
Here is what was displayed at Exit 74 before (June 25, 2010):
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland095/i-095_nb_exit_074_04.jpg)
That older BGS arrangement looks so much nicer than the current BGS.
I don't have any pics right now, but there are quite a few of them cluttered along the westbound Long Island Expressway at Exit 53 and former Exit 54 both on the main road and the service road.
At the east end of NY 454 there's one that used to be used for both ramps to NY 27, then the east-to-westbound ramp was closed. The place where the sign for westbound NY 27 used to be should really be used for a sign for Suffolk CR 97(Nicoll's Road), something I posted a picture of a while back.
Quote from: amroad17 on September 11, 2012, 08:32:06 PM
There are two others north of Baltimore. One after exit 64 (I-695) listing Philadelphia at 92 miles, and another one about 15 miles north of there listing Philadelphia at 74 miles.
Forgot about your comment above until now.
After reading it, I had a chance to drive I-95 all the way from south of Baltimore to Exit 109, and the signs you mention (with Philadelphia) above are now gone, the one north of Exit 64 probably falling victim to the MdTA's Express Toll Lanes project.
Shame.
Quote from: amroad17 on October 27, 2012, 01:29:55 PM
Shame.
If you mean that Maryland should be ashamed about not posting miles to Philadelphia along I-95 being a shame, then I agree with you. Between Baltimore and the Delaware line, the MdTA should (IMO) show miles to Wilmington, Del., Philadelphia and New York, perhaps alternating them with local destinations like Edgewood, Aberdeen, Havre de Grace, Perryville, North East, Elkton and Newark, Del. (I like three cities).
Between Washington and Baltimore, it should use Baltimore, Philly and New York.
This could probably be filed under both waste of overhead gantry and waste of sign metal/space:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DTemplate:Attached_KML%2FInterstate_95_in_Georgia%26action%3Draw&ll=31.28662,-81.486111&spn=0.116185,0.222988&t=h&z=13&layer=c&cbll=31.287137,-81.485948&panoid=Ftyk8wiamZraStbwRabzgw&cbp=12,20.58,,0,0.21
Did that exit have information for the Kings Bay nuclear submarine base that was greened out?
How about a waste of an entire sign...?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8353%2F8307855027_8f6e7971e6_c.jpg&hash=5ca0c4057ac812fb7f4fafa2168db24411188120)
Found on US-101 south around the I-380 interchange.
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on December 25, 2012, 06:45:34 PM
How about a waste of an entire sign...?
I think that exists because that used to be the path for the southbound ramp to the airport (now replaced with a ramp further back that covers San Bruno Avenue as well).
Yeah, there was one like that on I-64 westbound in 2009.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2F5768_1193381755943_5748237_n.jpg&hash=19e71f5e4564ee40a1e9e7f9445474ca401903e9)
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 12, 2012, 01:42:03 AM
Noticing on a few freeway expansion projects that were cancelled that the overhead assemblies remain, even if it's spanning four lanes, and it has one tiny sign on it. Examples below:
New Orleans - you can only exit, since no expressway continues straight. http://goo.gl/maps/N3xl
The Earhart Expressway gantry was added long after the freeway was built in the area. For at least the first twenty years of its life Earhart had small sized ground level signage that barely qualified as highway quality.
There's a few blank signs floating around Kansas City, KS due to KDOT's former standard of demountable copy. Signs are frequently blanked during construction rather than tarping them like many states do.
There are blank signs around Montreal that no one has identified.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fqc%2Fa-40%2Feblank.jpg&hash=e5ed0f44207e4c86483d030748ccdd28915bfa6a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fqc%2Fa-15%2Fsblank.jpg&hash=72fac5757809a20cb94e6f501395e78d84e39a1e)
I-95 S at FL 528 http://goo.gl/maps/HIBUb
^ Wow, that one is really bad. They could have easily made that sign bridge only traverse one direction...
Quote from: roadfro on December 28, 2012, 07:11:01 PM
^ Wow, that one is really bad. They could have easily made that sign bridge only traverse one direction...
Or install a "double panel" cantilever support, which has recently become a common practice in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on December 25, 2012, 09:26:14 PM
The Earhart Expressway gantry was added long after the freeway was built in the area. For at least the first twenty years of its life Earhart had small sized ground level signage that barely qualified as highway quality.
And, in fairness, there are active plans in the New Orleans LRTP to extend Earhart west to cross the railway tracks and connect to US 61.
There are many such assemblies as these along about 8 miles of SR-67, southwest of Muncie, IN. They exist mainly to indicate where the center turn lane stops and starts. As well as the assemblies, center turn lanes are also wasted, with many miles of turn lanes with no where to turn to, as seen here.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.tinypic.com%2F23sj42r.png&hash=836175f309fb77e8bae245e943cad7ad4aa2ee72)
I can only assume that INDOT was wildly overoptimistic about the business development along this corridor.
Quote from: theline on December 31, 2012, 11:35:53 PM
I can only assume that INDOT was wildly overoptimistic about the business development along this corridor.
If you build it, they will come.
I've driven that stretch of 67 many times and thought too that the assemblies are a waste. Only the ones at the intersections with the roads to Yorktown and Middletown (because there's a sign with the town name on them) are needed IMO. A simple sign on the side of the road would have sufficed, or just make it a grass median like the Muncie Bypass.
Almost forgot about this monstrosity...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8391%2F8469246012_bbae85547f_c.jpg&hash=0c16e8e71f87ed53be6c0c3a1965c96c7b6bf117)
These signals mounted on two old PennDOT freeway guide sign gantries are over the 5-way intersection between US 202, PA 309, and PA 463 in Montgomeryville. Here's (http://goo.gl/maps/Ghqs0) the GSV of the intersection.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 12, 2013, 03:42:46 PM
two old PennDOT freeway guide sign gantries
in that case, it may not be as much a waste. I'd imagine that it would be troublesome to trim down the gantries and add new supports, as opposed to just installing them as-is.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 31, 2012, 12:53:40 PM
This could probably be filed under both waste of overhead gantry and waste of sign metal/space:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DTemplate:Attached_KML%2FInterstate_95_in_Georgia%26action%3Draw&ll=31.28662,-81.486111&spn=0.116185,0.222988&t=h&z=13&layer=c&cbll=31.287137,-81.485948&panoid=Ftyk8wiamZraStbwRabzgw&cbp=12,20.58,,0,0.21
Ah yes, the looming metropolis of Darien...
Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 12, 2013, 03:42:46 PM
Almost forgot about this monstrosity...
<snipped image>
These signals mounted on two old PennDOT freeway guide sign gantries are over the 5-way intersection between US 202, PA 309, and PA 463 in Montgomeryville. Here's (http://goo.gl/maps/Ghqs0) the GSV of the intersection.
I first saw those in 1993 and was like, what the heck? Back then there were circle shields for 202 and 309 posted there as well.
A similar setup exists in Dubuque, IA (https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/258991_10150204095192948_6559080_o.jpg).
Quote from: Alex on February 12, 2013, 06:19:59 PM
I first saw those in 1993 and was like, what the heck? Back then there were circle shields for 202 and 309 posted there as well.
circle shields, in Pennsylvania? I've heard of Massachusetts using the circle in error, but this is the first I've heard of another state doing so.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 12, 2013, 06:51:44 PM
Quote from: Alex on February 12, 2013, 06:19:59 PM
I first saw those in 1993 and was like, what the heck? Back then there were circle shields for 202 and 309 posted there as well.
circle shields, in Pennsylvania? I've heard of Massachusetts using the circle in error, but this is the first I've heard of another state doing so.
Could they have been produced by a NJ or DE based contractor? Or by an agency in one of those states?
Yes, MA seems to be the most commonly identified state where the wrong shield shows up (didn't Alabama's outline even once grace a state highway somewhere in Western MA?) but I think that it does happen once in a while elsewhere. The state outline shields of Indiana come to mind.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on February 13, 2013, 03:28:31 PM(didn't Alabama's outline even once grace a state highway somewhere in Western MA?)
yep.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F1a%2FMass_Alabama_10.png&hash=1da9db348ea31e36cbdc29128fa60e22d799af41)
QuoteThe state outline shields of Indiana come to mind.
those, at least, were based on an older standard. even the Iowa 92 in the state outline is based on the pre-1926 shields.
Quote from: Alex on February 12, 2013, 06:19:59 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 12, 2013, 03:42:46 PM
Almost forgot about this monstrosity...
<snipped image>
These signals mounted on two old PennDOT freeway guide sign gantries are over the 5-way intersection between US 202, PA 309, and PA 463 in Montgomeryville. Here's (http://goo.gl/maps/Ghqs0) the GSV of the intersection.
I first saw those in 1993 and was like, what the heck? Back then there were circle shields for 202 and 309 posted there as well.
Both of you obviously know this since you were both present at the meet last December but for those that weren't; since early December of last year, any US 202 shields in that intersection should've been stripped off due to the opening of the new US 202 Parkway south of that area.
With regards to blank BGS': my first siting of such was in 1972 along MA 114 and MA 62 at the then-not-yet opened interchanges w/I-95 in Danvers. Roadman will know of the BGS' I speak of. These were all replaced during the mid 1990s.
The 3 blank BGS' along MA 114 were for I-95 North; two at the entrance ramp for each MA 114 direction (ground-mounts) and one overpass-mounted structure BGS facing eastbound MA 114 traffic. The
95 NORTH Salisbury NH-Maine legends were added when the northbound stretch opened in 1974.
The 5 blank BGS' along MA 62 were for I-95 South; two were ground mounts at the entrance ramp (which branched off to a shopping center adjacent to US 1 North), two were overpass-mounted (one on the I-95 overpass facing westbound 62 traffic, the other on the US 1 overpass facing eastbound 62 traffic) and the fifth shared an overhead gantry with (back then 5 other BGS', 2 of them being MA 62 pull-through signs). These BGS' remained blank until the southbound section of I-95 in Danvers (between Exits 50 & 46) opened in 1975. The legend on the ground-mounts and overhead gantry BGS read
95 SOUTH Boston while the overpass-mounted BGS simply read
SOUTH 95 with a downward arrow.
More recently and near Conshohocken, PA; prior to I-476 south of I-76 opening in Dec. 1991, there was a blank pull-through BGS that had just a blank 3di-shield placed on the upper-left corner. BGS would have likely read
476 SOUTH Chester. Ironically, when the rest of the road opened, the 70s-era blank BGS (w/button-copy borders around the signboard & I-shield) was taken down and never replaced with a newer BGS.
I always like the one on I-4 in Plant City, FL. Steve features it on alpsroads and was not even aware of it at first until Steve mentioned the fact that a percentage of the sign is wasted. It not only features the annual Plant City Strawberry Festival as a major control point, but the fact that there are two mentions for the same exit. Plus SR 39 is not Alexander Street, that at the time the photo was taken it was without number, but is now SR 39A as FDOT took over the once city maintained street.
Also the 5 points intersection in Montgomeryville, PA (the previous post) has siblings in Orlando, FL. Many Orange Blossom Trail intersections have something similar painted green.
Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon (http://maps.google.com/?ll=45.444355,-122.777023&spn=0.000241,0.212517&t=m&z=13&layer=c&cbll=45.444212,-122.777075&panoid=xPl8ePTC-UVnf_ibqWuqQw&cbp=12,195.24,,0,-4.39)
What's worse is that the control city for Oregon 217 south is Tigard, but almost nobody would bother to get onto 217, take the next exit (99W), and return back to Greenburg Road instead of just driving straight one mile and going right into downtown Tigard.
The sign would be more useful with either Lake Oswego or Salem as the control city, or simply "To Interstate 5". But the sign bridge is wasted by having no sign facing northbound Greenburg Road (no sign for Oregon 217 north to Beaverton, no pull through sign for "Washington Square")
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 13, 2013, 05:22:57 PM
More recently and near Conshohocken, PA; prior to I-476 south of I-76 opening in Dec. 1991, there was a blank pull-through BGS that had just a blank 3di-shield placed on the upper-left corner. BGS would have likely read 476 SOUTH Chester. Ironically, when the rest of the road opened, the 70s-era blank BGS (w/button-copy borders around the signboard & I-shield) was taken down and never replaced with a newer BGS.
I saw a 1980s video Jeff R. took of that sign once (
Jake, you didn't get a copy of this one did you?). Was odd to see a blank 3di shield in place, usually the space would just be empty. The next button copy sign saw "Plymouth Mtg" slapped on haphazardly when the route was extended north:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania075/i-076_eb_exit_331b_02.jpg)
Quote from: Alex on February 18, 2013, 10:57:21 AMI saw a 1980s video Jeff R. took of that sign once (Jake, you didn't get a copy of this one did you?). Was odd to see a blank 3di shield in place, usually the space would just be empty. The next button copy sign saw "Plymouth Mtg" slapped on haphazardly when the route was extended north:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania075/i-076_eb_exit_331b_02.jpg)
BTW, the
Plymouth Mtg. lettering isn't even button-copy, which was still available until recently.
Originally, the control destination for I-476 North in that BGS was to be
Allentown. Also, lettering for a
NORTH cardinal was supposed to be placed next to that I-476 shield. If one looks closely at the photo, one can tell that cardinal was once there. It's possible that traces of the
Allentown lettering might be evident as well if one looks
up close & personal w/that BGS.
BTW, both BGS' in that pic were replaced a few years ago with
No Clearview but the BGS for I-476 North
still has no
NORTH cardinal listed/placed, but the I-shield is now centered on the sign panel.
sorry to revive this thread but I couldn't help but notice this gem wasn't mentioned:
http://goo.gl/maps/Jyo4D
spans 8 lanes plus shoulders on I-93 Quincy
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 23, 2013, 10:22:33 PM
sorry to revive this thread but I couldn't help but notice this gem wasn't mentioned:
http://goo.gl/maps/Jyo4D
spans 8 lanes plus shoulders on I-93 Quincy
That is just wrong on so many levels; especially given the small size of the VMS.
One has to wonder if there either there were some BGS panels on that gantry that were taken down or plans for new BGS panels to be erected (I-93 in that area is undergoing a sign replacement project). I would like to believe the latter but either roadman or Bob7374 could confirm.
In South Philly, this gem of a gantry/BGS assembly was erected in the early 90s:
http://goo.gl/maps/UQwv4 (http://goo.gl/maps/UQwv4)
It's worth noting that the original plans (I saw them) called for a smaller, more standard gantry; the one ultimately used here was actually either an extra/rejected gantry from the adjacent Vine Expressway project. Waste not/want not I guess.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 24, 2013, 09:43:14 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 23, 2013, 10:22:33 PM
sorry to revive this thread but I couldn't help but notice this gem wasn't mentioned:
http://goo.gl/maps/Jyo4D
spans 8 lanes plus shoulders on I-93 Quincy
That is just wrong on so many levels; especially given the small size of the VMS.
One has to wonder if there either there were some BGS panels on that gantry that were taken down or plans for new BGS panels to be erected (I-93 in that area is undergoing a sign replacement project). I would like to believe the latter but either roadman or Bob7374 could confirm.
The structure in question was installed when the Braintree to Savin Hill contraflow "zipper" HOV lane was constructed in the mid-1990s. The location of this support is directly in the middle of the southern crossover area for the contraflow (the median barriers in the middle of the road are moveable), which is deployed for entering northbound traffic (using one lane on the southbound roadway) in the AM peak, and deployed for exiting southbound traffic (using one lane on the northbound roadway) in the PM peak. As such, neither a half-span structure nor a cantilever support were practical for the installation.
The sole sign on this structure was originally an extruded panel with a large "blank-out" message sign for the HOV entrance, located in the approximate position of the current VMS. It was replaced with a smaller "brick" type VMS several years ago when the blank out portion of the sign became unreliable. This span will be replaced with a new span as part of the Boston to Randolph work. The new span will carry a larger VMS, an overhead "Trucks Must Use Right 2 Lanes" sign and the new 1/4 mile advance sign for Furnace Brook Parkway over the northbound lanes, and a new supplemental sign for "South Shore Mall Road Use 93 South" over the southbound lanes.
I wonder if any of these gantries that are blank could be used in a fairly useful way, basically traffic monitoring or even radio use, broadcast highway information radio.
Another idea, other than tearing them down, Use them for educational use, i am sure there must be a way to put up a "did you know that....in this state someone was the first person to do something to someone while wearing something" type marker, just for the kids, have it be part of a education program where the signs are able to be changed out without much hassle, such as having multiple holes to fit various letters that can be screwed on
any VMS that isn't showing anything useful.
I took a photo this weekend of stand-still traffic underneath a blank VMS. really, guys? absolutely no help whatsoever? that's the most help you can give us?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 24, 2013, 04:38:35 PM
any VMS that isn't showing anything useful.
I took a photo this weekend of stand-still traffic underneath a blank VMS. really, guys? absolutely no help whatsoever? that's the most help you can give us?
The VMS took one look at the situation and basically went "screw you guys, i'm going home"
OTOH, at least the VMS wasn't displaying "Don't bring invasive species in. Clean your boat before launching" or other such nonsense messages.
Quote from: roadman on September 26, 2013, 10:11:37 AM
OTOH, at least the VMS wasn't displaying "Don't bring invasive species in. Clean your boat before launching" or other such nonsense messages.
or, even worse, "don't drink and drive".
if, at this point in our society's evolution, someone is drinking and driving, it isn't because of ignorance of the law - it's willful malfeasance.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 26, 2013, 01:02:24 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 26, 2013, 10:11:37 AM
OTOH, at least the VMS wasn't displaying "Don't bring invasive species in. Clean your boat before launching" or other such nonsense messages.
or, even worse, "don't drink and drive".
if, at this point in our society's evolution, someone is drinking and driving, it isn't because of ignorance of the law - it's willful malfeasance.
Could still be worse. Could be posting the number of highway deaths in your state to date. Illinois is at 705 at last count. I'm rooting for it to pass 1,000. :ded: X-(
Quote from: Brandon on September 26, 2013, 01:12:03 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 26, 2013, 01:02:24 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 26, 2013, 10:11:37 AM
OTOH, at least the VMS wasn't displaying "Don't bring invasive species in. Clean your boat before launching" or other such nonsense messages.
or, even worse, "don't drink and drive".
if, at this point in our society's evolution, someone is drinking and driving, it isn't because of ignorance of the law - it's willful malfeasance.
Could still be worse. Could be posting the number of highway deaths in your state to date. Illinois is at 705 at last count. I'm rooting for it to pass 1,000. :ded: X-(
This sounds like a great drinking game - which would also help further the cause.
Maybe not a waste per se, but certainly weird:
http://goo.gl/maps/63CjI
The signs are so high over the roadway, you crane a little. Couldn't the suport structre been bolted into the right wall, so the signs would be lower?
ICTRds
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FMiscellanousDecember2012017.jpg&hash=3a152a8318b0cf53e446c3b5fc5b64ddef54cc7c)
Aside from the wasted space, it's a bit misleading because the "exit" lane merely rejoins on the left (without any kind of separation) a very short distance up the road. It's a provision for future expansion, but for now the sign confuses people unfamiliar with the area.
Quote from: roadman on September 26, 2013, 10:11:37 AM
OTOH, at least the VMS wasn't displaying "Don't bring invasive species in. Clean your boat before launching" or other such nonsense messages.
In another thread I mentioned that NCDOT put in a bunch of new VMSs in and around Winston-Salem ahead of the Business 40 reconstruction, all of which currently say "STATE LAW NO TEXTING WHILE DRIVING"
From the AARoads Interstate Guide site. I-75/71 south just past Buttermilk Pike in Crescent Springs, KY. This doesn't need to be here, especially since there is a 1 1/4 mile advance sign just north of here!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages275%2Fi-275_ky_sj_12.jpg&hash=06eb3fd4ed2d9ae463c37bc16589fa250b87cd23)
http://goo.gl/6tW9s6 (http://goo.gl/6tW9s6)
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 31, 2014, 06:15:33 AM
http://goo.gl/6tW9s6 (http://goo.gl/6tW9s6)
Your link doesn't appear to be working; at least on my end.
One recent observation when seeing some newly-erected cantilever gantries along PennDOT highways is that it appears that PennDOT (or at least some contractors) seems to be adopting more of a
one size fits all approach in terms of separation between horizontal cross-members. Previously, they used to use 2 or 3 different sizes depending on the height of the BGS panel; now they're using gantries that have a rather large separation between horizontal members even when the BGS panel is of a smaller height. Example of such (http://goo.gl/maps/KTRri) along PA 309 at the PA 152 interchange. While this example's not too extreme (I've seen worse); one can see what I'm pointing out here.
Similar examples are now being erected along US 202 between Malvern (PA 29) and Frazer (PA 401) as part of the widening project.
Did PennDOT (or contractors) purchase these large cantilever gantries by the gross at a fire sale or something. :sombrero:
Here's one (http://goo.gl/maps/bK2F2) that existed for almost 2 decades. The story behind it, as told to me by one of the bridge engineers who worked on the project, is that the new more suitably-sized gantry was damaged during either fabrication or delivery (I forget which).
Rather than wait for a replacement gantry; a surplus gantry from the adjacent Vine Expressway (I-676) project was available and would've went to waste otherwise.
Yes, the gantry & BGS' predate one-way tolls across the Delaware River (per the green-out that covered the yellow
TOLL label on the I-76 East BGS).
Quote from: Brandon on September 26, 2013, 01:12:03 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 26, 2013, 01:02:24 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 26, 2013, 10:11:37 AM
OTOH, at least the VMS wasn't displaying "Don't bring invasive species in. Clean your boat before launching" or other such nonsense messages.
or, even worse, "don't drink and drive".
if, at this point in our society's evolution, someone is drinking and driving, it isn't because of ignorance of the law - it's willful malfeasance.
Could still be worse. Could be posting the number of highway deaths in your state to date. Illinois is at 705 at last count. I'm rooting for it to pass 1,000. :ded: X-(
Dear IDiOT, what can we do to lower your body count?
NOTHING! They're already dead :ded:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 02, 2014, 12:00:31 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 12, 2012, 02:36:09 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.okhighways.com%2F041103%2Fus77sgantry.JPG&hash=f58fa7ce559c4f31a67fe31dbe92335e6d17c482)
(Photo courtesy Eric Stuve/okroads)
Apparently this once carried a single Lane Ends sign, but it was later made inapplicable and taken down. So... there's just a pointless gantry.
Found plenty of these along I-287 in New Jersey between Woodbridge and Alps's land.
This one has been around for a while.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3978_zps5f8e3915.jpg&hash=2d6a7bd56615c4b1a6b15a2d6c734244977d5535) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3978_zps5f8e3915.jpg.html)
Personally, I think it would be a great location for for following on the left:
EXIT 267
[53]
Bolingbrook
1 1/2 MILES
BUS US 53/ Hastings Way at CTH Q/ Birch St in Eau Claire, WI
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fgffdbfg555_zpscaeaa23c.jpg&hash=a1007a048a414431a098b33ec23899a71e5a6300)
Google Streetview
(Used to support a BGS before the intersection was rebuilt.)
Link: http://goo.gl/maps/Nm8Iq
Posted this one in the Airport Roadways thread and thought it would be appropriate for here as well.
One old plan originally called for the I-95/Bartram Ave. interchange near PHL Airport to be a full-diamond interchange (instead, such only contains ramps to/from Center City Philadelphia). One empty overhead gantry along I-95 North (http://goo.gl/maps/w25i4) in the area gives hint of a possible exit sign for such (note the light brackets at the bottom of the gantry).
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 31, 2014, 06:15:33 AM
http://goo.gl/6tW9s6 (http://goo.gl/6tW9s6)
(https://05298496653391670750.googlegroups.com/attach/c2eb8d5acada6c56/P1020443.JPG?part=0.3&view=1&vt=ANaJVrGtfNkBY_-cc6u6Dv6xjnoEOeJvBLjHTehXRMWKL8yLCDLFX90J1DRi2L9k0fhekuxJzdwQ28HoKWqjzH6euMHjN65OpCpwzZCaRKialqL0BBE6BdY)
The I-76/I-77 multiplex through Downtown Akron:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/virtual_freeway_tours/1329335013/in/set-72157601881948299
I-294 north at US-14 (The gantry in the background)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.highwayexplorer.com%2FPhotos%2FIntchg%2FI294--US14-2.jpg&hash=9780547ac1be28da0ce188d0a8587a2993d18ad9)
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
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.
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.
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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/southeast/florida275/i-275_sb_exit_031_02.jpg)