AARoads Forum

I've noticed that more projects around here use customized under construction signs, even for quick and mundane stuff like road repaving. For example instead of reading "Road Construction Ahead" a sign might read "Drake Rd Closed 7-3 thru 7-5." The signs would be printed on a typical sized orange construction sign, and the city would reuse them by whiting - oranging - out the old info and writing new info on top.

Is this done anywhere else? I find it to be a waste of money, honestly.

It is better than coming up on a road that is an integral part of your commute and finding that there is an unexpected closure. Most times this sort of information is communicated through VMS, however.

Quote from: Zmapper on July 18, 2012, 03:27:55 AM
I've noticed that more projects around here use customized under construction signs, even for quick and mundane stuff like road repaving. For example instead of reading "Road Construction Ahead" a sign might read "Drake Rd Closed 7-3 thru 7-5." The signs would be printed on a typical sized orange construction sign, and the city would reuse them by whiting - oranging - out the old info and writing new info on top.

Is this done anywhere else? I find it to be a waste of money, honestly.

Seems to me it's giving a lot more information than your standard "Road Construction Ahead" sign and certainly cheaper than CMS/VMS.

Caltrans uses a similar sign (SC6-3(CA) and SC6-4(CA)) for advising motorists of upcoming ramp closures.  The wording on these signs is typically...


Variable message signs are typically used for full road closures.

The sign Myosh_tino describes is a standard sign which allows the legend to be varied using three-letter plates which can be pegged to and unpegged from the sign face.  The type of sign Zmapper is asking about is actually a designable construction guide sign, not a standard sign with provision for varying the legend using removable plates.  Designs for these signs are typically furnished in construction plans.

The use of these designable construction guide signs varies enormously from state to state, and sometimes from maintenance district to maintenance district within a single state.  They are used extensively in MI, MN, and SD, sporadically in many other states (KS, OK, TX, NV, UT, NM, OR, ND, NJ, MD, VA, NC, FL, etc.), and not at all in others (e.g., NE).  States which have pronounced district-by-district variation in usage of these signs include CA (Districts 1, 2, and 8 use them extensively, Districts 10, 11, and 12 use them sporadically, while most other districts don't bother with them at all) and WA (used extensively by WSDOT Northwest Region, particularly for bicycle detours, and hardly by any other region).

In states which use these signs sporadically, their use tends to be limited to two scenarios:  (a) major construction projects, and (b) smaller construction projects with long-term detours (e.g., some types of bridge replacement or rehabilitation).

I am not aware that a cost-benefit analysis has ever been done on these types of signs.  I don't mind seeing pattern-accurate designs for them in construction plans since I collect them just as I collect the plans for the permanent guide signing, but even with recycling the sign blanks, there is certainly a cost to using them because they cannot be stored and reused for other projects.  (In states which use them and have adopted Clearview, sign design sheets for these signs are frequently the only sign design sheets in the plans set as a whole which use the FHWA alphabet series extensively.)

If it were a big project that would take years to complete, or even a smaller project on an important highway, I could see the need for those signs. Instead, my city is installing these signs on local streets, sometimes for projects that would only take a few days.

Can you show us the construction plans for these jobs?

Let's say they're just sticking sheeting on a wooden sign. Probably costs them $500, round number. That may be 1% of the total job. But in terms of "how much more does this cost than regular construction signs," pretty much just the cost of time for someone to come up with the legend, so maybe $5?

In New Zealand  they use orange versions of BGSes in construction zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_New_Zealand#Temporary_Warning).

I'd much rather have the DOT spend $500 to tell me when my ramp is going to be closed than run into an unexpected closure when I'm running late to work.

Quote from: national highway 1 on July 18, 2012, 09:43:31 PMIn New Zealand  they use orange versions of BGSes in construction zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_New_Zealand#Temporary_Warning).

Those are standard signs--not what is being talked about in this thread.  (I am not aware that New Zealand actually uses designable signs, since it is very difficult to obtain copies of construction plans for Transit New Zealand projects.  Internationally, they are used fairly extensively in Britain and Spain, and rather less so in France and Sweden.)

An example of what is being talked about in this thread (taken from an old Michigan DOT construction plans set):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2F5%2F54%2FPLANHALF.png&hash=75ce57ff03fe702b5ee17b16035699802548cd5e)

In regard to the comparative cost, this is one of those situations where bid tabulations don't tell the full story.  Normally, when a state DOT asks for standard construction signs to be provided, the contractor is expected to provide them from his stores (not, generally, to buy or make them unless he does not have them already to hand) and quote a price for the number of days the sign is expected to be used.  The price the contractor quotes for that item is expected to cover all of the costs associated with furnishing the sign when it is needed and taking it away when it is not needed, including replacing it if it gets damaged during construction, covering it when it does not apply to the traffic it faces, and uncovering it when it does apply to the traffic it faces.  These are all part of the quality of the service the contractor provides to the state under that particular bid item, and the contractor will take into account the state's expectations in regard to sheeting quality, punctuality of any handling the sign requires for traffic management purposes, etc. when he quotes a price.

This bid item is essentially an equipment rental charge and tends not to be low these days because quality requirements for construction signs have become more stringent.  They must be reflective, and must not be too beat-up, and for construction signs these requirements are harder to meet over time than is the case for permanent signs because they tend to be installed within the clear zone in construction workzones, which means they tend to be covered or hit with debris both from passing traffic and from construction activities.  The tighter the quality requirement, the lower the likelihood that a particular sign can be reused for other projects.

In the case of designable construction signs, however, there tends to be a separate bid item (with units of area--square feet or square meters) for fabrication alone.  In the case of permanent signs, the analogous quantity normally covers installation as well.  If there is still a bid item for traffic control equipment rental (as outlined above), then in a competitive bidding environment the contractor risks losing the bid if he attempts to double-charge for fabrication of the custom signs and use of the same signs in traffic.

So, ultimately, the added cost of using designable construction signs in workzones depends on how pristine the state expects construction signs in general to be at the end of the construction project.  If the state expects clean signs to be used and either kept clean or replaced in the very dirty environment of a construction workzone, then the difference in cost is not great because the chances that a standard sign can be salvaged for reuse in other construction projects is low.  A standard sign with low potential for reuse has more or less the same life cycle as a designable sign, which generally cannot be reused for other projects and has to be recycled for the sign blank.  On the other hand, if the state is happy to have tatty workzone signs, then the cost difference can be large since standard signs can be reused many times, for many projects, before they fall below a fairly low threshold for quality, whereas designable signs have to be scrapped willy-nilly.

Depends on the agency. Some demand clean signs every time (NJ Turnpike Authority - noted to have among the highest highway standards in the nation), some couldn't care less (especially below the state level).

If NJTA requires fresh signs every time, that probably goes some way toward explaining why they are fairly big users of custom-designed construction signs (though not to the same extent as Michigan DOT, which loves them).

Here's an example of one, albeit being in Arial/Helvetica:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8022%2F7396513512_6c53909864_c.jpg&hash=b7b75288ce4b7162db3d8ae3a94cc828def0673c)