No more overheads on bridges per FHWA edict?

Started by hbelkins, January 31, 2015, 09:03:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hbelkins

Saw this story -- http://www.richmond.com/news/local/why-richmond-why/article_5f8555e9-b96e-5897-8e6a-75a9dc9a644a.html -- that discusses a sign replacement on I-195 in Richmond, Va. (H/T Will Weaver for commenting on it, thus posting it to my Facebook feed.)

Interesting quote in the story from a VDOT official:

Quote"A moratorium was set on bridge-mounted sign structures in 2008 based on recommendations from the Federal Highway Administration, National Transportation Safety Board and Occupational Safety and Health Administration; meaning that, over time, all existing bridge-mounted sign structures will be removed and replaced (if necessary) with either ground mounted guide signs or overhead guide signs/structures,"  Cowardin wrote. "Therefore, because these particular signs were required to be upgraded, the decision was made to install them on a new overhead structure to satisfy the current requirements and recommendations."

First I'd heard of that.

Here's the sign that was replaced, which I photographed back in 2012:

Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.


Pink Jazz

#1
Bridge-mounted signs are definitely still installed here in the Phoenix area.  The newest ones have graffiti shields on them.  Perhaps the graffiti issue may have something to do with the FHWA's recommendation for VDOT.

Zeffy

Some places I've seen it done in (California comes to mind) result in signs that are positioned at an odd angle in order to line up with the bridge. I'd rather see them on gantries or sign bridges to be honest.
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

US81

Quote from: Zeffy on January 31, 2015, 09:32:32 PM
Some places I've seen it done in (California comes to mind) result in signs that are positioned at an odd angle in order to line up with the bridge. I'd rather see them on gantries or sign bridges to be honest.

I remember a situation like this in Dallas TX from about the 1970's. The BGS was attached to a bridge that crossed the freeway at an acute angle. It was definitely hard to see at freeway speeds. The solution seemed very cool to my little kid self. Each letter appeared "punched out" and propped to the side angled away from the sign to about a 90 degree angle so that the letters were more easily read by the drivers.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.773146,-96.811555,3a,75y,167.21h,99.87t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBDk-GJ3wS6l5SH6fxDKJEQ!2e0

Here is the bridge with a newer sign gantry (originally erected in the late 1980's IIRC)with standard signs mounted.

Somewhere there's got to be a picture of this sign but I haven't found it - yet.

KEK Inc.

Would this include ramp signs from the crossroads?

Many of the new road projects in Washington still have signs attached to the bridge structure.
Take the road less traveled.

Ned Weasel

#5
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 31, 2015, 09:06:38 PM
Bridge-mounted signs are definitely still installed here in the Phoenix area.  The newest ones have graffiti shields on them.  Perhaps the graffiti issue may have something to do with the FHWA's recommendation for VDOT.

It makes sense to require a separate sign gantry if the overpass crosses significantly far off from a 90-degree angle.  (I don't know how to judge what's too far off, but I'd say 30 degrees off is probably too far off.)  But when the overpass crosses at or sufficiently close to (again, this should be defined somewhere) a 90-degree angle, why would a separate sign gantry be required for an overhead sign?  Are graffiti shields too expensive?

As far as I can tell, except for the angle issue, this makes no sense.

(Minor edit for word choice.)
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

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

vtk

I believe I've seen bridge mounted BGS with special mounting so the sign properly faces traffic even when the bridge is at a queer angle; usually the whole sign panel is rotated as a unit.  I seem to remember a large (diagrammatic?) sign on I-75 southbound on the north side of Knoxville that was broken into pieces about 4 to 6 feet wide, mounted on an angled bridge so that each piece faced traffic properly, and it looked seamless at a glance.

Ohio, at least in District 6, seems to have been replacing bridge mounted signs with new gantries for at least the last decade for some reason – even when the bridge is at a right angle.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

Tom958

#7
Quote from: hbelkins on January 31, 2015, 09:03:31 PM
Quote"A moratorium was set on bridge-mounted sign structures in 2008 based on recommendations from the Federal Highway Administration, National Transportation Safety Board and Occupational Safety and Health Administration..."


My guess is that there were some Darwin Awards-worthy mishaps that prompted this. We learned that in OSHA class: no matter how arcane an OSHA prohibition may seem, it's there because multiple somebodies injured or killed themselves doing it.  :rolleyes:

I also noticed that the new assembly is quite a bit further upstream than the old one, enough to dictate a black down arrow instead of an upward-pointing one.



Also, this photo I took on I-285: the two left signs on this assembly will presumably replace ones that are currently mounted on the bridge just downstream. In fact, the leftmore of the two was already gone when I took the photo.


jeffandnicole

NJ has noticeably been moving in this direction.  Here's a newly installed gantry in front of bridge mounted signs. Because I-76 doesn't have the Express/Local lane divisions anymore as seen on the bridge mounted signs, the message the signs are trying to convey may be a little unclear (does one to use the exit only lane or keep right to get to 76? And even then, it's the center lane to get to I-76 via exit 27, which remained unposted here). They signs are relatively temporary anyway; in a few years the interchange configuration to get to 76 will be different.


cpzilliacus

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2015, 08:50:30 AM
NJ has noticeably been moving in this direction.

As has Maryland.  I do not think they are going out of their way to remove them from bridges, but installing new gantry-mounted signs and removing them from the bridges as they are replaced.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

GaryV

Would this be just for BGS's?  Or also for LGS's (e.g. the name of the road) and for clearance signs?

I can't remember where I've seen it, but some signs are cantilevered out from the bridge on one side so they are more perpendicular to traffic.

froggie

QuoteI can't remember where I've seen it, but some signs are cantilevered out from the bridge on one side so they are more perpendicular to traffic.

MnDOT typically does this.

As best as I can tell after doing some digging, this moratorium was temporary and also stems from a moratorium on using adhesive anchors for overhead assemblies.  This latter moratorium was a direct result of the tragic ceiling tile drop (one of the Big Dig tunnels) in Boston in 2006.  For some as-yet-unknown reason, VDOT kept a bridge-mounted sign moratorium while other states went to mechanical anchors (or cast-in-concrete in some cases) for bridge-mounted signs.


Pete from Boston

Quote from: Tom958 on February 01, 2015, 07:29:29 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 31, 2015, 09:03:31 PM
Quote"A moratorium was set on bridge-mounted sign structures in 2008 based on recommendations from the Federal Highway Administration, National Transportation Safety Board and Occupational Safety and Health Administration..."


My guess is that there were some Darwin Awards-worthy mishaps that prompted this. We learned that in OSHA class: no matter how arcane an OSHA prohibition may seem, it's there because multiple somebodies injured or killed themselves doing it.

My OSHA 10 was useless, and the instructor basically said so with frequency.  90% of the examples offered were of extreme stupidity.  It's unfortunate, really, since there's a lot of basic safety stuff many people don't do that could be better emphasized. 

PHLBOS

Both MA & PA have taken a similar approach regarding no longer erecting bridge-mounted overhead signs.  IIRC, PennDOT started doing such as far back as 2000 in some sign replacement projects.

Interestingly, the 2009 MUTCD makes no mention whatsoever regarding a prohibition of bridge-mounted guidance signs (aka BGS'); see Figure 2E-1 graphic regarding sign spreading.

Bold emphasis added to below-quote:
Quote from: MUTCD Section 2E-11Guidance:
04 Where overhead signing is used, sign spreading should be used at all single exit interchanges and to the
extent possible at multi-exit interchanges. Sign spreading should be accomplished by use of the following:

A. The Exit Direction sign should be the only sign used in the vicinity of the gore (other than the Exit Gore sign). It should be located overhead near the theoretical gore and generally on an overhead sign support structure.

B. The Advance Guide sign to indicate the next interchange exit should be placed near the crossroad location. If the crossroad goes over the mainline, the Advance Guide sign should be placed on the overcrossing structure or on a separate structure immediately in front of the overcrossing structure.

GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman65

I remember one on the CR 514 overpass over both the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway.  The bridge itself is at a 45 degree angle, but the signs were flush against the structure.  It was seen easily by both highways and interestingly enough was guide to both roadways.

From the GSP it was a lane control sign set up to let cars on the SB Parkway know to use the left lane for the NJ Turnpike with a small green sign reading "NJ Turnpike ONLY" with shields for I-95 and the NJT on top and another over the right lane "Woodbridge- Perth Amboy" with attached US 9 and NJ 440 shields on top with arrows for both signs over respected lanes.

Then below on the NB NJT Truck Lanes, those same signs were positioned over the three travel lanes with the same Left NJ Turnpike ONLY over the two left lanes with the same arrow pointing down at them, while the right sign above pointed over the right lane just as the NB Truck lanes are about to approach Exit 11 which coincidentally is for US 9 and NJ 440 to Woodbridge and Perth Amboy.

Now GSV shows them both to be gone, but it was funny that two sets of signs could mean the same thing for two different roadways.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

seicer


vtk

That reminds me of the guide sign on the lanes from OH 315 to I-71 SB, for the upcoming Greenlawn Ave exit, as the sign is mounted on the bridge carrying I-70 WB some 60 feet or more over the traffic it's meant to guide.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

myosh_tino

#17
Either California didn't get the message or they don't care... :P

http://goo.gl/maps/i8lYn

This is a relatively new installation (about a year ago) on southbound US 101 at the intersection with CA-237 in Sunnyvale, CA.

http://goo.gl/maps/1f3K4

These are scheduled for replacement when Caltrans does pavement rehab on this portion of I-280.  The new signs are to be installed on the overpass.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Mr_Northside

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 01, 2015, 04:28:56 PM
Both MA & PA have taken a similar approach regarding no longer erecting bridge-mounted overhead signs.  IIRC, PennDOT started doing such as far back as 2000 in some sign replacement projects.

I can't vouch for any actually policy they may have... but they mounted 2 overhead signs on the 31st St. Bridge overpass over Rt. 28 2 years ago for the Millvale & 40th St. Bridge exits.
I don't have opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything

cl94

NYSDOT installed some in Buffalo as recently as last summer, one in a place that formerly had a ground-mounted sign. As evidenced by a plan set showing NYSTA's first monotube gantry, they might be moving away from bridge-mounted signs, but a huge sign replacement project on I-90 in Erie County last year put new signs on overpasses.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

ctsignguy

Would the reason for the change be that sign gantries mounted on bridge sides tend to shorten the lives of the structures through stresses imposed by the weight of the signs, not to mention the moisture that invariably leaks past the mounting posts into the concrete itself?
http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/ctsignguy/<br /><br />Maintaining an interest in Fine Highway Signs since 1958....

UCFKnights

Quote from: stridentweasel on February 01, 2015, 02:59:43 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 31, 2015, 09:06:38 PM
Bridge-mounted signs are definitely still installed here in the Phoenix area.  The newest ones have graffiti shields on them.  Perhaps the graffiti issue may have something to do with the FHWA's recommendation for VDOT.

It makes sense to require a separate sign gantry if the overpass crosses significantly far off from a 90-degree angle.  (I don't know how to judge what's too far off, but I'd say 30 degrees off is probably too far off.)  But when the overpass crosses at or sufficiently close to (again, this should be defined somewhere) a 90-degree angle, why would a separate sign gantry be required for an overhead sign?  Are graffiti shields too expensive?

As far as I can tell, except for the angle issue, this makes no sense.

(Minor edit for word choice.)
The angle issues are very easy to correct with the bracket though, they generally make sure every sign is mounted perpendicular to the road here in Orlando off of the bridges:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.549774,-81.203765,3a,75y,267.43h,102.63t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s99xSXYsWG5L_4EMXaCfyOw!2e0

davewiecking

I can imagine a lot of torque from wind load on a sign that's mounted on an overpass as an afterthought-as in the above linked picture with the supports at the bottom of the sign-as opposed to on a gantry designed with the specific purpose of holding up a sign. I'm not sure the deadweight of the sign is significant, but the variation in the loads put on the bridge beams by different wind conditions would mean a large number of different forces need to be considered when designing the brackets. I'd always assumed MD was putting them on separate gantries because what else do you do with the sign when you're rehabbing/widening a bridge?

UCFKnights

#23
Quote from: davewiecking on February 02, 2015, 11:31:02 PM
I can imagine a lot of torque from wind load on a sign that's mounted on an overpass as an afterthought-as in the above linked picture with the supports at the bottom of the sign-as opposed to on a gantry designed with the specific purpose of holding up a sign. I'm not sure the deadweight of the sign is significant, but the variation in the loads put on the bridge beams by different wind conditions would mean a large number of different forces need to be considered when designing the brackets. I'd always assumed MD was putting them on separate gantries because what else do you do with the sign when you're rehabbing/widening a bridge?
That is a very common way to mount a sign in both South and Central Florida, where it is subject to some pretty stringent wind codes. Its done on new installations as well of redesigned roads and bridges, I don't think its an afterthought.

PHLBOS

Quote from: ctsignguy on February 02, 2015, 10:41:16 PM
Would the reason for the change be that sign gantries mounted on bridge sides tend to shorten the lives of the structures through stresses imposed by the weight of the signs, not to mention the moisture that invariably leaks past the mounting posts into the concrete itself?
In a nutshell, yes; at least from what I've been told.
GPS does NOT equal GOD



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.