AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Ridiculously large reassurance signs  (Read 1733 times)

Michael

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 994
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Auburn, NY
  • Last Login: November 07, 2019, 09:22:04 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #25 on: July 26, 2019, 10:00:33 PM »

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

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9634
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: November 19, 2019, 11:58:58 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #26 on: July 26, 2019, 11:15:33 PM »

After thinking more about specifically reassurance shields, I remembered this one on NY 201.  It's pretty big, even for a freeway.
That is not new if your from NJ, many places (especially circles) have large ones.

The odd ones are in Michigan on US 127 and US 10.  The 127 shield is large while the 10 shield is small where both routes overlap, however someone on here said all MI freeway concurrencies have one large and one small to show which route is the dominating highway designation and which is along for the ride.  US 127 in Mount Pleasant is the main route while US 10 is the guest so to speak so it gets a regular sized shield while the primary 127 gets a large one.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2732
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:38:37 AM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2019, 10:35:56 PM »

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.3925004,-98.3894068,3a,37.5y,209.07h,84.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy9Fh-JowEjO5_rSjvMHVTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I-410 / TX-130 in San Antonio.

The I-410 shield is rather large compared to the small TX-130 shield.
Logged

paulthemapguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4422
  • That's not how it works...

  • Age: 30
  • Location: Illinois
  • Last Login: Today at 12:04:55 AM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2019, 04:48:41 PM »

Massachusetts was the state that popped into my head as soon as I read the title of this thread lol
Logged
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmhQf3nW
Source Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHskFU42pF
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

Let's make the forum space a good time for everyone.

formulanone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7229
  • Business with pleasure?

  • Age: 45
  • Location: HSV, and then some
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 07:41:36 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #29 on: July 30, 2019, 07:08:00 PM »

Massachusetts was the state that popped into my head as soon as I read the title of this thread lol

Massachusetts' misaligned banners tick me off. If the assembly is going to look like Lennie, least put the damn hat in the right place.

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6838
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 05:49:09 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2019, 10:13:30 AM »

Massachusetts was the state that popped into my head as soon as I read the title of this thread lol

Massachusetts' misaligned banners tick me off. If the assembly is going to look like Lennie, least put the damn hat in the right place.
While I'm certainly not condoning MassHighway/MassDOT's practice of such; they're not the only ones.  I've seen some I-95 shields in Delaware and a handful of NJ 24 shields that feature misaligned (giving an appearance of left/right-justified) banners.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2019, 10:40:37 AM by PHLBOS »
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3826
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Boston, MA
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 11:19:11 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #31 on: July 31, 2019, 01:25:34 PM »

Massachusetts was the state that popped into my head as soon as I read the title of this thread lol

Massachusetts' misaligned banners tick me off. If the assembly is going to look like Lennie, least put the damn hat in the right place.
While I'm certainly not condoning MassHighway/MassDOT's practice of such; they're not the only ones.  I've seen some I-95 shields in Delaware and a handful of NJ 24 shields that feature misaligned (giving an appearance of left/right-justified) banners.

As larger shields are mounted on twin telescopic or U-channel posts (P5 post in MassDOT parlance), the banner is mounted to the left post to maintain the breakaway capabilities of the posts.  Centering the banner above the shield would require a bracket connecting the two posts together, which would defeat the breakaway feature of the twin post assembly.  As I've noted in other threads, on recent signing projects MassDOT has been transitioning from twin P5 posts to single steel beam posts for larger assemblies on Interstate and freeway mainlines.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 12:26:02 PM by roadman »
Logged
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

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

formulanone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7229
  • Business with pleasure?

  • Age: 45
  • Location: HSV, and then some
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 07:41:36 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #32 on: July 31, 2019, 05:13:16 PM »

Massachusetts was the state that popped into my head as soon as I read the title of this thread lol

Massachusetts' misaligned banners tick me off. If the assembly is going to look like Lennie, least put the damn hat in the right place.
While I'm certainly not condoning MassHighway/MassDOT's practice of such; they're not the only ones.  I've seen some I-95 shields in Delaware and a handful of NJ 24 shields that feature misaligned (giving an appearance of left/right-justified) banners.

As larger shields are mounted on twin telescopic or U-channel posts (P5 post in MassDOT parlance), the banner is mounted to the left post to maintain the breakaway capabilities of the posts.  Centering the banner above the shield would require a bracket connecting the two posts together, which would defeat the breakaway feature of the twin post assembly.  As I've noted in other threads, on recent signing projects MassDOT has been transitioning from twin P5 posts t0 steel beam posts for larger assemblies on Interstate and freeway mainlines.

Makes more sense, hearing it that way.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2019, 08:43:02 PM by formulanone »
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4152
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 10:41:06 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #33 on: July 31, 2019, 06:00:15 PM »

As larger shields are mounted on twin telescopic or U-channel posts (P5 post in MassDOT parlance), the banner is mounted to the left post to maintain the breakaway capabilities of the posts.  Centering the banner above the shield would require a bracket connecting the two posts together, which would defeat the breakaway feature of the twin post assembly.

MnDOT installs double-posted signs with connecting posts all the time. Here's a classic example using one large shield, or another example using three smaller shields plus banners and arrows. Are you saying that these are not effective breakaway posts?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2019, 06:04:01 PM by MNHighwayMan »
Logged

Hot Rod Hootenanny

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1878
  • Diplomat of Solid Sound

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Middle of Nowhere, Ohio
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 10:10:19 PM
    • 20th Century roadfan material
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #34 on: July 31, 2019, 09:29:39 PM »

Was reminded of this oversized Ohio shield, south of Columbus, Along US 23, yesterday.
https://goo.gl/maps/HVUcgToWLUB5cXUQ6
https://goo.gl/maps/U3mZWFvLfsjBu6f47
Logged
SAVE AAROADS!! ONLY TALK ABOUT ROADS!

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9634
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: November 19, 2019, 11:58:58 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #35 on: July 31, 2019, 09:31:33 PM »

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

Sheryl Crowe

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10832
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 05:01:29 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #36 on: July 31, 2019, 09:50:04 PM »

Neither one is a reassurance sign.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9634
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: November 19, 2019, 11:58:58 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #37 on: July 31, 2019, 10:38:46 PM »

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

Sheryl Crowe

roadman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3826
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Boston, MA
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 11:19:11 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2019, 11:10:30 AM »

As larger shields are mounted on twin telescopic or U-channel posts (P5 post in MassDOT parlance), the banner is mounted to the left post to maintain the breakaway capabilities of the posts.  Centering the banner above the shield would require a bracket connecting the two posts together, which would defeat the breakaway feature of the twin post assembly.

MnDOT installs double-posted signs with connecting posts all the time. Here's a classic example using one large shield, or another example using three smaller shields plus banners and arrows. Are you saying that these are not effective breakaway posts?

Correct.  In a dual post breakaway assembly, the posts are designed to work independently of each other when struck.  For a sign that is mounted just off the shoulder, it is just as likely that an errant vehicle will strike only the left post than hitting both of them.  Because of this, the connecting piece between the posts will create resistance to the posts, and they will not break away as designed.  This increases the potential for either of the posts or the connecting piece piercing the vehicle.  As for the 'brace' in your first photo, that would easily penetrate a car's windshield if the sign were struck.

I seriously doubt that either of the assemblies you posted (sorry for the pun) would be considered acceptable under either NCHRP 350 or MASH (Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware) standards.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 11:17:54 AM by roadman »
Logged
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

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

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4152
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 10:41:06 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #39 on: August 01, 2019, 11:36:59 AM »

I seriously doubt that either of the assemblies you posted (sorry for the pun) would be considered acceptable under either NCHRP 350 or MASH (Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware) standards.

You might want to alert MnDOT to that, then. They've been installing signs like that for years.
Logged

SGwithADD

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 22
  • Location: Pittsburgh
  • Last Login: November 18, 2019, 12:14:38 PM
Re: Ridiculously large reassurance signs
« Reply #40 on: August 01, 2019, 09:10:51 PM »

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

Yeah, that one is massive.  I remember being almost shocked by it when they first installed it.

NYSDOT Region 9 must have went through a period where they loved these giant signs.  There are a few along NY 434, such as this one.  If my memory serves me, these were installed in the mid-2000s (as was the giant NY 201 sign, which was installed in 2005 when the flyover was completed).
Logged

 


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.