Largest wastes of overhead assemblies?

[myosh_tino]

I wonder if anyone knows the story behind this empty gantry on I-880 south after the Marina Blvd onramp?

(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.

[national highway 1]

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. 

[deathtopumpkins]

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.

= 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.

[Alex]

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

[roadman]

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."

[Alps]

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.

[PHLBOS]

= 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?

[Brandon]

Via InDOT on I-80/94:





Would a cantilevered sign work better?

[Stratuscaster]

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.

[njroadhorse]

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.

[Dr Frankenstein]

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.

[Alps]

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?

[roadman65]

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

[SidS1045]

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.

[Ned Weasel]

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--

[pianocello]

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".

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

I-71 in both directions between I-270 and Oh 161
http://goo.gl/maps/kuwGt 71 SB
http://goo.gl/maps/tbdj5 71 NB

[codyg1985]

Not quite as egregious as some of the other examples here, but a couple on I-75 near Chattanooga strike me as overkill:

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.

[codyg1985]

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.

[KEK Inc.]

Most VMS signs in Oregon use its own full road width gantry. 

[nwi_navigator_1181]

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.

[Special K]

Via InDOT on I-80/94:





Would a cantilevered sign work better?

It's likely the sign and span are too large for a cantilever design.

[roadman]

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.

[myosh_tino]

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...

[roadman]

]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.