View Single Post
  #26  
Old 09-28-2011, 12:01 PM
Alan Alan is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 507
Default .02

q'Tzal asked about general comments, so here goes...

I like the striped reflective surface applied to the concrete plinth, and I'd like it on the vertical sides of the steel base of the lamp pole, too. I'd like the lamp poles to be fully reflecterized and caution-striped from the bottom up to about four feet, about the bottom of the "pass with care" sign.

I don't like the upright reflectors above the plinth. They are a hazard in their own right.

I'm not sure about all the signage. It gets cluttered and close to the visual overload level. Maybe just "Congested Area" "Next N Yards" on both approaches (not sure what MUTCD says). The fog lines do a good job of indicating path egress where they turn out at the "T" intersections. I'm sceptical of the center line, too, so maybe just fog lines on both sides in the congested area.

With the lamp pole plinths directly in the travel lane, those fog lines seem absolutely essential. Also, the existing concrete path could (should?) be raised to the level of the plinth itself, doing away with it as a hazard. Even then, the proximity of the lamp pole should still be called out with reflective stripes and a fog line. Alternately or additionally, the trail should be widened a couple feet on the side away from the lamp pole, for maybe 20 feet on each side of the poles. The trail would be better wider than narrower when passing by those hazards.

Last edited by Alan; 09-28-2011 at 12:05 PM. Reason: s/Miles/Yards
Reply With Quote