Type III Kit – For Temporary Sign Support
Better Roads Staff | September 14, 2012
This kit transforms the Yodock® 2001 or 2001M into an effective Temporary Sign Support, while utilizing the ballasting capabilities of the Yodock® 2001 or 2001M. With the proper amount of ballasting, the device is difficult to intentionally move, which helps to ensure that the Temporary Sign Support will not be moved. The Yodock® Temporary Sign Support has passed the NCHRP 350 criteria for Test Level III, 62 mph and has been accepted by the FHWA, see Letter WZ-127.
The Yodock® Wall Company, Inc. has determined that the ease of intentional movement of the traditional temporary sign support creates an unacceptable risk to pedestrians and motorists. Also many temporary signs are used in areas where underground cables or structures prevent a sign from being posted into the surface. To help eliminate these risks, a temporary sign support kit was developed to be used in conjunction with the Yodock® 2001 or 2001M.
Road Closure/Type III Barricade:The Yodock System is crashworthy and more effective at preventing unauthorized access to restricted areas than conventional type III barricades. Because the system is water ballasted, it is difficult to move, eliminating the need for labor intensive sandbags.
Temporary Sign Support:The Yodock System is crashworthy and more effective when used as a Temporary Sign Support because of its difficulty to move when ballasted.
- High visibility increases motorist decision sight distance
- Water ballast makes it difficult for unauthorized movement or removal
- Meets NCHRP 350 and has been accepted by the FHWA for 62 mph work zones
- Eliminates the need for sand bags
- Meets MUTCD requirements for Temporary Sign Support
MORE FROM Boomerang
- California to test feasibility of mileage tax703 Views
- Several NMDOT employees fired following drunken party421 Views
- PHOTOS: Six bridge/transportation projects receive 2014 PCI Awards389 Views
- Boxer urges House Ways & Means Committee to save Highway Trust Fund358 Views
- Construction company called out for substandard concrete261 Views