Red and Green?

[UCFKnights]

Looking at the photo and looking at the intersection on Google Street View, it seems bizarre that the green would be on for the left turn at the same time as a red for the right turn.  I could understand the other way (red for left, green for right), but this way (red for right, green for left) has no known reason for being.  There is no obvious conflict, with the left turn having a green due to the setup of the intersection, for the right turn.

In most states, it's not acceptable to have a slip lane with a green signal at the same time as oncoming permissive left turn.

For example, this right turn in Albuquerque: https://goo.gl/maps/amBwxn1rkcXJyNao9

There's no oncoming left turn here that is visible in the photo.  It's effectively a "T" intersection and this part is the "T".

The driveways have signals. Note the signals facing away from the left turn stop line.

If the driveways are green, then the left turn should be red (for the same reason as the right turn), based on the location of the driveways.
https://goo.gl/maps/yCNyoK28e6zVv7JXA

I thought about that too. The offsets would be unusual for a "yield on green" signal, but they did remove a fourth southerly-facing signal for one of the driveways (current image), which makes me wonder if all of the driveways and the left turn go at once (why else would they remove one of the two signals required for each approach?). If this is not the case, sure, change the left turn to green arrows. But the signals facing the driveways should have arrows as well, since it's all split-phased.

That signal is literally in every other street view picture. I think the location so close to the roadway mightbe a problem for that. It appears to have been installed with them originally, but then newer with the yellow border in later ones, so I would guess with the signal being so close to the roadway its been hit like 3 or 4 times.

[jakeroot]

Looking at the photo and looking at the intersection on Google Street View, it seems bizarre that the green would be on for the left turn at the same time as a red for the right turn.  I could understand the other way (red for left, green for right), but this way (red for right, green for left) has no known reason for being.  There is no obvious conflict, with the left turn having a green due to the setup of the intersection, for the right turn.

In most states, it's not acceptable to have a slip lane with a green signal at the same time as oncoming permissive left turn.

For example, this right turn in Albuquerque: https://goo.gl/maps/amBwxn1rkcXJyNao9

There's no oncoming left turn here that is visible in the photo.  It's effectively a "T" intersection and this part is the "T".

The driveways have signals. Note the signals facing away from the left turn stop line.

If the driveways are green, then the left turn should be red (for the same reason as the right turn), based on the location of the driveways.
https://goo.gl/maps/yCNyoK28e6zVv7JXA

I thought about that too. The offsets would be unusual for a "yield on green" signal, but they did remove a fourth southerly-facing signal for one of the driveways (current image), which makes me wonder if all of the driveways and the left turn go at once (why else would they remove one of the two signals required for each approach?). If this is not the case, sure, change the left turn to green arrows. But the signals facing the driveways should have arrows as well, since it's all split-phased.

That signal is literally in every other street view picture. I think the location so close to the roadway mightbe a problem for that. It appears to have been installed with them originally, but then newer with the yellow border in later ones, so I would guess with the signal being so close to the roadway its been hit like 3 or 4 times.

If you look at the most recent street view imagery on a computer, you can see that the yellow-bordered signal was actually removed. The latest imagery does not show it, only the older stuff. Which is odd, because you'd think it would be newer (hence the yellow strip), but it seems to have been installed at the same time as the other signals, just with a yellow border.

[Amtrakprod]

Looking at the photo and looking at the intersection on Google Street View, it seems bizarre that the green would be on for the left turn at the same time as a red for the right turn.  I could understand the other way (red for left, green for right), but this way (red for right, green for left) has no known reason for being.  There is no obvious conflict, with the left turn having a green due to the setup of the intersection, for the right turn.

In most states, it's not acceptable to have a slip lane with a green signal at the same time as oncoming permissive left turn.

For example, this right turn in Albuquerque: https://goo.gl/maps/amBwxn1rkcXJyNao9

There's no oncoming left turn here that is visible in the photo.  It's effectively a "T" intersection and this part is the "T".

The driveways have signals. Note the signals facing away from the left turn stop line.

If the driveways are green, then the left turn should be red (for the same reason as the right turn), based on the location of the driveways.
https://goo.gl/maps/yCNyoK28e6zVv7JXA

I thought about that too. The offsets would be unusual for a "yield on green" signal, but they did remove a fourth southerly-facing signal for one of the driveways (current image), which makes me wonder if all of the driveways and the left turn go at once (why else would they remove one of the two signals required for each approach?). If this is not the case, sure, change the left turn to green arrows. But the signals facing the driveways should have arrows as well, since it's all split-phased.

That signal is literally in every other street view picture. I think the location so close to the roadway mightbe a problem for that. It appears to have been installed with them originally, but then newer with the yellow border in later ones, so I would guess with the signal being so close to the roadway its been hit like 3 or 4 times.

If you look at the most recent street view imagery on a computer, you can see that the yellow-bordered signal was actually removed. The latest imagery does not show it, only the older stuff. Which is odd, because you'd think it would be newer (hence the yellow strip), but it seems to have been installed at the same time as the other signals, just with a yellow border.

Actually no, it was installed without, a year later it was placed, and then it was taken out again.


iPhone

[jakeroot]

Actually no, it was installed without, a year later it was placed, and then it was taken out again.

Are you certain? In this June 2015 imagery, we can see the signals being placed for the intersection. The pole for the removed signal is visible just around the corner, sans-signal display. The next immediate imagery, from March 2016, shows the signal installed.

Basically, they would have installed the signal pole, but then not installed the signal display, for your comment to make sense. The signal seems to have been activated late Summer of 2015, and that yellow-bordered signal was there by the following March (less than a year).

What's really confusing to me, is why they'd have that signal display there, only to remove it a short time later.

[Amtrakprod]

Definitely split phasing. Just went through there again today and we stopped for a driveway car. The light didn't do the red and green thing today for some reason. Idk why


iPhone

[Amtrakprod]

Ok update guys: I just saw the red and green again (driving through again). The green left and the tightest driveway signal were green, and the right turn was red. Doghouse red and green again.


iPhone

[jakeroot]

Alright, here's my hypothesis based on that description: the driveways only activate if someone is waiting at one of the driveways. In these situations, I'm guessing the left turn would have to yield to traffic leaving the driveway turning right, necessitating the green orb.

I don't know why they signalised the driveways. Would have been easier to do nothing, and let those five people figure it out.

[UCFKnights]

Actually no, it was installed without, a year later it was placed, and then it was taken out again.

Are you certain? In this June 2015 imagery, we can see the signals being placed for the intersection. The pole for the removed signal is visible just around the corner, sans-signal display. The next immediate imagery, from March 2016, shows the signal installed.

Basically, they would have installed the signal pole, but then not installed the signal display, for your comment to make sense. The signal seems to have been activated late Summer of 2015, and that yellow-bordered signal was there by the following March (less than a year).

What's really confusing to me, is why they'd have that signal display there, only to remove it a short time later.

Its there March 2016, missing September 2016, there September 2017, missing September 2018. As I said before, I'm betting the signal is placed too close to the roadway around a turn and keeps getting clipped by trucks and whatnot. They probably finally gave up on it after it appearing to have been hit 3 times.

[mapman]

Alright, here's my hypothesis based on that description: the driveways only activate if someone is waiting at one of the driveways. In these situations, I'm guessing the left turn would have to yield to traffic leaving the driveway turning right, necessitating the green orb.

I don't know why they signalised the driveways. Would have been easier to do nothing, and let those five people figure it out.

Alright, here's my hypothesis based on that description: the driveways only activate if someone is waiting at one of the driveways. In these situations, I'm guessing the left turn would have to yield to traffic leaving the driveway turning right, necessitating the green orb.

I don't know why they signalised the driveways. Would have been easier to do nothing, and let those five people figure it out.

Not sure about Massachusetts, but Caltrans (California) requires that opposing private driveways be signalized.  The justification is because the MUTCD doesn't allow "mixtures" of different traffic control at the same intersection, e.g., stop signs at signalized intersections.  Some older intersections in California, though, use just a red ball for the driveway intersection.  Example:  https://goo.gl/maps/JsBrWqE7Fcc7QUd88 

[jakeroot]

Its there March 2016, missing September 2016, there September 2017, missing September 2018. As I said before, I'm betting the signal is placed too close to the roadway around a turn and keeps getting clipped by trucks and whatnot. They probably finally gave up on it after it appearing to have been hit 3 times.

It does seem awfully close to the road. That theory makes sense. At any rate, each approach needs two signals, so I'm not sure if that driveway is now part of the larger intersection, or operates by itself with only one signal.

Not sure about Massachusetts, but Caltrans (California) requires that opposing private driveways be signalized.  The justification is because the MUTCD doesn't allow "mixtures" of different traffic control at the same intersection, e.g., stop signs at signalized intersections.  Some older intersections in California, though, use just a red ball for the driveway intersection.  Example:  https://goo.gl/maps/JsBrWqE7Fcc7QUd88 

I think that's a general rule in most states (evidently the case in Mass as well). My idea comes from several intersections in my area (one example, now gone, and another) where one approach (always a driveway) does not have a signal, much less a stop sign. There's just not enough cars to justify the extra engineering complexity. I cannot recall any recently-installed examples.

[deathtopumpkins]

Yes, in Massachusetts driveways that are within a signalized intersection must be signalized as well.

[jakeroot]

Yes, in Massachusetts driveways that are within a signalized intersection must be signalized as well.

Is it an actual written rule, or just a rule of thumb?

[Amtrakprod]

I've seen so many with that, but idk if it is written law


iPhone

[jakeroot]

I've seen so many with that, but idk if it is written law

Well, and I've probably seen just as many. But sometimes it's just a de facto rule (taken as the rule, but perhaps not actually). Meaning engineers have the final say-so, as far as I know.

[jeffandnicole]

Yes, in Massachusetts driveways that are within a signalized intersection must be signalized as well.

Is it an actual written rule, or just a rule of thumb?

Usually up to engineer's discretion, although often their "discretion" is mandated by transportation department policy.  Usually things like this don't get to the point of needing a law, unless someone complains to their local politician who decides they can create a feel-good law in the name of safety.

To use another example, while most states have laws describing what to do at a stop sign, and what to do at a traffic light, it's up to engineer's discretion what gets installed where.  TUnlike what a lot of people feel, it doesn't take a death at an intersection to have a light installed, and as one person in an online discussion tried telling me recently, it's not law that a flashing red light be installed for several years before a traffic light is installed! 

[deathtopumpkins]

Yes, in Massachusetts driveways that are within a signalized intersection must be signalized as well.

Is it an actual written rule, or just a rule of thumb?

I can't find an actual rule anywhere, but it's standard practice, and frankly it's common sense.

The MUTCD allows for a driveway within a signalized intersection to not be signalized (instead getting a stop or yield sign) only so long as "an extremely low potential for conflict exists".

[Amtrakprod]

Also, fun thing from the SAME doghouse. It decides to turn off the red ball for the left turn when the right turn has a green and left is red. Bad photo from
Uber I'm sorry!


iPhone

[deathtopumpkins]

My apologies, I misread his post.