Traffic signal

[kphoger]

Why...?

Why what?

[STLmapboy]

Why...?

Why what?

Why would any self-respecting state hang a traffic signal like that? If it's under a bridge just make it horizontal.

[plain]

Why...?

I don't see the need for a PV signal here at all as there are no angled streets at that intersection. A regular signal would've been fine.

[jakeroot]

Why...?

Minus the up arrow, reminds me of this signal I saw today in Federal Way, WA. Left turn is being converted to FYA, but the fourth lens is being occupied by a green orb in the meantime:

[STLmapboy]

Imagine trying to read this while whisking through the intersection at 45 mph (in Huntsville, TX).

[Amtrakprod]

um what

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3779733,-71.2358049,3a,21.3y,96.53h,96.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3_t_CASBIg7uviitvm6xvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[SignBridge]

Yeah, that's typical old style Massachusetts signals. Are there any still around with flashing green lights? There used to be one in Braintree by the high school but I think it's been changed.

[Revive 755]

um what

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3779733,-71.2358049,3a,21.3y,96.53h,96.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3_t_CASBIg7uviitvm6xvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Should be a doghouse.  If you rotate about 90 degrees to the right there's already a doghouse at that corner, complete with a non-MUTCD complaint straight yellow arrow and nonstandard 'yield to peds' sign.

[ErmineNotyours]

um what

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3779733,-71.2358049,3a,21.3y,96.53h,96.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3_t_CASBIg7uviitvm6xvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Also in Auburn, Washington; with a green ball too.

[hotdogPi]

Yeah, that's typical old style Massachusetts signals. Are there any still around with flashing green lights? There used to be one in Braintree by the high school but I think it's been changed.

Yes. There are some in Salem and surrounding towns.

[STLmapboy]

King Traffic Signal the Ancient. Oh, Massachusetts...

[Revive 755]

Also in Auburn, Washington; with a green ball too.

There's a similar setup around Des Moines, IA, with a straight green arrow instead of the green ball.

Granted only having one head for the through movement is not MUTCD compliant, but it's likely such a low volume movement that an exception is probably warranted here.

[Amtrakprod]

In MA's defense our new traffic lights are some of the best


iPhone

[roadfro]

Also in Auburn, Washington; with a green ball too.

And also out of MUTCD compliance, since a left turn green arrow should be above a right turn green arrow for a vertical display like this.

[SignBridge]

King Traffic Signal the Ancient. Oh, Massachusetts...

Ah yes, I know that Braintree intersection well. Believe it or not there used to be older short mast arm traffic lights there before the diagonal span wire! No idea why they didn't just go with longer modern mast-arms.

[STLmapboy]

King Traffic Signal the Ancient. Oh, Massachusetts...

Ah yes, I know that Braintree intersection well. Believe it or not there used to be older short mast arm traffic lights there before the diagonal span wire! No idea why they didn't just go with longer modern mast-arms.

When was the current one put in? 80s or 90s?

[mrsman]

Also in Auburn, Washington; with a green ball too.

There's a similar setup around Des Moines, IA, with a straight green arrow instead of the green ball.

Granted only having one head for the through movement is not MUTCD compliant, but it's likely such a low volume movement that an exception is probably warranted here.

It leads to a good question as to how to signalize based on three competing "philosophies".  The need for one signal face per lane.  The need for two signal faces for the straight movement.  The need for the signal face facing your lane to indicate all permitted movements from your lane, but not those that are prohibited.  Not all of the above philsophies are required by MUTCD.

If I were designing for a signal in that situation: left lane must turn left, right lane must turn right, middle lane can go left, right, or straight, that is relatively common at diamond ramps to freeway exits, especially considering that all greens come on at the same time regardless of where the arrows are pointing, I would do the following:

Left: RYG-GA left;  Center: RYG-GA left; Right: RY-GA right.  The signs will indicate permitted movements, like in the Johnson, Iowa example - not the signal faces.

[roadfro]

Also in Auburn, Washington; with a green ball too.

There's a similar setup around Des Moines, IA, with a straight green arrow instead of the green ball.

Granted only having one head for the through movement is not MUTCD compliant, but it's likely such a low volume movement that an exception is probably warranted here.

It leads to a good question as to how to signalize based on three competing "philosophies".  The need for one signal face per lane.  The need for two signal faces for the straight movement.  The need for the signal face facing your lane to indicate all permitted movements from your lane, but not those that are prohibited.  Not all of the above philsophies are required by MUTCD.

If I were designing for a signal in that situation: left lane must turn left, right lane must turn right, middle lane can go left, right, or straight, that is relatively common at diamond ramps to freeway exits, especially considering that all greens come on at the same time regardless of where the arrows are pointing, I would do the following:

Left: RYG-GA left;  Center: RYG-GA left; Right: RY-GA right.  The signs will indicate permitted movements, like in the Johnson, Iowa example - not the signal faces.

From what I can see in the street view, there is no special reason for the right turn arrows to be used. With the lane assignment signage in place, I would use the following signal heads:

Left: R-Y-left GA; Center: R-Y-G-left GA; Right: R-Y-G

This would pass muster with MUTCD, and doesn't have the potentially non-kosher issue of having a green ball to the left of a green left arrow.


EDIT: I must have been subconsciously influenced by something I'd seen before when posting this. Immediately afterwards, I looked up the street view of an off ramp here in Reno. Turns out it has the same lane configuration as the quoted post, and the uses a similar signal head scheme to what I suggested (all arrows on the left-most signal head though, which makes more sense), and does this without lane assignment signage on the mast arm.

[SignBridge]

King Traffic Signal the Ancient. Oh, Massachusetts...

Ah yes, I know that Braintree intersection well. Believe it or not there used to be older short mast arm traffic lights there before the diagonal span wire! No idea why they didn't just go with longer modern mast-arms.

When was the current one put in? 80s or 90s?

Had to mid-1990's or later as I first noticed the mast arm signals around 1992.

[mrsman]

Also in Auburn, Washington; with a green ball too.

There's a similar setup around Des Moines, IA, with a straight green arrow instead of the green ball.

Granted only having one head for the through movement is not MUTCD compliant, but it's likely such a low volume movement that an exception is probably warranted here.

It leads to a good question as to how to signalize based on three competing "philosophies".  The need for one signal face per lane.  The need for two signal faces for the straight movement.  The need for the signal face facing your lane to indicate all permitted movements from your lane, but not those that are prohibited.  Not all of the above philsophies are required by MUTCD.

If I were designing for a signal in that situation: left lane must turn left, right lane must turn right, middle lane can go left, right, or straight, that is relatively common at diamond ramps to freeway exits, especially considering that all greens come on at the same time regardless of where the arrows are pointing, I would do the following:

Left: RYG-GA left;  Center: RYG-GA left; Right: RY-GA right.  The signs will indicate permitted movements, like in the Johnson, Iowa example - not the signal faces.

From what I can see in the street view, there is no special reason for the right turn arrows to be used. With the lane assignment signage in place, I would use the following signal heads:

Left: R-Y-left GA; Center: R-Y-G-left GA; Right: R-Y-G

This would pass muster with MUTCD, and doesn't have the potentially non-kosher issue of having a green ball to the left of a green left arrow.


EDIT: I must have been subconsciously influenced by something I'd seen before when posting this. Immediately afterwards, I looked up the street view of an off ramp here in Reno. Turns out it has the same lane configuration as the quoted post, and the uses a similar signal head scheme to what I suggested (all arrows on the left-most signal head though, which makes more sense), and does this without lane assignment signage on the mast arm.

This is a good way of doing this.  One other benefit is that if a ped crosses illegally on the right, traffic won't act like it is a protected turn and will yield to those peds.

Here's an example from L.A.  Two left signals are RYG-left GA and the right signals are RYG-right GA.  Every signal except for the center signal is a sidemount.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1566853,-118.4488622,3a,37.5y,133.19h,88.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svegLAhRMDDwFL2O9xkRrfg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[STLmapboy]

Hawaii deciding the tops and bottoms of its traffic lights don't need silly backplates.

Oh, and apparently visors are optional too.

[STLmapboy]

And one Hawaiian island over, a recently widened HA-19 has three overhead signals for two lanes of thru traffic (and coupled with excessively wide backplates it looks pretty ugly).

[Amtrakprod]

And one Hawaiian island over, a recently widened HA-19 has three overhead signals for two lanes of thru traffic (and coupled with excessively wide backplates it looks pretty ugly).

Gives me Oregon vibes. [off topic but] I love those bike lanes


iPhone

[jakeroot]

Also in Auburn, Washington; with a green ball too.

And also out of MUTCD compliance, since a left turn green arrow should be above a right turn green arrow for a vertical display like this.

This is true, although as it's installed, the corresponding arrows line up with each other (left with left, and right with right), and it's rather more satisfying.

Still, as to the other above posts, the installation would not exist if designed today, since it's out of compliance (not enough through signals), so how "satisfying" it is, isn't really relevant .

[STLmapboy]

There's little I hate more than a newer signal with a miniscule street sign.

Also in Texas; doesn't the leftmost signal here just scream "afterthought"?