Traffic signal

[paulthemapguy]

Here's an odd one from Elgin, IL.  What do you do if you're on a one-way street that shifts over to a two-way street at an intersection where most traffic will leave off to the left?  This is what IDOT does, apparently.

https://goo.gl/maps/r4q6HaKsniL2

[MNHighwayMan]

Do those two right lanes really even need a signal? And if so, why not just use a separate signal head (or two)?

[DaBigE]

Do those two right lanes really even need a signal? And if so, why not just use a separate signal head (or two)?

I would agree...perma-green installations seem silly to me. They also already have the solo up arrow on the right side In any case, if they're going to have it, and insist on including it in the same stack, it should be just above the left green arrow, not just below the red indication. Based on the Google imagery dates, it looks like the signal in the island was a "recent" modification. This installation seems silly and overkill to me as well.

[US 89]

Here's an odd one from Elgin, IL.  What do you do if you're on a one-way street that shifts over to a two-way street at an intersection where most traffic will leave off to the left?  This is what IDOT does, apparently.

https://goo.gl/maps/r4q6HaKsniL2

Something tells me that's not MUTCD approved.

[plain]

Do those two right lanes really even need a signal? And if so, why not just use a separate signal head (or two)?

I would agree...perma-green installations seem silly to me. They also already have the solo up arrow on the right side In any case, if they're going to have it, and insist on including it in the same stack, it should be just above the left green arrow, not just below the red indication. Based on the Google imagery dates, it looks like the signal in the island was a "recent" modification.

Yeah this setup is crazy from every way I look at it...

In that older street view image the turn signals had red balls instead of red arrows with only the lone up green one on the right side of the one way street. I can see the confusion it caused with drivers unfamiliar with that intersection (especially at night) with so many left turn signals. At least the red arrows alone are a huge improvement.

That 4 head signal in the current image though is ridiculously dumb. To me it would've been better if the permanent greens (either one or two, wouldn't matter in this case) were mounted over the lanes via mast arm and the left turn signals remain ground mounted. The next signal in the background is mast mounted anyway

[jakeroot]

That 4 head signal in the current image though is ridiculously dumb. To me it would've been better if the permanent greens (either one or two, wouldn't matter in this case) were mounted over the lanes via mast arm and the left turn signals remain ground mounted. The next signal in the background is mast mounted anyway

I disagree. The signals seem very well placed to me. Overhead signals are vastly over-rated. The four signal heads together ensure excellent visibility not only for those approaching the left turn, but also for those waiting at the stop line. The perma-green arrows are a point of contention already, so I'm not sure why they'd need to be on a mast arm.

As for what I might change, I'd replace the perma-green arrows with a standard three-head signal. There's a crosswalk right where the perma-green signal is. They signalized the other two crosswalks. Are they expecting people to cross against that perma-green arrow?

[paulthemapguy]

Here's an odd one from Elgin, IL.  What do you do if you're on a one-way street that shifts over to a two-way street at an intersection where most traffic will leave off to the left?  This is what IDOT does, apparently.

https://goo.gl/maps/r4q6HaKsniL2

Something tells me that's not MUTCD approved.

I have no idea why they decided to put the green arrow second from the top.  I don't think that makes sense no matter what your guidelines are.  The powerlines above the intersection kind of mess up the potential for an overhead signal (and trying to get ComEd to move their infrastructure is always a fiasco that you avoid if possible).

[MNHighwayMan]

Get a chainsaw and cut down one of their utility poles. I'm sure that'd get them to move.

[PColumbus73]

Here's an odd one from Elgin, IL.  What do you do if you're on a one-way street that shifts over to a two-way street at an intersection where most traffic will leave off to the left?  This is what IDOT does, apparently.

https://goo.gl/maps/r4q6HaKsniL2

Something tells me that's not MUTCD approved.

I have no idea why they decided to put the green arrow second from the top.  I don't think that makes sense no matter what your guidelines are.  The powerlines above the intersection kind of mess up the potential for an overhead signal (and trying to get ComEd to move their infrastructure is always a fiasco that you avoid if possible).

Actually, although it's odd, it is MUTCD compliant.

[SignBridge]

Re: Jakeroot's comment that "overhead signals are vastly over-rated", I respectfully disagree, BUT I think post/pole mounted signals are equally useful. I've always thought the most effective signal configurations were a combination of overhead and post/pole mounts as commonly seen in California.

[jakeroot]

Re: Jakeroot's comment that "overhead signals are vastly over-rated", I respectfully disagree, BUT I think post/pole mounted signals are equally useful. I've always thought the most effective signal configurations were a combination of overhead and post/pole mounts as commonly seen in California.

I may have, err, definitely misspoke. Overhead signals certainly have their place. In this particular situation, however, I feel that post-mounted signals alone work really well. Especially considering the odd angles of the intersection. At most intersections, a combination of overhead and post-mounted signals are best.

Perhaps unrelated; I do feel as though we jump to overhead signals too quickly. In many situations, post-mounted signals alone work exceptionally well. In most (all?) jurisdictions, post-mounted signals are considered secondary to the overhead primary signal heads. I've always felt this was backwards. There are no situations where overhead signals alone get the job done. They can often be unsightly and hard to see if there's too many vehicles in front or maybe a tall vehicle. There are certainly situations where post-mounted signals are hard to see (cheifly at 2+ lane approaches). In those situations, you'd have both. But like small, two lane intersections, post-only works just fine.

[DaBigE]

Here's an odd one from Elgin, IL.  What do you do if you're on a one-way street that shifts over to a two-way street at an intersection where most traffic will leave off to the left?  This is what IDOT does, apparently.

https://goo.gl/maps/r4q6HaKsniL2

Something tells me that's not MUTCD approved.

I have no idea why they decided to put the green arrow second from the top.  I don't think that makes sense no matter what your guidelines are.  The powerlines above the intersection kind of mess up the potential for an overhead signal (and trying to get ComEd to move their infrastructure is always a fiasco that you avoid if possible).

Actually, although it's odd, it is MUTCD compliant.

Holy crap, your right. Except in some ramp meters or toll plazas, I always thought a red indication could not be right next to (or on top of) a green one.

The relative positions of signal sections in a vertically-arranged signal face, from top to bottom, shall be as follows:
CIRCULAR RED
Steady and/or flashing left-turn RED ARROW
Steady and/or flashing right-turn RED ARROW
CIRCULAR YELLOW
CIRCULAR GREEN
Straight-through GREEN ARROW
Steady left-turn YELLOW ARROW
Flashing left-turn YELLOW ARROW
Left-turn GREEN ARROW
Steady right-turn YELLOW ARROW
Flashing right-turn YELLOW ARROW
Right-turn GREEN ARROW

Regardless, even though it would require additional brackets, I would have rather seen the two directions split into separate stacks, similar to this.

As for what I might change, I'd replace the perma-green arrows with a standard three-head signal. There's a crosswalk right where the perma-green signal is. They signalized the other two crosswalks. Are they expecting people to cross against that perma-green arrow?

Agree on the ped xing conflict. I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually wait for the light to cross here, but at least they have legal accommodations.

[PColumbus73]

Here's an odd one from Elgin, IL.  What do you do if you're on a one-way street that shifts over to a two-way street at an intersection where most traffic will leave off to the left?  This is what IDOT does, apparently.

https://goo.gl/maps/r4q6HaKsniL2

Something tells me that's not MUTCD approved.

I have no idea why they decided to put the green arrow second from the top.  I don't think that makes sense no matter what your guidelines are.  The powerlines above the intersection kind of mess up the potential for an overhead signal (and trying to get ComEd to move their infrastructure is always a fiasco that you avoid if possible).

Actually, although it's odd, it is MUTCD compliant.

Holy crap, your right. Except in some ramp meters or toll plazas, I always thought a red indication could not be right next to (or on top of) a green one.

The relative positions of signal sections in a vertically-arranged signal face, from top to bottom, shall be as follows:
CIRCULAR RED
Steady and/or flashing left-turn RED ARROW
Steady and/or flashing right-turn RED ARROW
CIRCULAR YELLOW
CIRCULAR GREEN
Straight-through GREEN ARROW
Steady left-turn YELLOW ARROW
Flashing left-turn YELLOW ARROW
Left-turn GREEN ARROW
Steady right-turn YELLOW ARROW
Flashing right-turn YELLOW ARROW
Right-turn GREEN ARROW

Regardless, even though it would require additional brackets, I would have rather seen the two directions split into separate stacks, similar to this.

As for what I might change, I'd replace the perma-green arrows with a standard three-head signal. There's a crosswalk right where the perma-green signal is. They signalized the other two crosswalks. Are they expecting people to cross against that perma-green arrow?

Agree on the ped xing conflict. I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually wait for the light to cross here, but at least they have legal accommodations.

I agree there should be a full 3-section for the crosswalk. But if they don't want to fully signalize the crosswalk, I think a lopsided dolly would be suitable here.

[Jet380]

 

I agree there should be a full 3-section for the crosswalk. But if they don't want to fully signalize the crosswalk, I think a lopsided dolly would be suitable here.

We have a setup like that here in Perth - the sighting board makes it look a bit less off-balance:


https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.8678268,115.8015741,3a,50.5y,79.44h,89.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-DtEM88kz867otrGwlkIYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Scott5114]

OkDOT appears to have discovered the reflective border option and is deploying it on all of their signals, replacing the backplates. The new backplates have little vent slits in them to reduce wind resistance. It makes it easy to spot which signals are state-maintained and which are city-maintained, as Norman has only used reflective borders on a few of their newer signals, and OKC doesn't use them at all, as far as I know.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

Do those two right lanes really even need a signal? And if so, why not just use a separate signal head (or two)?

I would agree...perma-green installations seem silly to me. They also already have the solo up arrow on the right side In any case, if they're going to have it, and insist on including it in the same stack, it should be just above the left green arrow, not just below the red indication. Based on the Google imagery dates, it looks like the signal in the island was a "recent" modification. This installation seems silly and overkill to me as well.

I would love the opportunity to ask a DOT what their thought process was behind something, just to see what they have to say about it.

[jakeroot]

Do those two right lanes really even need a signal? And if so, why not just use a separate signal head (or two)?

I would agree...perma-green installations seem silly to me. They also already have the solo up arrow on the right side In any case, if they're going to have it, and insist on including it in the same stack, it should be just above the left green arrow, not just below the red indication. Based on the Google imagery dates, it looks like the signal in the island was a "recent" modification. This installation seems silly and overkill to me as well.

I would love the opportunity to ask a DOT what their thought process was behind something, just to see what they have to say about it.

If your local agencies are transparent enough, there's usually contact information provided online for those heading the projects. They could usually answer your questions.

I've taken this route before, and I've always gotten a response.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

Do those two right lanes really even need a signal? And if so, why not just use a separate signal head (or two)?

I would agree...perma-green installations seem silly to me. They also already have the solo up arrow on the right side In any case, if they're going to have it, and insist on including it in the same stack, it should be just above the left green arrow, not just below the red indication. Based on the Google imagery dates, it looks like the signal in the island was a "recent" modification. This installation seems silly and overkill to me as well.

I would love the opportunity to ask a DOT what their thought process was behind something, just to see what they have to say about it.

If your local agencies are transparent enough, there's usually contact information provided online for those heading the projects. They could usually answer your questions.

I've taken this route before, and I've always gotten a response.

Well, I was thinking about just walking up and being like, "Guys, what the hell is that green upside down stop sign doing there?" So, I have actually contacted "A Pirate's favorite DOT" (Now) and asked them about a few things, before. But, really there was truth and a bit of sarcasm to my statement.

[jakeroot]

Do those two right lanes really even need a signal? And if so, why not just use a separate signal head (or two)?

I would agree...perma-green installations seem silly to me. They also already have the solo up arrow on the right side In any case, if they're going to have it, and insist on including it in the same stack, it should be just above the left green arrow, not just below the red indication. Based on the Google imagery dates, it looks like the signal in the island was a "recent" modification. This installation seems silly and overkill to me as well.

I would love the opportunity to ask a DOT what their thought process was behind something, just to see what they have to say about it.

If your local agencies are transparent enough, there's usually contact information provided online for those heading the projects. They could usually answer your questions.

I've taken this route before, and I've always gotten a response.

Well, I was thinking about just walking up and being like, "Guys, what the hell is that green upside down stop sign doing there?" So, I have actually contacted "A Pirate's favorite DOT" (Now) and asked them about a few things, before. But, really there was truth and a bit of sarcasm to my statement.

I would be a bit cautious approaching a group of workers. Mostly because they aren't the ones who make the calls. They are usually just following orders (though sometimes they cock up, resulting in what we see in the various bad/ugly/erroneous threads). Though you could ask whether it's a city, county, or state project, to narrow down who it is that you need to contact. Or you could just ask who their boss is, so that you could contact them.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

Very true! Fort Smith uses federal money to build highways within city limits, so I guess they have (ARDOT) come out and inspect the work to make sure it is up to state standards. So, signage would fall under the same realm? Maybe.

[jeffandnicole]

Very true! Fort Smith uses federal money to build highways within city limits, so I guess they have (ARDOT) come out and inspect the work to make sure it is up to state standards. So, signage would fall under the same realm? Maybe.

It all depends where that money is coming from and flowing thru.  If Fort Smith applied for and received that money directly from the feds, there's little state oversight involved.  The city will use their policies (which should mirror the state and fed policies and MUTCD) to do the work.  If ARDOT grants or loans the money to the city, they may have more oversight as to how that money is spent.

[SignBridge]

In past years I've written letters to Nassau County DPW re: traffic signal installations and issues, and I've usually gotten a reasonable response. Actually got a few minor changes done too.

[jakeroot]

In past years I've written letters to Nassau County DPW re: traffic signal installations and issues, and I've usually gotten a reasonable response. Actually got a few minor changes done too.

I've had similar success. Just recently, I emailed a town near me, to inform them that one of their installations lacked the required two through signals (this was a main street, nothing to do with off-ramps). I told them to install a new through signal on the mast. Several weeks and emails later, up pops a new through signal, and on the mast, as I suggested.

[PurdueBill]

The relative positions of signal sections in a vertically-arranged signal face, from top to bottom, shall be as follows:
CIRCULAR RED
Steady and/or flashing left-turn RED ARROW
Steady and/or flashing right-turn RED ARROW
CIRCULAR YELLOW
CIRCULAR GREEN
Straight-through GREEN ARROW
Steady left-turn YELLOW ARROW
Flashing left-turn YELLOW ARROW
Left-turn GREEN ARROW
Steady right-turn YELLOW ARROW
Flashing right-turn YELLOW ARROW
Right-turn GREEN ARROW

The writers of the MUTCD probably never imagined that the specific setup pictured would actually occur, without the yellow circular that would be expected with stop-and-go for the straight-thru movement.  The continuous green for straight ahead is a unique situation that makes for a pretty unique setup.

It also means that this MDC legacy setup on Revere Beach Parkway is actually not in the MUTCD-compliant order, even though it sure looks more normal--it operates in exactly the same manner as the Illinois one above: straight green arrow always on, green-yellow-red-green left arrows.






Doesn't the MDC one actually look more normal than the Illinois one, even though the Illinois one is apparently right?

[US 89]

Doesn't the MDC one actually look more normal than the Illinois one, even though the Illinois one is apparently right?

It does, although I still think the straight arrow should be on another signal head.