Has the flashing yellow left turn signal made it to your state?

[fwydriver405]

Maine's first right turn FYAs went operational on 21 January 2020 in South Portland at Westbrook and Western Ave. The signal is RA-SYA-FYA, with the signal only changing when a pedestrian is crossing, replacing a yield sign controlling the right turn movement.

This FYA signal in Myerstown, PA has no green arrow. It only exists to allow for Dallas phasing here, as the other direction has a standard four-section FYA. How common is this type of three-section FYA signal nationwide? I thought this was a unique setup that PennDOT decided to use here until I found another by accident in Street View.

Also, how common is it for 3-section permissive FYA's steady indications be a ball instead of an arrow? The signal in Portsmouth NH I mentioned earlier uses R-Y-FYA faces instead of the RA-SYA-FYA typically seen...

[jakeroot]

The one in Myerstown (and the one in your second link, cjw2001) is there for Dallas phasing, but having such signals on both directions of the road (like your first link) doesn't seem to add anything at all other than having an FYA for the sake of an FYA. At no point would permissive left turns be allowed while through traffic is stopped.

The Noblesville area may have a pedestrian-override for the FYA, where it would stay red if the crosswalk activates at the beginning of the through phase. This is fairly common in the Seattle area (though not in Seattle itself).

Other than that, yeah, they don't add much.

If the agency wants a signal for each lane, then the FYA without green would have to be used for the left turn movement per 2009 MUTCD. Even if signal-per-lane isn't agency policy, it doesn't hurt anything to use FYA for this application–it helps reinforce the "yield" condition for permitted lefts.

I agree that it doesn't hurt anything. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't necessarily add any function that wouldn't normally exist, short of an LPI of sorts.

So something like this wouldn't be allowed anymore? https://goo.gl/maps/KrC9G4kAAgQXbZZk6

[jakeroot]

Also, how common is it for 3-section permissive FYA's steady indications be a ball instead of an arrow? The signal in Portsmouth NH I mentioned earlier uses R-Y-FYA faces instead of the RA-SYA-FYA typically seen...

[images clipped]

How common? Not particularly, because you lose functionality when you use red orbs, as the red orbs cannot be displayed simultaneously with green orbs. In places where there is a leading pedestrian interval, the red arrow might stay lit for 3-7 seconds (or longer) at the beginning of a through phase; for those situations, a red arrow is required.

As well, if the signal has a protected phase (not sure if your example does...there are numerous 3-section FYA signals with bimodal displays in my area), the end of the protected phase of any FYA is normally marked by a red indication, before being followed by a flashing yellow arrow. Unless the oncoming left turns went at exactly the same time, it's possible that the left turn light would go red after the through traffic received their green signal. In this case, you would (again) have a red orb and green orb displayed simultaneously, if only for a few seconds. In any case, it's not allowed.

[roadfro]

The one in Myerstown (and the one in your second link, cjw2001) is there for Dallas phasing, but having such signals on both directions of the road (like your first link) doesn't seem to add anything at all other than having an FYA for the sake of an FYA. At no point would permissive left turns be allowed while through traffic is stopped.

The Noblesville area may have a pedestrian-override for the FYA, where it would stay red if the crosswalk activates at the beginning of the through phase. This is fairly common in the Seattle area (though not in Seattle itself).

Other than that, yeah, they don't add much.

If the agency wants a signal for each lane, then the FYA without green would have to be used for the left turn movement per 2009 MUTCD. Even if signal-per-lane isn't agency policy, it doesn't hurt anything to use FYA for this application–it helps reinforce the "yield" condition for permitted lefts.

I agree that it doesn't hurt anything. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't necessarily add any function that wouldn't normally exist, short of an LPI of sorts.

So something like this wouldn't be allowed anymore? https://goo.gl/maps/KrC9G4kAAgQXbZZk6

That's a tough call. A circular green mounted over a left turn lane is not really allowed anymore, which this signal seems to have. This situation is complicated by the curve on the approach and the leftmost signal head still being one of the two primary signal faces on the approach.

[jeffandnicole]

The one in Myerstown (and the one in your second link, cjw2001) is there for Dallas phasing, but having such signals on both directions of the road (like your first link) doesn't seem to add anything at all other than having an FYA for the sake of an FYA. At no point would permissive left turns be allowed while through traffic is stopped.

The Noblesville area may have a pedestrian-override for the FYA, where it would stay red if the crosswalk activates at the beginning of the through phase. This is fairly common in the Seattle area (though not in Seattle itself).

Other than that, yeah, they don't add much.

If the agency wants a signal for each lane, then the FYA without green would have to be used for the left turn movement per 2009 MUTCD. Even if signal-per-lane isn't agency policy, it doesn't hurt anything to use FYA for this application–it helps reinforce the "yield" condition for permitted lefts.

I agree that it doesn't hurt anything. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't necessarily add any function that wouldn't normally exist, short of an LPI of sorts.

So something like this wouldn't be allowed anymore? https://goo.gl/maps/KrC9G4kAAgQXbZZk6

That's a tough call. A circular green mounted over a left turn lane is not really allowed anymore, which this signal seems to have. This situation is complicated by the curve on the approach and the leftmost signal head still being one of the two primary signal faces on the approach.

Sure they are. There are entire states that don't use flashing yellow arrows, and many intersections dont have fyas on all legs.

[fwydriver405]

Also, how common is it for 3-section permissive FYA's steady indications be a ball instead of an arrow? The signal in Portsmouth NH I mentioned earlier uses R-Y-FYA faces instead of the RA-SYA-FYA typically seen...

[images clipped]

How common? Not particularly, because you lose functionality when you use red orbs, as the red orbs cannot be displayed simultaneously with green orbs. In places where there is a leading pedestrian interval, the red arrow might stay lit for 3-7 seconds (or longer) at the beginning of a through phase; for those situations, a red arrow is required.

As well, if the signal has a protected phase (not sure if your example does...there are numerous 3-section FYA signals with bimodal displays in my area), the end of the protected phase of any FYA is normally marked by a red indication, before being followed by a flashing yellow arrow. Unless the oncoming left turns went at exactly the same time, it's possible that the left turn light would go red after the through traffic received their green signal. In this case, you would (again) have a red orb and green orb displayed simultaneously, if only for a few seconds. In any case, it's not allowed.

These signals are permissive only (bottom section is yellow only, not bimodal). These signals replaced an older pair of incandescent signals, using the shared green ball for permissive movements.

[fwydriver405]

The one in Myerstown (and the one in your second link, cjw2001) is there for Dallas phasing, but having such signals on both directions of the road (like your first link) doesn't seem to add anything at all other than having an FYA for the sake of an FYA. At no point would permissive left turns be allowed while through traffic is stopped.

The Noblesville area may have a pedestrian-override for the FYA, where it would stay red if the crosswalk activates at the beginning of the through phase. This is fairly common in the Seattle area (though not in Seattle itself).

Other than that, yeah, they don't add much.

Another reason for using the 3-section FYA would be for preemption. In my area, for emergency vehicle preemption, when right of way is requested, some of the signals except for the direction of the emergency vehicle go to yellow to red, and the signals in the direction of the emergency vehicle get a protected green in all directions. Although most of the installs I've seen are at protected-only and FYA signals, I have seen instances where a yellow trap was created where the green ball was changing to yellow to red in one leg, but the opposing thru green remained lit.

The same could also be said about rail preemptions as well.

[jakeroot]

Another reason for using the 3-section FYA would be for preemption. In my area, for emergency vehicle preemption, when right of way is requested, some of the signals except for the direction of the emergency vehicle go to yellow to red, and the signals in the direction of the emergency vehicle get a protected green in all directions. Although most of the installs I've seen are at protected-only and FYA signals, I have seen instances where a yellow trap was created where the green ball was changing to yellow to red in one leg, but the opposing thru green remained lit.

The same could also be said about rail preemptions as well.

I thought about that at the time. It would be an awkward installation of preemption software, because the direction of the approaching emergency service would only ever see a flashing yellow arrow, even if the oncoming direction has a red light; better than having to wait for traffic to stop to make any left turns, but not as good as having a green arrow. Still, for the oncoming left turn, it is definitely better than no left turn signal, where the chance for yellow trap exists. Of course, without a left turn signal, preemption should not activate any sort of split-phasing mode because of the chance for yellow trap.

These signals are permissive only (bottom section is yellow only, not bimodal). These signals replaced an older pair of incandescent signals, using the shared green ball for permissive movements.

Okay, good. In that case, I guess the FYA signal is there only for extra reinforcement of the required yield, so a red orb is fine.

[jakeroot]

A circular green mounted over a left turn lane is not really allowed anymore, which this signal seems to have. This situation is complicated by the curve on the approach and the leftmost signal head still being one of the two primary signal faces on the approach.

Sure they are. There are entire states that don't use flashing yellow arrows, and many intersections dont have fyas on all legs.

Yes, but in those states, there may not be a "signal per lane" requirement. Places like California don't have to worry about this, because they don't use a signal-per-lane strategy (fine by me, for the record). Instead of mounting all the primary signals overhead, they mount their extra signals on the right and left corners; even with two or three (or more) approach lanes, there is usually only one overhead signal, at least in Los Angeles.

The MUTCD may not permit green orbs directly ahead of left turn lanes, but there's no rule against placing them on the left and right corners. Places like parts of Washington, most of Oregon and Idaho, and much of the east coast, generally won't install signals on the left corner, but it's preferable to everything overhead with a required permissive-only FYA (at least to me).

[SignBridge]

For the record, there is no signal per-lane requirement in the MUTCD. It is a recommendation shown as Support in sec. 4D.11.06. I don't know if any individual states have such a policy but New York does not.

[jakeroot]

For the record, there is no signal per-lane requirement in the MUTCD. It is a recommendation shown as Support in sec. 4D.11.06. I don't know if any individual states have such a policy but New York does not.

IIRC, only a few states have genuine signal-per-lane requirements. Wisconsin (I've seen the written rule) and Nevada (not seen any new installs that don't have one signal per lane) both spring to mind. I'm sure there's a couple more.

In some states, it can be hard to tell, as many will post two overhead primary signal faces for all approaches. Basically, you need at least three through (or through/right) lanes to determine an area's rule on the matter. In my area, it's mostly individual cities that make the call, not the state (see: before & after the rule change in Federal Way, WA).

[roadfro]

A circular green mounted over a left turn lane is not really allowed anymore, which this signal seems to have. This situation is complicated by the curve on the approach and the leftmost signal head still being one of the two primary signal faces on the approach.

Sure they are. There are entire states that don't use flashing yellow arrows, and many intersections dont have fyas on all legs.

Yes, but in those states, there may not be a "signal per lane" requirement. Places like California don't have to worry about this, because they don't use a signal-per-lane strategy (fine by me, for the record). Instead of mounting all the primary signals overhead, they mount their extra signals on the right and left corners; even with two or three (or more) approach lanes, there is usually only one overhead signal, at least in Los Angeles.

The MUTCD may not permit green orbs directly ahead of left turn lanes, but there's no rule against placing them on the left and right corners. Places like parts of Washington, most of Oregon and Idaho, and much of the east coast, generally won't install signals on the left corner, but it's preferable to everything overhead with a required permissive-only FYA (at least to me).

Went back and checked–turns out I was partially wrong. The MUTCD doesn't outright prohibit a circular green over a left turn lane, but Sec 4D.09p11 4D.13p09 gives guidance that a circular green should not be placed over a left turn lane (or post mounted on a far side median) at new or reconstructed signal installations. That's a clear indication that such placement is not preferred.

EDIT: Corrected MUTCD citation

[SignBridge]

Roadfro, the section you cited where it says that is actually 4D.13.09, Guidance. All of us need to be careful in quoting the Manual, as sometimes stuff that we think are standards are actually only support, or guidance, in other words recommendations, not absolute rules. I've made that mistake a few times.

[jakeroot]

A circular green mounted over a left turn lane is not really allowed anymore, which this signal seems to have. This situation is complicated by the curve on the approach and the leftmost signal head still being one of the two primary signal faces on the approach.

Sure they are. There are entire states that don't use flashing yellow arrows, and many intersections dont have fyas on all legs.

Yes, but in those states, there may not be a "signal per lane" requirement. Places like California don't have to worry about this, because they don't use a signal-per-lane strategy (fine by me, for the record). Instead of mounting all the primary signals overhead, they mount their extra signals on the right and left corners; even with two or three (or more) approach lanes, there is usually only one overhead signal, at least in Los Angeles.

The MUTCD may not permit green orbs directly ahead of left turn lanes, but there's no rule against placing them on the left and right corners. Places like parts of Washington, most of Oregon and Idaho, and much of the east coast, generally won't install signals on the left corner, but it's preferable to everything overhead with a required permissive-only FYA (at least to me).

Went back and checked–turns out I was partially wrong. The MUTCD doesn't outright prohibit a circular green over a left turn lane, but Sec [4D.13.09] gives guidance that a circular green should not be placed over a left turn lane (or post mounted on a far side median) at new or reconstructed signal installations. That's a clear indication that such placement is not preferred.

All of us need to be careful in quoting the Manual, as sometimes stuff that we think are standards are actually only support, or guidance, in other words recommendations, not absolute rules. I've made that mistake a few times.

Yeah, it continues to surprise me how many things are actually just guidance or support. I'm glad the FHWA isn't more restrictive on the matter, otherwise a lot of states would be running around with their heads on fire trying to figure out how to change their standard plans. After all, few if any states seem to have identical standards.

[SignBridge]

Well, LOL that's probably a good thing. It would be really boring if every state did absolutely everything identically. What would we talk about on here?

For many years I wondered why all states didn't have identical, uniform BGS configurations. (Like the NJ Turnpike) But now in the 21st Century I find myself missing the interesting, unique sign systems that some toll roads in the Northeast had. That includes the NY Thruway, Connecticut Tpk. and California's freeways which are still somewhat unusual.

Same is true of traffic light installations, like the differences between New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. 

[Revive 755]

My understanding is in some states agencies can still be found liable for not complying with a guidance (should) statement.  So even though the circular green may not be outright prohibited in front of a left turn lane, it might not be in the agency's best interest to keep doing it without justification (such as the curve example upthread).

Since IIRC the new MUTCD is supposed to consider automated vehicles, it would not surprise me if some of the guidance statements become standards and some of the options are removed in the interest of state to state consistency.

[jakeroot]

Since IIRC the new MUTCD is supposed to consider automated vehicles, it would not surprise me if some of the guidance statements become standards and some of the options are removed in the interest of state to state consistency.

That's what I was suggesting on the 'future MUTCD' thread: fewer "tick boxes".

[roadfro]

Roadfro, the section you cited where it says that is actually 4D.13.09, Guidance. All of us need to be careful in quoting the Manual, as sometimes stuff that we think are standards are actually only support, or guidance, in other words recommendations, not absolute rules. I've made that mistake a few times.

Fixed the citation. I think I got distracted by something else when typing the reply. As to the rest of this...

Yeah, it continues to surprise me how many things are actually just guidance or support. I'm glad the FHWA isn't more restrictive on the matter, otherwise a lot of states would be running around with their heads on fire trying to figure out how to change their standard plans. After all, few if any states seem to have identical standards.

My understanding is in some states agencies can still be found liable for not complying with a guidance (should) statement.

I seem to recall hearing at a transportation conference years ago that many practitioners regard MUTCD guidance statements almost the same as standards (as in "you really should follow this guidance unless you have a damn good reason not to"), in part due to potential liability.

Note also that, generally, the MUTCD figures are depicted to adhere to all the guidance statements. (Some practitioners also regard the figures as standards.)

[SignBridge]

Interesting roadfro, thanks. The graphics or figures in the Manual should not be regarded as standards. Someone from the FHWA once told me that only the written standards are the actual rule. The pictures are not.

Also re: the figures usually following the Manual's standards, guidance, support, etc. I have seen one notable exception: Look at Fig. 2E-12 on page 205. The BGS legend says "Northern Blvd, Greenvale". That is contrary to the Manual's own advice in Sec. 2E-10-01 "A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided". I'm surprised they put that picture in there.

[RobbieL2415]

Has NYC added any more FYAs?  There were a couple in Manhattan last time I was there.

[jakeroot]

Has NYC added any more FYAs?  There were a couple in Manhattan last time I was there.

I think most are for turns against bike lanes. From videos and images I've seen, they seem quite common now.

[mrsman]

Has NYC added any more FYAs?  There were a couple in Manhattan last time I was there.

I think most are for turns against bike lanes. From videos and images I've seen, they seem quite common now.

That is correct.  The FYA's primary use in NYC is to allow some type of pedestrian and/or bicycle preference at certain intersections.  Some times, you give the peds/bikes a protected phase to go straight at the same time as straight traffic goes straight, but restricting the left turns.  You generally start with red left with green bicycle and walk signals.  To provide a protected left, use the green arrow (and force peds and bikes to stop) at the end of the phase.  To provide for both at the same time, use the flahsing yellow arrow to permit left turns that yield to bikes and peds.  IMO, it is far safer to only have red, yellow, green arrows, but many bicyclists complained that their phase was too short, so they were allowed to continue during the left turn phase, where the left turn phase is flashing yellow and not green.

THere are some signals in NYC that utilize FYA in the traditional context, i.e. to mark a permissive left turn against opposing traffic on a two way street, but those are relatively rare.

Here's mention of one in Staten Island:

https://www.silive.com/news/2018/04/heres_how_to_navigate_new_flas.html

VIctory/Manor Rd.

[mrsman]

As far as the use of FYA in situations where there is no leading pedestian interval, and neither side has a protected green arrow -- I am not a fan.  In that situation, it would be better, IMO, to just go back to normal with traditional RYG signals.  IMO, the FYA signals do not provide any additional benefit.

[fwydriver405]

When retrofitting intersections that used to use 4/5 section PPLT's for left turns into FYA, is it always a bad idea to only replace only one leg with FYA and leave the 4/5 section PPLT's in the other direction (or in the case of the Burbank example, install a FYA, but leave the doghouse on the other side)? Bad idea as in preventing yellow trap in one direction, but keeping the yellow trap in the other direction (as in improper lead-lag phasing, phase skip, emergency vehicle preempt.):

Example 1 (Portland ME):
Commerial St and Beach St/Casco Bay Br. ramp, Portland ME (pre-May 2019)
Commerial St and Beach St/Casco Bay Br. ramp, Portland ME (post-May 2019)

Example 2 (Burbank CA):
Alameda Ave to CA-134 (May 2016)
Alameda Ave to CA-134 (post June 2017)

Example 3 (Tewksbury MA) - the left turn into the driveway is still controlled by a green ball only, no left turn signals...
MA-133 to I-495 North (2013)
MA-133 to I-495 North (2018)

Notice in the Burbank example that before left turns were permitted around 2015-16, the doghouse's green ball was previously un-louvred, but when FYA's were installed, the green ball was louvred. Possible Dallas phasing or something else?

[jakeroot]

Notice in the Burbank example that before left turns were permitted around 2015-16, the doghouse's green ball was previously un-louvred, but when FYA's were installed, the green ball was louvred. Possible Dallas phasing or something else?

Hmm, that is interesting. Looks like the stop line for eastbound Alameda was moved up a bit, which also corresponds with the FYA installation. Perhaps they wanted to solidify the 5-section signal as being for the left turn, which is further back, so they louvred the signal so that only the left turn could see it, and would know to stop earlier. At the same time, eastbound traffic wouldn't accidentally stop earlier than necessary (as the old stop line would have allowed them to see the 5-section signals, but the new stop line does not).

Honestly, I'm reaching here. No real good explanation, from what I can see.

I'm more interested in knowing why the westbound FYA left turn was installed at all, since there's a free right onto the 134 just a couple blocks ahead.