Traffic signal

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

I'm assuming that this relatively recent NYSDOT installation isnt MUTCD compliant on this approach

NY110 at Milbar Blvd

https://goo.gl/maps/BpxHfvDVEsL2

Yikes. No, that's definitely not compliant. Looks like they modified the setup recently by removing the split-phasing, but forgot to account for the now-missing additional through head.

It is still split phased. I've driven through that intersection with the old and new setups active.

Other side view

Farmingdale, New York

https://goo.gl/maps/8CqVfMb8esD2

[jakeroot]

I'm assuming that this relatively recent NYSDOT installation isnt MUTCD compliant on this approach

NY110 at Milbar Blvd

https://goo.gl/maps/BpxHfvDVEsL2

Yikes. No, that's definitely not compliant. Looks like they modified the setup recently by removing the split-phasing, but forgot to account for the now-missing additional through head.

It is still split phased. I've driven through that intersection with the old and new setups active.

Other side view

Farmingdale, New York

https://goo.gl/maps/8CqVfMb8esD2

That's just bizarre. No idea why they would have changed the signal head, if the operation didn't change. I can tell they recently retrofitted the signal heads with backplates, but only for the north/south approaches. Maybe they have some changes in mind for the east/west approaches?

[roadfro]

I don't disagree with a supplemental signal head here though, given the curve on the off ramp (I'd have probably put in a near-side supplemental for the left turn also). But a second primary face would have been good to have even under 2003 standards.

You might be alluding to this because I already pointed it out, but WSDOT, in what I can only describe as totally out of character, did actually use a supplementary near-side left turn signal (check out the street view in the original post). If it were warranted anywhere, it would be this curve. Though, this region of the DOT is known for going off-script. The oncoming right turn has a supplementary right turn signal, and the left turn onto northbound I-5 on the other side of the freeway has a supplementary left turn signal. They almost had a perfect setup here. I intend to email WSDOT to ask about installing another far-side signal, just so I can complete the perfection.

I definitely missed that near-side left turn signal. Well kudos to WSDOT then

Roadfro, I believe you may still be mistaken about the Manual's requirements. The section you cited (4D.14.01.A) also contains that same wording "at least one and preferably both" when specifying the range of 40 to 180 ft. from the stop line for the two primary signals.

I believe the writers of the Manual might have specifically worded it that way to allow for some flexibility for oddly angled intersections like the one in the Renton photo. It's all good.

So I looked up the definition of 'primary signal face' from Chapter 1: "Primary Signal Face–one of the required or recommended minimum number of signal faces for a given approach or separate turning movement, but not including near-side signal faces required as a result of the far-side signal faces exceeding the maximum distance from the stop line."

That definition doesn't really provide any clarification on this issue (the near side signal does not appear to be required due to the maximum distance stipulation). When you look at Figure 4D-4 ("Lateral and Longitudinal Location of Primary Signal Faces"), that seems to indicate a primary signal face must fall within the cone of vision. But the "at least one and preferably both" wording on location of through signals is really confusing the issue. If two primary signal faces are required, and "at least one and preferably both" must fall within the cone of vision, where would you possibly locate a second primary signal face if not within the cone of vision?  (Note that at this intersection, there is already a pole installed for a ped head that could easily have been used to add the second primary through signal face within the cone of vision.)

I guess it's just baffling to me that a "primary" signal face could be located on the near side of the intersection not visible from the stop line. Maybe I'm just too used to Nevada layouts, wherein you'll almost always find a mast-mounted signal head and at least one overhead signal head for every through movement that is visible from the stop line...
[/quote]

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

I'm assuming that this relatively recent NYSDOT installation isnt MUTCD compliant on this approach

NY110 at Milbar Blvd

https://goo.gl/maps/BpxHfvDVEsL2

Yikes. No, that's definitely not compliant. Looks like they modified the setup recently by removing the split-phasing, but forgot to account for the now-missing additional through head.

It is still split phased. I've driven through that intersection with the old and new setups active.

Other side view

Farmingdale, New York

https://goo.gl/maps/8CqVfMb8esD2

That's just bizarre. No idea why they would have changed the signal head, if the operation didn't change. I can tell they recently retrofitted the signal heads with backplates, but only for the north/south approaches. Maybe they have some changes in mind for the east/west approaches?

The backplates were included with that new install. The older signals were quite old.

[SignBridge]

I'm not following this issue with the signal in Farmingdale, NY. I don't know what existed before but it looks MUTCD compliant to me in the photo. What is the problem?

And Roadfro, I think you're right. (chuckle!) You've been spoiled by the excellent signal configurations in Nevada (and California). Those of us who come from the Northeast are used to more variety in signal mounting. There are many options used in this part of the country that are MUTCD compliant, but different than what you're used to. Though I actually prefer the Western states practices.

[jakeroot]

I'm not following this issue with the signal in Farmingdale, NY. I don't know what existed before but it looks MUTCD compliant to me in the photo. What is the problem?

The link in the OP (the first link) shows an approach with only one through signal. I've looked everywhere in GSV and can't find the additional through head, if one was in fact used.

[freebrickproductions]

I'm not following this issue with the signal in Farmingdale, NY. I don't know what existed before but it looks MUTCD compliant to me in the photo. What is the problem?

The link in the OP (the first link) shows an approach with only one through signal. I've looked everywhere in GSV and can't find the additional through head, if one was in fact used.

I've seen a few set-ups like that before here in Huntsville:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6909391,-86.5749269,3a,15y,356.35h,95.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssh223AI0_4PtLLp0bj-gvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6910627,-86.5742449,3a,15y,4.29h,97.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svzQx-UFSXr9O76RBqroULA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6910262,-86.5749395,3a,20.2y,171.24h,107.59t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTIcZobURp0IFLtmb0KzL4Q!2e0!5s20130701T000000!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.5954347,-86.5622004,3a,15y,260.59h,97.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sccjc18OzfAe_FkDqfjlw2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.595312,-86.5621501,3a,15y,87.2h,99.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_XvQdgTA8d_vNu9zPvkWqg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6304479,-86.5669386,3a,15y,98.03h,94.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO1dDZ4tS6UsT3HZGbW7laQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

However, they're typically more like these:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6912489,-86.5742554,3a,15y,169.1h,96.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srFGc-gAaLkacrspmvnO1xw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6304099,-86.5670339,3a,15y,289.11h,98.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_Se0u1i8EsDePEt3PzCIDw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6759613,-86.5679823,3a,15.3y,291.15h,110t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ6S9QmJSxPcBey8vgddwLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6905951,-86.5803905,3a,15y,335.9h,96.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUTHrBBAPFOPHg5FBMjj82w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7490497,-86.5782459,3a,15y,2.81h,96.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEbK3AJgpbGWBk3dEG9o1Hg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7714837,-86.6510727,3a,15y,285.31h,99.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX6QA9gQUHtUz6Cu5__dx-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

However, in the case of this example, it appears that a third northbound signal on the right (would've been a thru signal) was originally planned (and maybe even hung) based on the existence of an un-used drip-loop where a signal could go. Its (possible) existence seems to be confirmed by the fact that the traffic islands are far enough back for a third northbound lane there. However, the (possible) signal & lane have been gone as long as I can remember, so they were likely removed to improve the flow of traffic due to how many people heading west on Airport Road are turning right to head north on the Parkway.

[MNHighwayMan]

So, I'm curious, because I just rediscovered this picture I took back in June 2015–just how common are straight ahead arrows?

[7/8]

So, I'm curious, because I just rediscovered this picture I took back in June 2015–just how common are straight ahead arrows?

In Ontario, they're often used at parclo A4's to emphasize that you can't turn onto the off-ramp.
Here's an example on Hespeler Rd at the 401: https://goo.gl/maps/rBhaMzvH3To

In Montreal, especially in downtown, the signal phase often starts with a green straight arrow for several seconds before switching to a green ball. The straight arrow and NTOR restriction prevent cars from being able to turn into the pedestrian crosswalk, giving pedestrians a safe headstart.

What I find interesting is that your photo shows green straight arrows and a left FYA. In Ontario, a straight green arrow means no turns are allowed at the intersection.

[freebrickproductions]

How about an intersection of all arrow indications?
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6095589,-86.977119,3a,89.9y,192.81h,89.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sboRnGrCDfeIisU_1ndqhdg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6094538,-86.9770278,3a,16.8y,53.76h,104.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1somWIC1U7vePBRnV4QN8iRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[MNHighwayMan]

How about an intersection of all arrow indications?
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6095589,-86.977119,3a,89.9y,192.81h,89.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sboRnGrCDfeIisU_1ndqhdg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6094538,-86.9770278,3a,16.8y,53.76h,104.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1somWIC1U7vePBRnV4QN8iRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Now that's just impressive.

[dfnva]

Straight ahead arrows used to be fairly common in Virginia.

So, I'm curious, because I just rediscovered this picture I took back in June 2015–just how common are straight ahead arrows?

[Big John]

How about an intersection of all arrow indications?
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6095589,-86.977119,3a,89.9y,192.81h,89.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sboRnGrCDfeIisU_1ndqhdg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6094538,-86.9770278,3a,16.8y,53.76h,104.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1somWIC1U7vePBRnV4QN8iRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Red or yellow straight ahead arrows are a MUTCD no-no.

[US 89]

So, I'm curious, because I just rediscovered this picture I took back in June 2015—just how common are straight ahead arrows?

They’re relatively common in Utah, used to emphasize that a particular movement is not allowed.
Here’s an example, at I-80 and US 89 (State St). The cross street is the freeeay off ramp, so it’s one-way right (east).

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

Up arrows are common in NYC. Usually they are in an 8-8-12 layout.

[plain]

Up arrows in Norfolk on Military Hwy at Virginia Beach Blvd (image from GSV)



SM-S820L

[plain]

So, I'm curious, because I just rediscovered this picture I took back in June 2015–just how common are straight ahead arrows?

What I find interesting is that the "LEFT TURN YIELD ON FLASHING YELLOW ARROW" is on one of those lit signs (not sure what they're actually called) as opposed to just a regular sign

[jakeroot]

So, I'm curious, because I just rediscovered this picture I took back in June 2015–just how common are straight ahead arrows?

https://i.imgur.com/rqNHOKB.jpg

What I find interesting is that the "LEFT TURN YIELD ON FLASHING YELLOW ARROW" is on one of those lit signs (not sure what they're actually called) as opposed to just a regular sign

I'm wondering if the signal is time-of-day based. During peak times, it might go to a red arrow, and the sign would change to say "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".

I, for one, think time-of-day phasing is pretty dumb. But, it seems to be more common by the year.

[MNHighwayMan]

I'm wondering if the signal is time-of-day based. During peak times, it might go to a red arrow, and the sign would change to say "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".

I, for one, think time-of-day phasing is pretty dumb. But, it seems to be more common by the year.

It is either time or demand based, because the left lane is sometimes turned into a straight/left option lane, as evidenced by this electronic lane sign on the overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9487734,-92.986119,3a,75y,155.7h,92.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swjyqTZD4kJfY1hCuxWLZIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

For all the times I've been by there, though, I've never seen it used like that.

Edit: if you switch to the 2011 GSV images, you can see it in that mode, but back then the intersection had different, older equipment.

Edit #2: further playing around with GSV found this, the other message that sign displays.

[jakeroot]

I'm wondering if the signal is time-of-day based. During peak times, it might go to a red arrow, and the sign would change to say "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".

I, for one, think time-of-day phasing is pretty dumb. But, it seems to be more common by the year.

It is either time or demand based, because the left lane is sometimes turned into a straight/left option lane, as evidenced by this electronic lane sign on the overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9487734,-92.986119,3a,75y,155.7h,92.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swjyqTZD4kJfY1hCuxWLZIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

For all the times I've been by there, though, I've never seen it used like that.

Edit: if you switch to the 2011 GSV images, you can see it in that mode, but back then the intersection had different, older equipment.

Edit #2: further playing around with GSV found this, the other message that sign displays.

I also played around with it, and got this GSV image: https://goo.gl/FgBR1r ... goes protected-only when the double-left setup is used. My understanding was that MN was double permissive left-friendly, but maybe not as much as I previously thought.

[MNHighwayMan]

I also played around with it, and got this GSV image: https://goo.gl/FgBR1r ... goes protected-only when the double-left setup is used. My understanding was that MN was double permissive left-friendly, but maybe not as much as I previously thought.

I've seen the equipment for it in a few places, but never in permissive operation. I think the other problem is that, in this particular spot, since it's only a temporary double left, perhaps MnDOT felt that to allow protected/permissive operation there would be too confusing? Wouldn't allowing it also require an unusual signal head with five sections, like in the 2011 GSV link I posted? (Except with the requisite substitutions for a FYA, of course.)

[jeffandnicole]

I'm wondering if the signal is time-of-day based. During peak times, it might go to a red arrow, and the sign would change to say "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".

I, for one, think time-of-day phasing is pretty dumb. But, it seems to be more common by the year.

It is either time or demand based, because the left lane is sometimes turned into a straight/left option lane, as evidenced by this electronic lane sign on the overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9487734,-92.986119,3a,75y,155.7h,92.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swjyqTZD4kJfY1hCuxWLZIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Although it appears it's either a straight OR a left turn lane.  It doesn't appear it's an actual option lane where you can choose to turn left or go straight.

[MNHighwayMan]

I'm wondering if the signal is time-of-day based. During peak times, it might go to a red arrow, and the sign would change to say "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".

I, for one, think time-of-day phasing is pretty dumb. But, it seems to be more common by the year.

It is either time or demand based, because the left lane is sometimes turned into a straight/left option lane, as evidenced by this electronic lane sign on the overpass: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9487734,-92.986119,3a,75y,155.7h,92.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swjyqTZD4kJfY1hCuxWLZIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Although it appears it's either a straight OR a left turn lane.  It doesn't appear it's an actual option lane where you can choose to turn left or go straight.

Yes, you are correct. I noticed that after fiddling around with GSV for like twenty minutes and just never updated my post (again!)

[jakeroot]

I also played around with it, and got this GSV image: https://goo.gl/FgBR1r ... goes protected-only when the double-left setup is used. My understanding was that MN was double permissive left-friendly, but maybe not as much as I previously thought.

I've seen the equipment for it in a few places, but never in permissive operation. I think the other problem is that, in this particular spot, since it's only a temporary double left, perhaps MnDOT felt that to allow protected/permissive operation there would be too confusing? Wouldn't allowing it also require an unusual signal head with five sections, like in the 2011 GSV link I posted? (Except with the requisite substitutions for a FYA, of course.)

Based on the newfound knowledge above, I think an FYA would still be acceptable. Given that it's a temporary movement, I can see why MNDOT might not be tempted to do anything unusual.

[paulthemapguy]

Here's a weird traffic signal I found on Google Streetview in Juneau, Alaska.

https://goo.gl/maps/nwhk5ZEnZYE2

The mast arm curves downward at the end, where it hovers over a section of median.