Traffic signal

[fwydriver405]

The funniest thing to me is how well signalized the intersection otherwise is. All three corners are covered by supplemental signals for each approach (IL only requires near and far-left corners normally), and there is an overhead signal for each approach as well. They just spectacularly dropped the ball with the slip lane. Which is really unlike Illinois, as they normally have one on both sides of a slip lane, and usually one in the median across from the stop line.

If I recall correctly, primary signal faces cannot be on the near-side of an intersection. Thus the primary signal faces for that slip lane would have to be the through signals on the far side of the through approach, way off to the left and far out of the cone of vision. The question is whether signalized slip lanes are required to have their own primary signal faces, separate from the main intersection. If not, the primary far-side signals should be within the cone of vision of the slip lane's stop line. If that's not the case either, how is a driver even supposed to know that there is a signal controlling the slip lane?

Yeah, a primary signal face must be at least 40 feet beyond the stop line, and with 20° left or right from a point measured 10 feet behind the center of the approach. This right turn appears to accomplish neither of these. Not sure if a slip lane has to have it's own primary signal face, but given it's a full-on dedicated turn lane, then my hunch tells me that it would need a primary right turn signal face (with whatever control type they wanted). So if they want that movement to be signalized then there ought to be at least one signal head somewhere in the vicinity.

That slip lane needs a yield sign, plain and simple. I'd definitely argue any red light ticket on that one.

Earlier this year, South Portland converted a yield slip lane to a right turn 3-section FYA, which only turns to red arrow if a pedestrian requests to cross the slip lane. Is there any difference between a yield v. FYA for the slip lane, particularly safety and operation?   

[Amtrakprod]

This is weird to see in NYC.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7164707,-73.9956929,3a,75y,349.91h,84.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVVofgmeqXOjV5sFL9qSnKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[SignBridge]

I'm wondering if that slip-lane was originally a stop or yield sign until some brilliant city official got the bright idea that all they have to do is change the sign to stop here on red, and they could collect additional red-light camera revenue. 

[mapman]

Earlier this year, South Portland converted a yield slip lane to a right turn 3-section FYA, which only turns to red arrow if a pedestrian requests to cross the slip lane. Is there any difference between a yield v. FYA for the slip lane, particularly safety and operation?   

I wouldn't think they would be much difference in operations, assuming pedestrian crossings are relatively low.  Safety (for pedestrians) should be higher, as the signal should ensure that drivers are stopping for pedestrians, rather than just occasionally yielding for pedestrians.

There is a similar signal in my hometown of Santa Cruz, CA, at Laurel Street / Broadway / San Lorenzo Boulevard.  No flashing yellow arrow, but same concept -- red arrow when pedestrian wants to cross.  https://goo.gl/maps/NYVn8zuEhtgqhory8

[SignBridge]

California traffic signaling is so thorough and complete. They put the Northeastern states to shame.

[jakeroot]

California traffic signaling is so thorough and complete. They put the Northeastern states to shame.

Hell, they put a good chunk of the country to shame. Maybe even everyone. If only they weren't so apt to use "green arrow only" left turns all the time.

EDIT: Spelling

[mrsman]

California traffic signaling is so thorough and complete. They put the Northeastern states to shame.

Hell, the put a good chunk of the country to shame. Maybe even everyone. If only they weren't so apt to use "green arrow only" left turns all the time.

Agreed.  Signal placement is second to none.  Signals on both poles, left and right.  At least two signal faces for every signal present, including arrow signals.  Overhead signals placed in proper location.  And no overkill of signals.  Even wide streets manage well with one well placed signal. 

And the signals are aesthetically pleasing.  Solid tubular mast arms are now the standard.  Very few signals on wire.

However, signal timing is usually not very good.  Many cities do OK on one way streets, but two way streets fail.  At least the signal cycles tend to be shorter than in some Northeastern cities where it seems you can wait at red signals for upwards of two minutes at a time.

And of course, as Jake said, the overuse of protected left / red arrow signals.  Practically everywhere there is a dedicated left turn lane, other than a few select cities.

The one silver lining though is that it would seem to be easier to convert a RA-YA-GA signal to a FYA signal.  Perhaps Caltrans could be convinced to institute time of day signaling in more locations, even if they can't give up protected only left turns completely.

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

This is weird to see in NYC.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7164707,-73.9956929,3a,75y,349.91h,84.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVVofgmeqXOjV5sFL9qSnKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

For those not familiar with that intersection, the light in question is G,Y, flashing R, solid R. The hanging light has flashing R to the right of solid R.

In NYC it's no turn on red by default, so adding flashing red and the sign is smart. Also no need for a right arrow to indicate NTOR at this light.

[Amtrakprod]

I've been planning a Pittsburgh area trip, and I keep noticing these weird small lights with a clear lens, some even have reflective tape around it. I keep wondering, what is the purpose! I think maybe emergency vehicle preemption but idk: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5192832,-80.1660072,3a,31.1y,295.27h,96.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sezk4cRILdESaAuDeqveSPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[roadfro]

California traffic signaling is so thorough and complete. They put the Northeastern states to shame.

Hell, the put a good chunk of the country to shame. Maybe even everyone. If only they weren't so apt to use "green arrow only" left turns all the time.

Agreed.  Signal placement is second to none.  Signals on both poles, left and right.  At least two signal faces for every signal present, including arrow signals.  Overhead signals placed in proper location.  And no overkill of signals.  Even wide streets manage well with one well placed signal. 

And the signals are aesthetically pleasing.  Solid tubular mast arms are now the standard.  Very few signals on wire.

However, signal timing is usually not very good.  Many cities do OK on one way streets, but two way streets fail.  At least the signal cycles tend to be shorter than in some Northeastern cities where it seems you can wait at red signals for upwards of two minutes at a time.

And of course, as Jake said, the overuse of protected left / red arrow signals.  Practically everywhere there is a dedicated left turn lane, other than a few select cities.

The one silver lining though is that it would seem to be easier to convert a RA-YA-GA signal to a FYA signal.  Perhaps Caltrans could be convinced to institute time of day signaling in more locations, even if they can't give up protected only left turns completely.

I concur with all of this.

Signal head placement is very good on average. Number of overhead signal heads tends to be "number of lanes minus one" for multi-lane approaches, which is generally what the national MUTCD recommends for 45mph+ (I prefer signal head per lane as current Nevada standard, but older Nevada standard I grew up with followed the California approach so I'm okay with it). And at least two signal heads for every signalized movement–I don't understand how some jurisdictions don't implement this redundancy.

But CA would improve *a lot* if they'd convert much of their protected-only single left turn lanes to FYA protected/permitted setups (even if the FYAs were only used during off-peak times).

[tylert120]

I've been planning a Pittsburgh area trip, and I keep noticing these weird small lights with a clear lens, some even have reflective tape around it. I keep wondering, what is the purpose! I think maybe emergency vehicle preemption but idk: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5192832,-80.1660072,3a,31.1y,295.27h,96.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sezk4cRILdESaAuDeqveSPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

You are correct. That is an indicator light for emergency preemption.

[Amtrakprod]

I've been planning a Pittsburgh area trip, and I keep noticing these weird small lights with a clear lens, some even have reflective tape around it. I keep wondering, what is the purpose! I think maybe emergency vehicle preemption but idk: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5192832,-80.1660072,3a,31.1y,295.27h,96.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sezk4cRILdESaAuDeqveSPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

You are correct. That is an indicator light for emergency preemption.

What a strange way to do this! I prefer our system in New England:https://www.google.com/maps/@43.049081,-70.7711635,3a,15y,73.87h,107t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slLKPzvABV3j_EJkFqamSAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[tylert120]

I've been planning a Pittsburgh area trip, and I keep noticing these weird small lights with a clear lens, some even have reflective tape around it. I keep wondering, what is the purpose! I think maybe emergency vehicle preemption but idk: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5192832,-80.1660072,3a,31.1y,295.27h,96.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sezk4cRILdESaAuDeqveSPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

You are correct. That is an indicator light for emergency preemption.

What a strange way to do this! I prefer our system in New England:https://www.google.com/maps/@43.049081,-70.7711635,3a,15y,73.87h,107t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slLKPzvABV3j_EJkFqamSAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That red light is distracting in my opinion. And in certain lighting conditions, it may be hard to see if it is lit.

The indicator you alluded to in Pittsburgh is a white light that either is constant or blinks during preemption and then goes off.

[CJResotko]

I found one of those 4-way signals mounted on a pole in the middle of the road in East Liverpool, Ohio: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6221708,-80.5769356,3a,75y,118.55h,80.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg0WCOUorbRC5K663hE438g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[traffic light guy]

I found one of those 4-way signals mounted on a pole in the middle of the road in East Liverpool, Ohio: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6221708,-80.5769356,3a,75y,118.55h,80.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg0WCOUorbRC5K663hE438g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Nice to see an old Eagle 4-way beacon still in service. I'd prefer if it were high up on a span wire as opposed to being in the middle of the road on that dummy pole.

[Amtrakprod]

I think awhile ago people were sending pics of crosswalk signals with same housings as the normal traffic lights, so here you go!


iPhone

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Saw this one in Lancaster, Ohio, earlier this month...


A doghouse light +1?
This is located on OH 188, in front of Fairfield Memorial Hospital, and according to the response I got on IG for this photo, its a nasty intersection.

[mrsman]

Saw this one in Lancaster, Ohio, earlier this month...


A doghouse light +1?
This is located on OH 188, in front of Fairfield Memorial Hospital, and according to the response I got on IG for this photo, its a nasty intersection.

Is the straight green arrow on at all times that the green ball is on, or just when the left green arrow is on?

It would appear that this isn't necessary here at all.  There are two lefts in succession.  While traffic needs to go into the left turn lane for both turns, there is no reason why traffic that is heading straight in the left turn lane (to make a left at the second intersection) shouldn't be controlled by the green ball.  Also, to the extent that there are people making the first left, traffic heading for the second left may use the right lane through the first intersection and then merge into the left turn lane after passing the first intersection.  I suppose the signage restricts that, but drivers would do it anyway.

[fwydriver405]

Saw this one in Lancaster, Ohio, earlier this month...


A doghouse light +1?
This is located on OH 188, in front of Fairfield Memorial Hospital, and according to the response I got on IG for this photo, its a nasty intersection.

Is the straight green arrow on at all times that the green ball is on, or just when the left green arrow is on?

It would appear that this isn't necessary here at all.  There are two lefts in succession.  While traffic needs to go into the left turn lane for both turns, there is no reason why traffic that is heading straight in the left turn lane (to make a left at the second intersection) shouldn't be controlled by the green ball.  Also, to the extent that there are people making the first left, traffic heading for the second left may use the right lane through the first intersection and then merge into the left turn lane after passing the first intersection.  I suppose the signage restricts that, but drivers would do it anyway.

That example reminds me of this intersection in Portland ME. The only difference is that they only use one left arrow for both left turns, and I believe the turn from 302 to Vannah (far left) is actually prohibited during the AM (7-9am) and PM (3-6pm) rush hour.

[kphoger]

This ought to be called a Tetris Signal.

[Amtrakprod]

This is weird even for Massachusetts:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3652496,-71.1841559,3a,15y,206.17h,109.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9s2eqvqENcpUlqaSkuoZbQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[jakeroot]

This is weird even for Massachusetts:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3652496,-71.1841559,3a,15y,206.17h,109.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9s2eqvqENcpUlqaSkuoZbQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Other than in some countries where these are completely normal, I swear I've seen this done at least one other time somewhere in the US. Maybe Pennsylvania, but I cannot recall with certainty.

Looking at the rest of the intersection....what is up with Mass? That state has some weird stuff going on. One of the other directions has the red arrow at the second-to-top position. Of course it's far from the weirdest thing I've seen come out of Mass, but still, it's like their engineers intentionally like to screw around.

[SignBridge]

Older signals in Massachusetts can be a little nutty. But I've found that newer installations usually meet current standards and are usually good quality, at least in the south suburbs of Boston. In that area even the older signals were generally good.

[fwydriver405]

My guess is that it was an oversight. I think if they intended to prohibit the right turn on red arrow, they would have put a sign on the right side as well. They probably didn't realize the unintended effect of the sign by the left-turn signal.

But why do New Hampshire traffic engineers even bother posting that sign next to a red left-turn arrow? It's not required by the Manual, and it's not needed. So in this case by posting an unnecessary/redundant sign, they outsmarted themselves and caused more confusion.

Found this contradicting example in Hudson today. "NO TURN ON RED ARROW", but "RIGHT ON RED AFTER STOP"?

[jakeroot]

Older signals in Massachusetts can be a little nutty. But I've found that newer installations usually meet current standards and are usually good quality, at least in the south suburbs of Boston. In that area even the older signals were generally good.

No doubt, and I can confirm from my 'Street View' drives around Massachusetts that they are likely second only to New Jersey in terms of their signalization standards (compared to other New England States). But they have a lot of really odd stuff too. Not odd enough to offset all the good they generally do, but it's all stuff that makes me ask, simply, "why?"