Here's a relatively new Vegas neighborhood, with two principle streets intersecting:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0479154,-115.2511571,3a,33y,113.16h,91.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skln7YpDkZlP2BUlu4F8XKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
You can see that the lampposts are prepped for mast arms should traffic counts warrant.
Now here's an example off MO SR-1 in the northern KC suburbs:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2418931,-94.5397178,3a,75y,178.54h,87.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2LqdGXElE32h89J1SVVBDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The mast arms and attachments are already there, but no lights are to be found. It has been this way since at least 2007, probably since the inception of the pole. My guess is that they were installed in anticipation of a tenant to the empty lot next door, which hasn't yet come.
Any other examples of traffic lights that haven't reached their full glorious potential?
In the Waterfront development in Homestead, PA (just outside Pittsburgh), there are several intersections on Waterfront Drive that have empty mast arms. Interestingly enough, these were installed in 1999 when the Waterfront was built.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4140894,-79.9030157,3a,75y,274.13h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOnO_9dvYM-yxwhKyua5a1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4140894,-79.9030157,3a,75y,274.13h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOnO_9dvYM-yxwhKyua5a1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: jmd41280 on June 21, 2020, 11:16:12 PM
In the Waterfront development in Homestead, PA (just outside Pittsburgh), there are several intersections on Waterfront Drive that have empty mast arms. Interestingly enough, these were installed in 1999 when the Waterfront was built.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4140894,-79.9030157,3a,75y,274.13h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOnO_9dvYM-yxwhKyua5a1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4140894,-79.9030157,3a,75y,274.13h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOnO_9dvYM-yxwhKyua5a1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4033456,-79.9194564,3a,60y,79.38h,91.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smNPheqXsklThsxsSdFNH1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Well if stuff like this is any indication, they seem to have fallen by the wayside.
Orlando metro is full of this. I'll just give a couple of examples
Lake Nona installed cylindrical "seats" over the bases in one of the nicer ways: https://www.google.com/maps/@28.3691798,-81.2827075,3a,15y,342.53h,86.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP3XTaOu4yT98CwtMoQl8pQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Plaza Collina was never built before the last downturn... and indoor malls fell out of style: https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5465548,-81.6623939,3a,75y,234.61h,91.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv0xBXMWLwarat8p-f8kRpg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Orlando has seemingly no standard when it comes to this. I've seen them left in all sorts of states, from the conduits left sticking out of the ground everywhere, bases installed, masts installed without arms, or concrete columns without wires, to fully installed without signals, and some fully installed, but signals kept bagged or aimed away from the road for several years or set to flash mode until needed (I guess not sure if last 2 count as "not there yet").
Not totally in line with what you're asking, but the new signals at NY 13 and the road to TCAT's big facility in Ithaca are probably still bagged and have been for months. Some neverending issue with the utilities is the culprit.
I guess bagged for eternity counts.
Quote from: Rothman on June 21, 2020, 11:41:05 PM
Not totally in line with what you're asking, but the new signals at NY 13 and the road to TCAT's big facility in Ithaca are probably still bagged and have been for months. Some neverending issue with the utilities is the culprit.
At least New York state has discovered mast arms.
I think from an engineering perspective, this approach makes a lot of sense -- put in all of the underground electrical work for the future signal, put in the poles (which can double as just streetlights in the interim) and wait until the signal is needed before adding the mast arms and rest of the signal equipment.
However, in my experience in Northern and Central California, most agencies want the future signals from a development to be installed and operational immediately (i.e., at the project's opening), rather than monitoring it on its own for future implementation. This is usually because the agency knows that it can force the developer to construct the signal on condition of the development (say, as part of a condition of approval for the project by the city council), rather than hoping the agency has the money to monitor and implement the improvement in the future (which is not guaranteed).
I-390 exit 11 (NY 15 and NY 251) in Rush NY has had empty signal poles at 3 of the 4 intersections since about 1979.
NY 251 at northbound ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0030718,-77.6676783,3a,75y,274.99h,98.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slgSLgHmBSPirLwzYyZmmHA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DlgSLgHmBSPirLwzYyZmmHA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D198.43755%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
NY 251 at southbound ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0030185,-77.6698986,3a,75y,295.86h,96.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0-vQhavhmEpeLXlzW9RgKQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0-vQhavhmEpeLXlzW9RgKQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D272.7619%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
NY 15 at northbound ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0048735,-77.666417,3a,75y,10.23h,91.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBJjL9w0y_LNqmYD95jHp6w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Edit: also a set at exit 10 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9050532,-77.692122,3a,75y,277.91h,92.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smje6g4djCU4f-vVSyUyWTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (US 20 & NY 5) since about 1980.
Quote from: mapman on June 22, 2020, 12:48:23 AM
I think from an engineering perspective, this approach makes a lot of sense -- put in all of the underground electrical work for the future signal, put in the poles (which can double as just streetlights in the interim) and wait until the signal is needed before adding the mast arms and rest of the signal equipment.
However, in my experience in Northern and Central California, most agencies want the future signals from a development to be installed and operational immediately (i.e., at the project's opening), rather than monitoring it on its own for future implementation. This is usually because the agency knows that it can force the developer to construct the signal on condition of the development (say, as part of a condition of approval for the project by the city council), rather than hoping the agency has the money to monitor and implement the improvement in the future (which is not guaranteed).
I definitely see a desire to push costs onto developers. But is it worthwhile to do so where there is no need for the signal in the first place? In many cases, the traffic counts won't justify the traffic signal for years. Even if we want developers to foot the bill for the masts, signal heads, controllers, etc., it would seem to make sense to not actually operate the signal until traffic levels deem it to be warranted. The signal heads shoud be bagged until that time is reached.
This thread made me think of a recent post from a General Highway Talk thread on railroads in roundabouts, regarding a railroad crossing with conduit and foundations for signals, but none installed yet:
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 18, 2020, 10:39:47 AM
The railroad through Healdsburg is the old Northwestern Pacific. The crossing in question is on a portion of the line currently owned by SMART and planned as a future extension of that commuter rail line, which currently extends as far north as Sonoma County Airport, with an extension to Windsor projected to open in 2022, followed by an extension to Healdsburg in the future. The line is currently active as far north as Windsor for freight service provided by the North Coast Rail Authority (under the resurrected NWP name).
The track through this crossing was rebuilt as part of the roundabout construction project in anticipation of future SMART service. Foundations were poured and conduit was laid for the installation of crossing gates, as can be seen in streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/3BjR4sucShDsTsjYA), they just were not installed yet.
Here is one in Indiana (more specifically Chesterton)
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5821476,-87.0449983,3a,75y,171.71h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9YEiYqcmCAfsaoRIQ_Q4VA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
IN 49 at Voyage Boulevard
Any others in Indiana?
Quote from: mrsman on June 22, 2020, 08:48:03 AM
Quote from: mapman on June 22, 2020, 12:48:23 AM
I think from an engineering perspective, this approach makes a lot of sense -- put in all of the underground electrical work for the future signal, put in the poles (which can double as just streetlights in the interim) and wait until the signal is needed before adding the mast arms and rest of the signal equipment.
However, in my experience in Northern and Central California, most agencies want the future signals from a development to be installed and operational immediately (i.e., at the project's opening), rather than monitoring it on its own for future implementation. This is usually because the agency knows that it can force the developer to construct the signal on condition of the development (say, as part of a condition of approval for the project by the city council), rather than hoping the agency has the money to monitor and implement the improvement in the future (which is not guaranteed).
I definitely see a desire to push costs onto developers. But is it worthwhile to do so where there is no need for the signal in the first place? In many cases, the traffic counts won't justify the traffic signal for years. Even if we want developers to foot the bill for the masts, signal heads, controllers, etc., it would seem to make sense to not actually operate the signal until traffic levels deem it to be warranted. The signal heads shoud be bagged until that time is reached.
The bags don't seem to last that long and constantly have to be replaced. They seem to have switched more to aiming the signals away from the road around here.
The problem with fully installing them when they aren't needed yet is often things change. I've seen a good number of intersections where they fully installed a mast arm, and before there is a need for it, they approve a strip mall or something and need a second left turn lane, so they tear down the entire thing and start over. Or, they never warrant it because the area didn't develop the way they intended, so now the whole signal reaches its end of life or gets damaged in a storm and was never used.
So, for the past couple decades, the Town of Brighton has planned a road that would run parallel to Westfall Road between Winton Road and Clinton Avenue (only part of which has been built and currently had a dead end (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1115491,-77.5919131,3a,75y,97.02h,77.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXxP9KrdAGCoVIWWF0Cwmow!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DXxP9KrdAGCoVIWWF0Cwmow%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D226.4121%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)). When the I-590/Winton Road interchange was converted to a diverging diamond, NYSDOT went ahead and built the intersection for this road, complete with signals (https://goo.gl/maps/o8Bw4se9USzezmPP7). Those signals have since been removed (https://goo.gl/maps/U18KJqhcjgR2uPQT7).
Quote from: vdeane on June 23, 2020, 12:46:30 PM
So, for the past couple decades, the Town of Brighton has planned a road that would run parallel to Westfall Road between Winton Road and Clinton Avenue (only part of which has been built and currently had a dead end (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1115491,-77.5919131,3a,75y,97.02h,77.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXxP9KrdAGCoVIWWF0Cwmow!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DXxP9KrdAGCoVIWWF0Cwmow%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D226.4121%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)). When the I-590/Winton Road interchange was converted to a diverging diamond, NYSDOT went ahead and built the intersection for this road, complete with signals (https://goo.gl/maps/o8Bw4se9USzezmPP7). Those signals have since been removed (https://goo.gl/maps/U18KJqhcjgR2uPQT7).
They removed the signal faces from the stub (and the signal faces from Winton turning left into the stub), but yet they still left pedestrian signals for crossing over the stub.
Quote from: vdeane on June 23, 2020, 12:46:30 PM
So, for the past couple decades, the Town of Brighton has planned a road that would run parallel to Westfall Road between Winton Road and Clinton Avenue (only part of which has been built and currently had a dead end (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1115491,-77.5919131,3a,75y,97.02h,77.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXxP9KrdAGCoVIWWF0Cwmow!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DXxP9KrdAGCoVIWWF0Cwmow%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D226.4121%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)). When the I-590/Winton Road interchange was converted to a diverging diamond, NYSDOT went ahead and built the intersection for this road, complete with signals (https://goo.gl/maps/o8Bw4se9USzezmPP7). Those signals have since been removed (https://goo.gl/maps/U18KJqhcjgR2uPQT7).
Interesting! I was not aware that dead-end road was/is supposed to connect Winton and Clinton. So there is still a signal for the other 3 approaches and it's just the one approach that had the signals removed. For a second there before I clicked the link I was worried they had unsignalized the whole intersection!
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 21, 2020, 11:03:45 PM
Here's a relatively new Vegas neighborhood, with two principle streets intersecting:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0479154,-115.2511571,3a,33y,113.16h,91.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skln7YpDkZlP2BUlu4F8XKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
You can see that the lampposts are prepped for mast arms should traffic counts warrant.
This has become a fairly standard operating procedure around the Vegas area–at least in the faster-growing areas of both the City of Las Vegas proper, and unincorporated Clark County (where this example is located). In many newer areas along intersecting major collectors and arterials, if a developer is developing a site and putting in street improvements along a major roadway, they will usually install a pole that can later support a traffic signal at if the site work includes the corner of an anticipated major intersection.
What's also interesting for this example is that smaller separate poles to support pedestrian signal features have also been installed on all corners. That's not necessarily standard practice, but this appears to be in a master planned area, so it may be indicative of extra site work done by the developers as a condition of building the overall infrastructure in the area (e.g. all poles and underground cable conduit for the intersection).
Because these installs are conditions of adjacent developers, sometimes you'll find cases where the signal poles are only on a few corners at an intersection. This is because the other corners are either not yet developed, minimally developed, or were developed before this became a standard practice. Here's an example (https://goo.gl/maps/d6T8DGzx4jp1x3VT6) of a 4-way intersection in Las Vegas with future traffic signal poles installed on only two corners, because one corner is undeveloped and the other appears to have minimal development that likely dates to before this policy (back when this area was more rural).
Quote from: mrsman on June 22, 2020, 08:48:03 AM
Quote from: mapman on June 22, 2020, 12:48:23 AM
I think from an engineering perspective, this approach makes a lot of sense -- put in all of the underground electrical work for the future signal, put in the poles (which can double as just streetlights in the interim) and wait until the signal is needed before adding the mast arms and rest of the signal equipment.
However, in my experience in Northern and Central California, most agencies want the future signals from a development to be installed and operational immediately (i.e., at the project's opening), rather than monitoring it on its own for future implementation. This is usually because the agency knows that it can force the developer to construct the signal on condition of the development (say, as part of a condition of approval for the project by the city council), rather than hoping the agency has the money to monitor and implement the improvement in the future (which is not guaranteed).
I definitely see a desire to push costs onto developers. But is it worthwhile to do so where there is no need for the signal in the first place? In many cases, the traffic counts won't justify the traffic signal for years. Even if we want developers to foot the bill for the masts, signal heads, controllers, etc., it would seem to make sense to not actually operate the signal until traffic levels deem it to be warranted. The signal heads shoud be bagged until that time is reached.
This is where I think just installing the signal mast poles and doing any associated underground improvements when the development first goes in is a better compromise.
Most local jurisdictions will require a developer to do a traffic study as part of the conditions for getting a development approved. If the new development warrants traffic signal from the get go, the project approval is often subject to the condition that the developer install the full signal (or pay appropriate funds to have the local jurisdiction do it). But if not, at least in Vegas, the project conditions include preparatory site improvements for the signal and potentially paying into a fund for future signal improvements (so the agency can do it when traffic counts warrant it).
I've seen this a lot in the Phoenix area. Mostly areas that use the typical ADOT signal poles.
Quote from: roadfro on June 24, 2020, 10:55:59 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 22, 2020, 08:48:03 AM
Quote from: mapman on June 22, 2020, 12:48:23 AM
I think from an engineering perspective, this approach makes a lot of sense -- put in all of the underground electrical work for the future signal, put in the poles (which can double as just streetlights in the interim) and wait until the signal is needed before adding the mast arms and rest of the signal equipment.
However, in my experience in Northern and Central California, most agencies want the future signals from a development to be installed and operational immediately (i.e., at the project's opening), rather than monitoring it on its own for future implementation. This is usually because the agency knows that it can force the developer to construct the signal on condition of the development (say, as part of a condition of approval for the project by the city council), rather than hoping the agency has the money to monitor and implement the improvement in the future (which is not guaranteed).
I definitely see a desire to push costs onto developers. But is it worthwhile to do so where there is no need for the signal in the first place? In many cases, the traffic counts won't justify the traffic signal for years. Even if we want developers to foot the bill for the masts, signal heads, controllers, etc., it would seem to make sense to not actually operate the signal until traffic levels deem it to be warranted. The signal heads shoud be bagged until that time is reached.
This is where I think just installing the signal mast poles and doing any associated underground improvements when the development first goes in is a better compromise.
Most local jurisdictions will require a developer to do a traffic study as part of the conditions for getting a development approved. If the new development warrants traffic signal from the get go, the project approval is often subject to the condition that the developer install the full signal (or pay appropriate funds to have the local jurisdiction do it). But if not, at least in Vegas, the project conditions include preparatory site improvements for the signal and potentially paying into a fund for future signal improvements (so the agency can do it when traffic counts warrant it).
That is a very reasonable approach and probably the most cost-efficient all around.
Central Minnesota has a few examples, but the most notable is probably the Pinecone Road corridor in Sartell. When the road was constructed around 2000ish five intersections were prepped for signals. Of those intersections the two northernmost (2 1/2 Street (https://goo.gl/maps/xZs4StnsTtqqFDqbA)and 2nd Street/CSAH 133 (https://goo.gl/maps/GqH6aPfN8kyxgmu8A)) were signalized a year or two after the road was constructed as traffic counts increased (although the latter is now a roundabout). Moving further south along the corridor, the Pinecone and CSAH 133/Heritage Drive (https://goo.gl/maps/Pdq34fJeDkMvPp7w6) intersection was fully prepped for a signal with slip lanes and everything but signed as a four-way stop. This intersection was also upgraded to a roundabout a few years ago. Pinecone and Roberts Rd. (https://goo.gl/maps/wp4J7bbEzr7rDYuY9) is the only intersection that remains prepped for a signal (but my guess is it'll also be rebuilt as a roundabout sooner than later) with Roberts having stop signs. Pinecone and Scout Drive (https://goo.gl/maps/Na6U5UhrEG4CeMYH8) was partially prepped for a signal in the median (where the flower pots are in the '08 imagery) although unlike the other four intersections there were no bases installed for the signal masts. This intersection is also now a roundabout. Honorable mention to the Pinecone and CSAH 120 (https://goo.gl/maps/7f494HG31qK5DrR9A)intersection that wasn't prepped for a signal but got one anyways :rolleyes:
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 22, 2020, 05:36:53 PM
Any others in Indiana?
US 30 at the water park between the Merrillville area and Valparaiso. (https://goo.gl/maps/MKk5Loh7YPpfH91R7) Unless that one is seasonal and INDOT only put the heads up when the park is open.
I think there are a few more in Indiana.
In Illinois there's IL 120 at Adams near McHenry. There are a few foundations and handholes in place (https://goo.gl/maps/TFbJ5XxmhjKZLf2B6), as well as a couple detector loops (https://goo.gl/maps/uYkZu8NqHgEsHmpK6).
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 28, 2020, 12:41:48 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 22, 2020, 05:36:53 PM
Any others in Indiana?
US 30 at the water park between the Merrillville area and Valparaiso. (https://goo.gl/maps/MKk5Loh7YPpfH91R7) Unless that one is seasonal and INDOT only put the heads up when the park is open.
I think there are a few more in Indiana.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4707599,-87.23016,3a,75y,315.02h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssqjVz5ncNNJeea-wh-yVdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It's a seasonal thing... It is active during the summer when the park is open, but at other times, they would put a stop sign on the pole.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 29, 2020, 02:28:22 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 28, 2020, 12:41:48 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 22, 2020, 05:36:53 PM
Any others in Indiana?
US 30 at the water park between the Merrillville area and Valparaiso. (https://goo.gl/maps/MKk5Loh7YPpfH91R7) Unless that one is seasonal and INDOT only put the heads up when the park is open.
I think there are a few more in Indiana.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4707599,-87.23016,3a,75y,315.02h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssqjVz5ncNNJeea-wh-yVdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It's a seasonal thing... It is active during the summer when the park is open, but at other times, they would put a stop sign on the pole.
It appears in this GSV from Sept 2013, https://goo.gl/maps/Giia9MYGaAk3Hi3K7 they're in the process of taking them down! The side street lights for the park have already been removed, and they're prepping (or finishing for the day) to take down the lights on US 30.
While it appears the assembly was built to utilize a left turn light from US 30 onto 81st Ave, and a right turn light from 81st Ave onto US 30, neither have ever been installed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 29, 2020, 06:54:57 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 29, 2020, 02:28:22 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 28, 2020, 12:41:48 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 22, 2020, 05:36:53 PM
Any others in Indiana?
US 30 at the water park between the Merrillville area and Valparaiso. (https://goo.gl/maps/MKk5Loh7YPpfH91R7) Unless that one is seasonal and INDOT only put the heads up when the park is open.
I think there are a few more in Indiana.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4707599,-87.23016,3a,75y,315.02h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssqjVz5ncNNJeea-wh-yVdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It's a seasonal thing... It is active during the summer when the park is open, but at other times, they would put a stop sign on the pole.
It appears in this GSV from Sept 2013, https://goo.gl/maps/Giia9MYGaAk3Hi3K7 they're in the process of taking them down! The side street lights for the park have already been removed, and they're prepping (or finishing for the day) to take down the lights on US 30.
While it appears the assembly was built to utilize a left turn light from US 30 onto 81st Ave, and a right turn light from 81st Ave onto US 30, neither have ever been installed.
This is interesting and unique. How many other places go through so much trouble to deal with a seasonal traffic signal? I'm not aware of anything more than signal flash or turning signal heads as a similar method of dealing with seasonal traffic in my area. Most signals just operate normally, even if an amusement park (or similar seasonal attraction) were closed.
Poles that have been sitting dormant in Florida for a while now: https://www.google.pl/maps/@28.0348877,-80.6092343,3a,90y,43.87h,88.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAS0V41g4F3KRysgJuFFxcA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
An interesting case of this was present in Seattle at Aurora Ave N and Harrison St (https://goo.gl/maps/4zdTxSTJ9myEJYbx8). Previously, this intersection had been right-in/right-out only for Harrison as WA/US 99 was routed on Aurora as a quasi-freeway. As part of the viaduct replacement, this intersection was to gain a signal as the tunnel entrance is just north and thus through traffic on Aurora (now also renamed to 7th Ave N) would no longer have or need extra priority over cross traffic, so now it's possible to travel straight across this intersection on Harrison for the first time since the viaduct went in!
However, the mast arms for the signals went in a few years before the switch to a signalized intersection was made, as shown in the link above. I find this example interesting since it's kind of the opposite of most of the others in this thread that are mast arms installed in anticipation of future development, as opposed to this, which is more like a "downgrade" due to the major highway being shifted to a different location.
Quote from: stevashe on July 15, 2020, 07:07:09 PM
An interesting case of this was present in Seattle at Aurora Ave N and Harrison St (https://goo.gl/maps/4zdTxSTJ9myEJYbx8). Previously, this intersection had been right-in/right-out only for Harrison as WA/US 99 was routed on Aurora as a quasi-freeway. As part of the viaduct replacement, this intersection was to gain a signal as the tunnel entrance is just north and thus through traffic on Aurora (now also renamed to 7th Ave N) would no longer have or need extra priority over cross traffic, so now it's possible to travel straight across this intersection on Harrison for the first time since the viaduct went in!
However, the mast arms for the signals went in a few years before the switch to a signalized intersection was made, as shown in the link above. I find this example interesting since it's kind of the opposite of most of the others in this thread that are mast arms installed in anticipation of future development, as opposed to this, which is more like a "downgrade" due to the major highway being shifted to a different location.
In a way there is future development at the corner. While the roadway was downgraded from expressway to local street, the surrounding real estate definitely became more developed with taller buildings and more likely than not more pedestrian uses. Certainly Amazon's proximity to this area was a catalyst as well.
So yes this wasn't a bean field that is now a housing development as your typical example, but a development change from semi-industrial to office/retail/condo would be up-development as well.
Quote from: mrsman on June 29, 2020, 07:56:28 AM
This is interesting and unique. How many other places go through so much trouble to deal with a seasonal traffic signal? I'm not aware of anything more than signal flash or turning signal heads as a similar method of dealing with seasonal traffic in my area. Most signals just operate normally, even if an amusement park (or similar seasonal attraction) were closed.
There's the New York State Fair at Syracuse (https://goo.gl/maps/PFCExT7cjXsmotjS9), which, I heard, is not going to be signalized any more.
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on July 16, 2020, 10:35:01 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 29, 2020, 07:56:28 AM
This is interesting and unique. How many other places go through so much trouble to deal with a seasonal traffic signal? I'm not aware of anything more than signal flash or turning signal heads as a similar method of dealing with seasonal traffic in my area. Most signals just operate normally, even if an amusement park (or similar seasonal attraction) were closed.
There's the New York State Fair at Syracuse (https://goo.gl/maps/PFCExT7cjXsmotjS9), which, I heard, is not going to be signalized any more.
This is also interesting in that they put in place a traffic signal on an interstate highway. FWIW, I'm glad that they are removing the signal as even a temporary signal on an interstate is dangerous.
Quote from: mrsman on July 16, 2020, 08:33:55 PM
In a way there is future development at the corner. While the roadway was downgraded from expressway to local street, the surrounding real estate definitely became more developed with taller buildings and more likely than not more pedestrian uses. Certainly Amazon's proximity to this area was a catalyst as well.
So yes this wasn't a bean field that is now a housing development as your typical example, but a development change from semi-industrial to office/retail/condo would be up-development as well.
True, however I'd argue the light would have gone in regardless of surrounding development due to the intersection's proximity to downtown.
Quote from: stevashe on July 15, 2020, 07:07:09 PM
An interesting case of this was present in Seattle at Aurora Ave N and Harrison St (https://goo.gl/maps/4zdTxSTJ9myEJYbx8). Previously, this intersection had been right-in/right-out only for Harrison as WA/US 99 was routed on Aurora as a quasi-freeway. As part of the viaduct replacement, this intersection was to gain a signal as the tunnel entrance is just north and thus through traffic on Aurora (now also renamed to 7th Ave N) would no longer have or need extra priority over cross traffic, so now it's possible to travel straight across this intersection on Harrison for the first time since the viaduct went in!
However, the mast arms for the signals went in a few years before the switch to a signalized intersection was made, as shown in the link above. I find this example interesting since it's kind of the opposite of most of the others in this thread that are mast arms installed in anticipation of future development, as opposed to this, which is more like a "downgrade" due to the major highway being shifted to a different location.
This one is interesting to me because not only were mast arms installed in advance, but Opticom (or similar) preemption detectors were also installed on the mast arm in advance of signal heads, etc. That seems rather unusual.
Found a textbook example (https://www.google.pl/maps/@46.1068681,-122.8885692,3a,90y,199.62h,97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smxI56E29OVerl5usXJeo8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656/) in Kelso, WA (with mast arms, there's another one (https://www.google.pl/maps/@46.1050647,-122.8872649,3a,75y,156.84h,79.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIHa_crV45sCxSNja2Rch0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656/) down Talley). Both appear to have been erected between 2007 and 2012, in an interchange widening.
Unless it's another signal removed in the off season: IN 49 at Voyage (north of the Toll Road) (https://goo.gl/maps/UjrnwsQDb1ht5Dfk8)
Found some poles in Evanston WY that have been prepped for a few years: https://www.google.pl/maps/@41.263501,-110.9838582,3a,75y,21.99h,99.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHN3R40o5A2xWeVqS5IWsGA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Nearby, a lamppost prepped: https://www.google.pl/maps/@41.2619597,-110.9539565,3a,71.6y,21.61h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFy16mUBLlh0Pp2SnWI2UTQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Thread bump; found this (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5156245,-90.0361529,3a,75y,148.89h,89.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHVgzV0fFXy7eShwdVB1e2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) assembly in Belleville, IL.
Quote from: STLmapboy on September 22, 2020, 02:57:53 PM
Thread bump; found this (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5156245,-90.0361529,3a,75y,148.89h,89.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHVgzV0fFXy7eShwdVB1e2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) assembly in Belleville, IL.
" Left turn yield on green" :awesomeface:
Quote from: renegade on September 22, 2020, 08:36:10 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on September 22, 2020, 02:57:53 PM
Thread bump; found this (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5156245,-90.0361529,3a,75y,148.89h,89.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHVgzV0fFXy7eShwdVB1e2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) assembly in Belleville, IL.
" Left turn yield on green" :awesomeface:
Don't mind of I do :cool:
Quote from: STLmapboy on September 22, 2020, 10:40:37 PM
Quote from: renegade on September 22, 2020, 08:36:10 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on September 22, 2020, 02:57:53 PM
Thread bump; found this (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5156245,-90.0361529,3a,75y,148.89h,89.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHVgzV0fFXy7eShwdVB1e2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) assembly in Belleville, IL.
" Left turn yield on green" :awesomeface:
Don't mind of I do :cool:
The sign assembly isn't so weird as the folks who put up the street signs probably put up that sign as well, so no need to have that crew come twice to that intersection.
The weird thing is that there were signal heads put up way back in 2013, and then they were taken down later.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5153888,-90.0361853,3a,75y,356.76h,95.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_ANR-04XjYY2BWU8pJfQLg!2e0!5s20130401T000000!7i13312!8i6656
It seems like the intersection didn't even exist at all in 2009, then they set up to develop this land and installed signals, but as the land has sat fallow for awhile, they took down the signal heads but left everything else in place.
I always used to think this intersection was getting prepped for traffic signals, with the masts having been installed long enough ago that they'd already begun to rust:
7 Ave SW @ Fruitland Ave; Puyallup, WA (https://goo.gl/maps/D6452h1gPgLYwHeUA)
As it turns out, the signals were actually removed in 1989 (https://piercecountywa.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/4347) (PDF; pg 3). Thankfully the county has a digital archive of all their traffic control changes dating back to 1989 (and not a year earlier), otherwise I'd still be confused. Especially given that this intersection can get wildly backed up from the westbound approach during parts of the day. I'm really not sure why the signal was removed, since if anything, a signal is warranted here over most three-way intersections in the area.
Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5938518,-75.6303602,3a,60y,317.69h,85.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNsWc4LYBTeEeDD_Rki8PRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656/) one out of Allentown.