Non-MUTCD Traffic Signal Control

[Brandon]

How many places just ignore the MUTCD outright when using traffic signals?

The Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) does:

95th St & Cottage Grove Av
Lake Shore Drive & Balbo Dr
Lake Shore Drive & Jackson Blvd
Lake Shore Drive & Monroe Dr
Michigan Av & Ohio St (not uncommon for Michigan Av between LSD & the Chicago River)

How many others are out there?

[steviep24]

I'm sure New York City does.

[jakeroot]

Seattle has used flashing yellow orbs over a left turn lane to indicate that yielding was required. Most drivers seemed to understand it, but the FYA has replaced nearly all examples as you might imagine.

One of the few left is near the UW campus: https://goo.gl/nSNnqJ -- note the lack of any supplementary signage. No "LEFT TURN ONLY/SIGNAL" or "LEFT TURN YIELD ON FLASHING YELLOW".

I don't know if this setup was expressly prohibited by the MUTCD (since yellow orbs ultimately mean 'proceed straight through with caution, but yield otherwise'), but I've definitely never seen this anywhere except Seattle.

Those Chicago signals are the ultimate 'fuck-you' to drivers. Looks like a yield...nope! I'd ignore the signs on principle. Looks like drivers do too.

[paulthemapguy]

LOL I scoff at those signals on Lake Shore every time I go past.  This is not how protected-only left turns work!!

CDOT also doesn't stay compliant with........very basic transportation needs of Chicagoans.  So these MUTCD violations are a drop in the bucket bedpan.  They could start by building one adequate street.

[US 89]

How many places just ignore the MUTCD outright when using traffic signals?

The Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) does:

Lake Shore Drive & Balbo Dr
Lake Shore Drive & Jackson Blvd
Lake Shore Drive & Monroe Dr
Michigan Av & Ohio St (not uncommon for Michigan Av between LSD & the Chicago River)

How many others are out there?

I think St. Louis does something like that as well. They put up a doghouse signal with a "left on green arrow only" sign next to it.

Seattle has used flashing yellow orbs over a left turn lane to indicate that yielding was required. Most drivers seemed to understand it, but the FYA has replaced nearly all examples as you might imagine.

One of the few left is near the UW campus: https://goo.gl/nSNnqJ -- note the lack of any supplementary signage. No "LEFT TURN ONLY/SIGNAL" or "LEFT TURN YIELD ON FLASHING YELLOW".

I don't know if this setup was expressly prohibited by the MUTCD (since yellow orbs ultimately mean 'proceed straight through with caution, but yield otherwise'), but I've definitely never seen this anywhere except Seattle.

Could they stick a "left turn signal" sign next to that four-section head? I know several areas do this for protected left turns.

[CtrlAltDel]

How many places just ignore the MUTCD outright when using traffic signals?

The Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) does:

95th St & Cottage Grove Av
Lake Shore Drive & Balbo Dr
Lake Shore Drive & Jackson Blvd
Lake Shore Drive & Monroe Dr
Michigan Av & Ohio St (not uncommon for Michigan Av between LSD & the Chicago River)

How many others are out there?

I hate to reveal my ignorance here, but in what ways are these signals noncompliant with the MUTCD?

[Brian556]

How many places just ignore the MUTCD outright when using traffic signals?

The Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) does:

95th St & Cottage Grove Av
Lake Shore Drive & Balbo Dr
Lake Shore Drive & Jackson Blvd
Lake Shore Drive & Monroe Dr
Michigan Av & Ohio St (not uncommon for Michigan Av between LSD & the Chicago River)

How many others are out there?

I hate to reveal my ignorance here, but in what ways are these signals noncompliant with the MUTCD?

Hazard marker is wrong in the first one

[jakeroot]

Seattle has used flashing yellow orbs over a left turn lane to indicate that yielding was required. Most drivers seemed to understand it, but the FYA has replaced nearly all examples as you might imagine.

One of the few left is near the UW campus: https://goo.gl/nSNnqJ -- note the lack of any supplementary signage. No "LEFT TURN ONLY/SIGNAL" or "LEFT TURN YIELD ON FLASHING YELLOW".

I don't know if this setup was expressly prohibited by the MUTCD (since yellow orbs ultimately mean 'proceed straight through with caution, but yield otherwise'), but I've definitely never seen this anywhere except Seattle.

Could they stick a "left turn signal" sign next to that four-section head? I know several areas do this for protected left turns.

They could. But, the signal is quite old and I would expect it to disappear soon anyways. As well, Seattle seldom uses overhead lane control (R3-5/6) or traffic signal (R10-10) signage, so I doubt they even thought to install such a sign when this signal first went in.

How many places just ignore the MUTCD outright when using traffic signals?

The Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) does:
---
How many others are out there?

I hate to reveal my ignorance here, but in what ways are these signals noncompliant with the MUTCD?

Hazard marker is wrong in the first one

I think the bigger issue is that left turns are not allowed except on a green arrow, despite the approach using green orbs which are reserved for yield situations. I'm not sure which part of the MUTCD specifically prohibits this, but I'm 99% sure it isn't allowed.

[Scott5114]

I think the bigger issue is that left turns are not allowed except on a green arrow, despite the approach using green orbs which are reserved for yield situations. I'm not sure which part of the MUTCD specifically prohibits this, but I'm 99% sure it isn't allowed.

Weirdly, it's technically allowed:

Vehicular traffic facing a CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication is permitted to proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn movement except as such movement is modified by lane-use signs, turn prohibition signs, lane markings, roadway design, separate turn signal indications, or other traffic control devices.

I imagine "turn prohibition signs" is meant to mean things like "No Left Turn", but Chicago's stuff would technically put a prohibition on turns and therefore count as okay under 4D.04, although it very clearly violates the spirit of the MUTCD. Especially when you consider this section later on in Chapter 4D that discusses signal heads that change between protected and permissive mode:

The CIRCULAR GREEN and CIRCULAR YELLOW signal indications shall not be displayed when operating in the protected only mode.

[PurdueBill]

I think the bigger issue is that left turns are not allowed except on a green arrow, despite the approach using green orbs which are reserved for yield situations. I'm not sure which part of the MUTCD specifically prohibits this, but I'm 99% sure it isn't allowed.

Weirdly, it's technically allowed:

Vehicular traffic facing a CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication is permitted to proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn movement except as such movement is modified by lane-use signs, turn prohibition signs, lane markings, roadway design, separate turn signal indications, or other traffic control devices.

I imagine "turn prohibition signs" is meant to mean things like "No Left Turn", but Chicago's stuff would technically put a prohibition on turns and therefore count as okay under 4D.04, although it very clearly violates the spirit of the MUTCD. Especially when you consider this section later on in Chapter 4D that discusses signal heads that change between protected and permissive mode:

The CIRCULAR GREEN and CIRCULAR YELLOW signal indications shall not be displayed when operating in the protected only mode.

It could be argued that Turn Prohibition Signs refers to No Left Turn, etc. that are standard. CDOT's use of a 5-stack with a green ball and sign meaning what a red left arrow should be saying is just wrong, especially when on many CDOT roads, a 5-stack operates the same as a doghouse and permissive lefts are allowed.  They should just put up the right signal.

I've personally seen many times when even CTA bus drivers lean on their horns to try to get someone in front of them to turn left on the green ball at one of the many Michigan Avenue signals affected by the boobery of the 5-stack and the sign.

[roadfro]

How many places just ignore the MUTCD outright when using traffic signals?

The Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) does:

95th St & Cottage Grove Av

It took me a minute to realize the violation with this one. The link above makes it look like the signal is operating split phase. But going back in time in the street view, you can see the signal in circular green without the green arrows. So this one is in the same principle as the others in the OP–signs appear to prohibit left turns during a circular green–just the signal heads use 4-section displays without a yellow left arrow.

I agree that all these setups are rather bizarre, and should be revised.

[jay8g]

Seattle has at least "LEFT TURN ON LEFT ARROW ONLY" approach: 23rd and John. It's a little different, though, in that the through movement has a green up arrow instead of a green circle, which makes it a little better (though, unlike the Chicago examples, there's no left turn lane, which makes things a little weird).

Seattle also used to use flashing red circles for the permissive left turn phase in certain locations (where there is no traditional red phase for left-turning traffic). I'm not sure if this is explicitly prohibited, but it's certainly not a normal thing to see.

Seattle seems to be getting better at following the MUTCD these days, but up until a decade or so ago, they often did some weird stuff...

[jakeroot]

Seattle has at least "LEFT TURN ON LEFT ARROW ONLY" approach: 23rd and John. It's a little different, though, in that the through movement has a green up arrow instead of a green circle, which makes it a little better (though, unlike the Chicago examples, there's no left turn lane, which makes things a little weird).

Ah, totally forgot about that one! I remember seeing that for the first time. I had to go around the block to see it again, to make sure I saw what I thought I had. And sure enough, it's exactly that. As you might imagine, no left turns due to the poor visibility. There's two approach lanes, but both go straight, so as far as I can tell, they weren't able to use a regular arrow signal, and instead had to use this Chicago-esque setup. I guess they didn't want to split phase?

[Revive 755]

I think the bigger issue is that left turns are not allowed except on a green arrow, despite the approach using green orbs which are reserved for yield situations. I'm not sure which part of the MUTCD specifically prohibits this, but I'm 99% sure it isn't allowed.

Weirdly, it's technically allowed:

Vehicular traffic facing a CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication is permitted to proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn movement except as such movement is modified by lane-use signs, turn prohibition signs, lane markings, roadway design, separate turn signal indications, or other traffic control devices.

I imagine "turn prohibition signs" is meant to mean things like "No Left Turn", but Chicago's stuff would technically put a prohibition on turns and therefore count as okay under 4D.04, although it very clearly violates the spirit of the MUTCD. Especially when you consider this section later on in Chapter 4D that discusses signal heads that change between protected and permissive mode:

The CIRCULAR GREEN and CIRCULAR YELLOW signal indications shall not be displayed when operating in the protected only mode.

I think the MUTCD does prohibit those setups:

A shared signal face shall not be used for protected only mode left turns unless the CIRCULAR GREEN and left-turn GREEN ARROW signal indications always begin and terminate together. If a shared signal face is provided for a protected only mode left turn, it shall meet the following requirements (see Figure 4D-9):

A. It shall be capable of displaying the following signal indications: steady CIRCULAR RED, steady CIRCULAR YELLOW, CIRCULAR GREEN, and left-turn GREEN ARROW. Only one of the three colors shall be displayed at any given time

I think St. Louis does something like that as well. They put up a doghouse signal with a "left on green arrow only" sign next to it.

Southbound Skinker at Clayton Road and the US 40 ramps to/from the east used to have this.

[fwydriver405]

Boston, MA at the intersection of Surface Rd and Kneeland St recently converted a "left turn yield on green" to a "left on green arrow only" with the same signal setup...

[Revive 755]

I am beginning to wonder if the non-compliant 'turn on arrow only' signs with five section heads is spreading in Chicagoland:  eastbound Thomas Street at US 12/Rand Road in Arlington Heights

Westbound has (had?) a 'RIGHT TURN ON GREEN OR ARROW ONLY' sign.

[jakeroot]

I am beginning to wonder if the non-compliant 'turn on arrow only' signs with five section heads is spreading in Chicagoland:  eastbound Thomas Street at US 12/Rand Road in Arlington Heights

Westbound has (had?) a 'RIGHT TURN ON GREEN OR ARROW ONLY' sign.

Those signs seem like a long-winded way of saying "NO TURN ON RED", unless I'm misinterpreting them.

[Scott5114]

I am beginning to wonder if the non-compliant 'turn on arrow only' signs with five section heads is spreading in Chicagoland:  eastbound Thomas Street at US 12/Rand Road in Arlington Heights

Westbound has (had?) a 'RIGHT TURN ON GREEN OR ARROW ONLY' sign.

Those signs seem like a long-winded way of saying "NO TURN ON RED", unless I'm misinterpreting them.

Technically it bans right on yellow too.