AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Traffic Control => Topic started by: Tom89t on January 14, 2012, 01:01:45 AM

Title: Traffic signal
Post by: Tom89t on January 14, 2012, 01:01:45 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on January 14, 2012, 01:19:13 AM
Link leads nowhere.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on January 14, 2012, 02:45:54 AM
To make this thread deliver:
(http://www.cityofindianwells.com/user_images/Traffic%20Signal_2.JPG)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on January 14, 2012, 08:57:26 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

Tom, you need to post the entire Google Maps link for these.  When you post, it's not coming through but for the the first bit.  IIRC, there's a copy button on the Google Map you want to post that says "copy link" or some such thing.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Michael on January 14, 2012, 10:21:07 AM
How to share a map link: http://support.google.com/maps/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=72644 (http://support.google.com/maps/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=72644)

Look for the Link button, it looks like this: (http://www.google.com/help/hc/images/maps_1625043_link_button_en.png)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: myosh_tino on January 14, 2012, 03:04:11 PM
Tom, you need to post the entire Google Maps link for these.  When you post, it's not coming through but for the the first bit.  IIRC, there's a copy button on the Google Map you want to post that says "copy link" or some such thing.

How to share a map link: http://support.google.com/maps/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=72644 (http://support.google.com/maps/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=72644)

Look for the Link button, it looks like this: (http://www.google.com/help/hc/images/maps_1625043_link_button_en.png)
Guys, Tom is posting to the forums using an iPod Touch.  I tried to find the link icon Michael mentioned but in the mobile version of Google Maps, that icon is no where to be found.

Tom, you need get on a *real* computer in order to be able to link to Google Maps.  If you are unable to get to a computer, don't bother posting links to Google Maps because all we'll get is the generic map of the US.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 6a on January 14, 2012, 03:31:28 PM
To make this thread deliver:


Oh no, everything is broken

(http://clickhalah.com/images/trafficlight.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on January 14, 2012, 09:44:35 PM
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/syracuse/tipw.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Michael on January 14, 2012, 10:11:31 PM
Steve, you beat me to posting that one!  I live about a half hour away from it.

The entrance to SUNY Oswego had double signals, but I think they've been replaced.  The older signals were only visible when you were right under them (they had lenses that restrict the viewing angle).  The double signals can be seen in Street View (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.44661,-76.541727&spn=0.002162,0.005284&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=43.44672,-76.541513&panoid=qvhScURB65BLJ53j8aMphQ&cbp=12,87.59,,0,-13.61).  The older signals are on the far side of the intersection (the right mast arm in the background).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Tom89t on January 14, 2012, 11:12:54 PM
Thats  what I been telling you guys. :pan:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 6a on January 14, 2012, 11:22:19 PM
Thats  what I been telling you guys. :pan:

Not very well, apparently.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: adt1982 on January 14, 2012, 11:53:06 PM
What a descriptive title!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on March 01, 2012, 08:50:16 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6799126368/in/photostream/  http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6945237857/in/photostream/     http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6799126238/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6945237857/in/photostream/


Pictures of an ugly signal assembly in Orlando, FL on US 17, 92, & 441. :pan:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on March 16, 2012, 08:33:34 PM
That's really fancy, and probably expensive. Whey would they go to all that expense instead of using more standard mounting equipment.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 16, 2012, 09:29:08 PM
Two places in Broward County that I am aware of have a similar massive traffic signal set-up, but diagonally.  One is located at North University Drive (FL 817) and West Sunrise Blvd. (FL 838) on the Plantation/Sunrise city line and the second one is to the south at North/South University Drive (FL 817) and West Broward Blvd. (FL 842) in Plantation.

When these big black behemoths were erected, the reason given for having installing these massive interstate-highway-sign- sized sign bridges for traffic lights was that the intersections were the largest in the County.  I do not support that reasoning since the intersections in both cases consist of 6-lane highways with 2-left turn lanes and 1-right turn lane, neither of which are unusual at all in south Florida.  Each time I have encountered these huge signal bridges, the traffic lights themselves tend to be hard to see, being dwarfed in black-painted steel.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Takumi on March 16, 2012, 10:21:25 PM
Who needs yellow?
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-D6r8MCn5PkM/T1-4zOie6PI/AAAAAAAABmw/qS2G_HNNkCI/s816/DSC00478.JPG)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PurdueBill on March 16, 2012, 10:30:41 PM
Who needs yellow?
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-D6r8MCn5PkM/T1-4zOie6PI/AAAAAAAABmw/qS2G_HNNkCI/s816/DSC00478.JPG)

What color is the top head in the two-section signals?  I guess red?  (A first thought was maybe yellows so the assembly could theoretically flash yellow for some reason, but I dismissed that because the top head shouldn't be yellow--it would be disaster to have someone colorblind come along and think it was flashing red.  Maybe the top lights, if red, aren't operational and are placeholders so the green isn't alone?  Where is this light--maybe someone is familiar with it?)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Takumi on March 16, 2012, 10:45:29 PM
This is on US 360 in Richmond, just east of VA 150 at a shopping center. Every time I'be been by this light it's been green, so I don't actually know what color the top is!

Assuming it's red, though.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on March 16, 2012, 10:50:09 PM
I would assume it's always green, since there's no conflicting movement.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on March 16, 2012, 10:57:49 PM
This is on US 360 in Richmond, just east of VA 150 at a shopping center. Every time I'be been by this light it's been green, so I don't actually know what color the top is!

Assuming it's red, though.
Is that a location where the traffic in this direction has a protected-only or protected-permissive left turn but no reason for the thru traffic to stop? Every place I've seen that setup, there is a single green straight-ahead arrow only with no other lights that could show. One that comes to mind is exiting Denver International Airport where the road from the remote parking lot enters.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Takumi on March 16, 2012, 11:07:50 PM
The leftmost signal has four arrows, so there may be such a phase there. If none of the other Richmond area roadgeeks hasn't seen this fully in action, I'll check it out one day.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ian on March 16, 2012, 11:45:07 PM
The right three 2-section signals look like they'd have yellow on their top section which I would assume flash during the off hours. New York has plenty of intersections with those type of signals...
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6020/5992209883_3f647fe150_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: deathtopumpkins on March 17, 2012, 09:43:01 AM
Takumi, I would actually presume the top is yellow, based on another Virginia example I used to drive under daily. On VA 134 (Armistead Ave) at the onramp to I-64 westbound in Hampton, VA was an almost identical setup, where the left turn lanes had three-lens signals (protected arrows only) and the two thru lanes had a green and yellow two-lens signal (I only ever saw it yellow once, when it was first installed the top lens flashed yellow). Unfortunately the two-lens signals were removed a few years ago, and are not even visible in street view anymore. They were added when Armistead Ave was widened through the area at least 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on March 17, 2012, 12:34:28 PM
Go to street view and look at US 90 Eastbound at I-310 near New Orleans.  You will see a full doghouse signal for that movement at the northbound on ramp to the interstate with the through movement being business as usual with two other signal heads.  The thing is there is no other road to conflict movement where the green signal is on constantly with the red and straight through yellow ever used.  Only the yellow and green left are used when WB US 90 is stopped to allow a protected left turn from EB to NB.  Check it out there!
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=New+Orleans,+LA&aq=0&oq=new+o&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.957999,86.572266&vpsrc=6&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+Orleans,+Orleans,+Louisiana&ll=29.896048,-90.395089&spn=0.002404,0.005284&z=18&cbll=29.895983,-90.39519&panoid=DNoe1OaQnlCLQrK-s0Nrtw&cbp=12,25.63,,0,0&ei=YcNkT4HBAcqo8gb1jpW-BA&pw=2
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on March 17, 2012, 01:24:37 PM
Heck, who needs two?

Here is GMSV during road construction; through traffic has only a signal head, which is solid green full-time.
Wichita, KS:
(http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/i410/kphoger/signal.png)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on March 17, 2012, 01:31:03 PM
Exactly!  There should be some permanent arrows there with a left turn signal head that flashes RED to allow left turns when there is chance to move without waiting for the green arrow like it is now.  Good photo to prove this.

Also this looks like what Orlando used to have that was a right lane continous green at one time until drivers started making unsafe lane changes that ended this trend at some three way intersections.  Titusville, FL still uses them along many intersections along US 1 and on the Kennedy Space Center in front of the Visitor's complex on NASA Parkway.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on March 17, 2012, 01:40:51 PM
Exactly!  There should be some permanent arrows there with a left turn signal head that flashes RED to allow left turns when there is chance to move without waiting for the green arrow like it is now.  Good photo to prove this.

Also this looks like what Orlando used to have that was a right lane continous green at one time until drivers started making unsafe lane changes that ended this trend at some three way intersections.  Titusville, FL still uses them along many intersections along US 1 and on the Kennedy Space Center in front of the Visitor's complex on NASA Parkway.

If you're referring to my Wichita photo, then....  The two full signal heads are dedicated left turn arrows; oncoming traffic gets a red light to allow this green phase, and then it's through-only again.  Traffic here is heavy, as it is a mall entrance on a major thoroughfare AND very near one of Wichita's two most important highways.  So, the protected arrow is very important for the safety of traffic coming off Kellogg and turning into the mall.  Here's the satellite image:
http://g.co/maps/bkdc4 (http://g.co/maps/bkdc4)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on March 17, 2012, 04:54:06 PM
Don't ya' just hate when they don't chop the mast-arm at the left-most signal head, as in that Wichita photo. Virginia is famous for that too. It looks so sloppy and unfinished; very unprofessional. Bet you don't see that in Calif. or Nevada.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on March 17, 2012, 09:55:37 PM
Actually I was referring to the one in LA on US 90 that I posted.  The Wichita setup should have been used there with a flashing red arrow to allow traffic to turn left there when the on-coming traffic is NOT stopped.

It looks like Florida there in Wichita with the brown mast arms.  I know that KDOT used non painted mast arms and was amazed that on East Kellog that there were two span wire assemblies back in 01 when I went through there then.  Usually you do not find span wires in the mid-west.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: DaBigE on March 18, 2012, 01:02:34 AM
Usually you do not find span wires in the mid-west.

There are quite a few in lower Michigan, from what I remember, especially in more rural locations.  WisDOT uses them frequently for temporary signals.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on March 18, 2012, 06:41:48 AM
Don't ya' just hate when they don't chop the mast-arm at the left-most signal head, as in that Wichita photo. Virginia is famous for that too. It looks so sloppy and unfinished; very unprofessional. Bet you don't see that in Calif. or Nevada.

Actually, longer-than-necessary mast arms do pop up in Nevada from time to time. Generally, it's because there is the potential for future expansion of turn lanes or something and the mast arm is ordered long enough to accommodate that. Other times, it's because mast arms come in standard lengths and the roadway is an odd width...in these cases, the arm is likely to have been salvaged from another previous installation.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on March 18, 2012, 09:40:15 AM
Don't ya' just hate when they don't chop the mast-arm at the left-most signal head, as in that Wichita photo. Virginia is famous for that too. It looks so sloppy and unfinished; very unprofessional. Bet you don't see that in Calif. or Nevada.

Actually, longer-than-necessary mast arms do pop up in Nevada from time to time. Generally, it's because there is the potential for future expansion of turn lanes or something and the mast arm is ordered long enough to accommodate that. Other times, it's because mast arms come in standard lengths and the roadway is an odd width...in these cases, the arm is likely to have been salvaged from another previous installation.

We have plenty of longer than needed mast arms in Orlando.  Peppermill Boulevard at Orange Blossom Trail has one for EB Peppermill that is twice the length needed.  There is no plans to widen Peppermill Boulevard in this life and the furthermost left signal head is only half way to the middle of the arm there.

http://maps.google.com/maps/svpw?url=http:%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2Fmaps%3Ff%3Dq%26source%3Ds_q%26hl%3Den%26geocode%3D%26q%3DOrlando,%2BFL%26aq%3D0%26oq%3DOrla%26sll%3D37.0625,-95.677068%26sspn%3D35.957999,86.572266%26vpsrc%3D6%26t%3Dh%26ie%3DUTF8%26hq%3D%26hnear%3DOrlando,%2BOrange,%2BFlorida%26ll%3D28.538336,-81.379236%26spn%3D0.00244,0.005284%26z%3D14%26layer%3Dc%26cbll%3D28.390605,-81.404864%26panoid%3DIlLuizyilO5f9mIecFGJMw%26cbp%3D12,73.59,,0,0%26output%3Dembed&hl=en&gl=us
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on March 18, 2012, 09:59:16 AM
Here is a picture of a signal with a RIGHT LANE CONTINUOUS GREEN where the right lane does not have to stop ever, but vehicles in the left lane have to.  This is a three way intersection, where vehicles coming in from the left, only have to swing into the left lane, while the right lane stays free. 

We used to have more of these around Central Florida, but many are being eliminated for those who choose to change lanes to avoid the light are making unsafe lane changes ruining this type of set up.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Titusville,+FL&hl=en&ll=28.526038,-80.679109&spn=0.009747,0.021136&sll=28.390603,-81.404867&sspn=0.002459,0.005284&oq=Ti&t=h&hnear=Titusville,+Brevard,+Florida&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.526226,-80.679079&panoid=brDF0fEy4bSNUIeEO9WsLg&cbp=12,270,,0,0
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: pianocello on March 18, 2012, 12:06:20 PM
There's a few of them in mid-Michigan, like this (http://g.co/maps/62a7r) one used for an exit ramp and one here (http://g.co/maps/p9qys) that functions more of a right turn arrow. It's only on when there's an WB-SB left turn arrow (pic faces north).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ian on March 18, 2012, 12:57:04 PM
Don't ya' just hate when they don't chop the mast-arm at the left-most signal head, as in that Wichita photo. Virginia is famous for that too. It looks so sloppy and unfinished; very unprofessional. Bet you don't see that in Calif. or Nevada.

Maryland seems to be famous for that as well. They seem to have a "one size fits all" policy in terms of mast arms.
http://g.co/maps/4kst2
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on March 18, 2012, 06:16:42 PM
In fact they do have shorter mast arms out there that are shorter.  Plus some states like New Jersey will turn the arm on a 45 degree angle if the arm is too long to make its extension only half its way and not creating any sight problems.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Takumi on April 08, 2012, 03:29:48 PM
Heck, who needs two?

Here is GMSV during road construction; through traffic has only a signal head, which is solid green full-time.
Wichita, KS

I saw one of these in Richmond yesterday, where VA 197 leaves Laburnum Ave for Saunders Ave. Turning traffic and eastbound Laburnum traffic each have protected cycles, while westbound Laburnum traffic has the continuous straight green arrow. Traffic cannot turn west onto Laburnum from Saunders here, as the road is split.

I also saw another signal with two lights on VA 161 northbound, just past US 60. Southbound has a normal three light signal.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: JREwing78 on April 09, 2012, 08:09:34 PM
Usually you do not find span wires in the mid-west.

There are quite a few in lower Michigan, from what I remember, especially in more rural locations.  WisDOT uses them frequently for temporary signals.

Michigan's default is the span wire; only occasionally do you see MDOT using masts.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SidS1045 on April 09, 2012, 10:51:10 PM
Who needs yellow?

NYC did quite well without them for decades.
(http://forgotten-ny.com/wp-content/gallery/wheelies_2/traffic-light-1985.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Scott5114 on April 09, 2012, 11:47:14 PM
That's a hell of a mastarm.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Sanctimoniously on April 10, 2012, 07:00:57 PM

Pictures of an ugly signal assembly in Orlando, FL on US 17, 92, & 441. :pan:

The new signals for Lejeune Boulevard (NC 24) and Piney Green Road at the Piney Green gate of Camp Lejeune are like that, except in sort of a stair-step shape, both sets of signals for Piney Green Road are on the same gantry. . .thing.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on April 22, 2012, 10:33:57 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.019645,-75.149209&spn=0.002025,0.005284&hnear=6670+Cecil+Rd,+Port+St+John,+Brevard,+Florida+32927&t=m&layer=c&cbll=40.01961,-75.148954&panoid=X9qnZG_POx2TfaKJuTqVXQ&cbp=12,93.63,,0,-22.5&z=18

This is an oddity of a signal without the visors for the red and green left with the middle one in tact.  Almost looks like the signal is giving the finger.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: architect77 on April 25, 2012, 11:03:31 PM
Interesting signal gantry in Jacksonville, NC near Camp Legeune:
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w102/architect77/photo78.jpg)
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w102/architect77/photo77.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: architect77 on April 25, 2012, 11:05:18 PM
Wilmington, NC has these citywide. They look good:
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w102/architect77/photo76.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: blawp on April 26, 2012, 01:04:36 AM
Does every state besides California have rickety looking power lines?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: architect77 on April 26, 2012, 02:10:47 PM
Does every state besides California have rickety looking power lines?
I would reply with a resounding, "Yes."
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on May 11, 2012, 04:13:44 PM
Just wondering about the MUTCD and its ruling on overhead signals.   I am aware that on straight through signals there must be TWO signal heads always, but left turn and right turn signals only need one.  Only NJ, DE, IL, and some states feature more signal heads as an added bonus.

San Fransisco, Washington, cities in Illinois and Wisconsin, and parts of New Jersey have side mounted signals where there is no overhead assemblies whatsoever.  Then in some places like California, Pennsylvania, and some others you have only one overhead straight through head with the other one side mounted to make the required two that is needed.

My question is are side mounted allowed at all according to the latest MUTCD guidelines?  If they are, does that still mean you have to have two overhead assemblies to work with the rest?  I have seen some places in NJ where you have two overhead and maybe one or two side mounted.  Then there are some streets in CA and NJ that have overhead signals for the main road and side mounted on the secondary street, or even side mounted posts at the end of a road at a signal where the heads are on 6 feet poles directly across the end of the street.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: xcellntbuy on May 11, 2012, 04:20:11 PM
Wilmington, NC has these citywide. They look good:
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w102/architect77/photo76.jpg)
These are popping up all over Broward County, Florida.  Most are black, some are silver.  The silver looks better.  The big gantry "cage" exists in a few places in Broward.  All black.  Not too fond of them myself.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on May 11, 2012, 08:51:54 PM
Roadman: the two required heads in each direction do not necessarily have to be overhead. They can be overhead or pole-mounted or a combination. The only requirement is that they fit into the drivers' so called "cone-of-vision" which you can read about and see a diagram of, in the MUTCD on the FHWA website. Just Google MUTCD and you should find it. However the Manual does encourage agencies to use two overhead signals as the preferred arrangement. That's considered the most effective, though I personally think in some cases, one overhead and one on the far-right pole is a good arrangement, especially when there are only 1 or 2 thru lanes. But, as they say: "It's all good."
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on May 12, 2012, 02:20:25 PM
SignBridge I do know that there is also a 40 feet distance must be maintained between the stop bar and the signals itself.  Someone I know, who I do not see quite frequently anymore, works for Orange County, FL repairing signals.  He told me that.

I assume that only one of them needs to be in the cone of vision as New Jersey has one on each side of the street with only one, I have seen, in the vision of the first car in line.  The other is either overhead or to the left on the opposite side of the road.

NJ, NYC, and part of PA seem to install signals where one signal head is over the opposing traffic lane except where left turn signals are installed.   Having one straight through to the left of the left turn light, for obvious reasons, is not right.  Only where there is one signal around a curve where a left side head is needed to display to the traffic before the curve the signal's orientation.

I would like to know how NYC in Rockaway Beach, NY is allowed to operate amber less signals and only have two colors: red and green.  Both together are used to warn motorists of the change when the green time is up.  I have a photo of the red and green both on at the same time back in 03 along the beach where they are still used unless it was modified since then.  Plus, how does the signal work in flash mode?  It must only be a four way stop flashing red on all signals, or does like Boston does and flashes the green at some intersections on the dominate roadway instead of the yellow.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on May 12, 2012, 09:55:04 PM
Roadman, you make some good points. You're right about that 40 ft. from the stop-line rule. That's in Section 4D along with the cone of vision. And it does also say that at least one and preferably both required heads, must be within the cone. I remember some talk among engineers on the FHWA discussion forum about the need to change that rule to require both heads to be within the cone.

I agree that a green ball should not be located to the left of a left-turn arrow. Regrettably this is a common practice in Calif, and N.J. But I think it's misleading. New York had a rule against this practice. I don't know if they retained it when they abolished their own Manual and went with the Federal Manual, with a State Supplement. A near-right pole mounted head is a good alternative on a right-hand curved approach.

I can't believe that NYC still had any 2-color signals in use in 2003. They changed most or all of them to 3-color back in the 1960's. As you suggested, it was probably used in flashing red/yellow mode.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on May 12, 2012, 11:09:46 PM


I agree that a green ball should not be located to the left of a left-turn arrow.
While I'm not against it, I note that when a signal turns horizontal, the up-down order of the signal becomes a right-left order. In keeping with that, I expect the left-turn arrows to be at the far right of the signal, after the RYG. It violates my expectancy to see arrows mixed between the balls. Just doesn't look natural.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: myosh_tino on May 13, 2012, 12:22:16 AM
I agree that a green ball should not be located to the left of a left-turn arrow. Regrettably this is a common practice in Calif, and N.J. But I think it's misleading. New York had a rule against this practice.
Can you provide some examples of this particular signal setup because I don't think this is common practice in California... at least in Northern California and I don't ever recall seeing a green ball left of a left turn signal.  If there is an overhead left turn signal, then the pole-mounted signal on the far left corner is also a left turn signal.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on May 13, 2012, 01:31:00 PM
Correct Myosh, re: the far-left corner. But, if the approach is a right-hand curve, Calif. will often have a near-left corner pole or mast-arm mounted green ball or both. Three examples:

In Serramonte (Bay Area) on eastbound Hickey Blvd. at Campus Dr.

In San Diego's Mission Valley area, eastbound on Camino De La Reina at Avenida Del Rio. (near the N/W corner of the interchange of I-5 and SR-163.

Also (s/w corner of same interchange) on westbound Hotel Circle South at Bachmann Place. Ain't Google Earth great? Have fun!

And Steve, yes I agree that horizontal signals result in an unusual arrangement that I don't really like either. I guess they feel that the left-turn arrow needs to be to the left of the green-ball. Logical in a way.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: myosh_tino on May 14, 2012, 11:46:50 AM
Correct Myosh, re: the far-left corner. But, if the approach is a right-hand curve, Calif. will often have a near-left corner pole or mast-arm mounted green ball or both. Three examples:

In Serramonte (Bay Area) on eastbound Hickey Blvd. at Campus Dr.

In San Diego's Mission Valley area, eastbound on Camino De La Reina at Avenida Del Rio. (near the N/W corner of the interchange of I-5 and SR-163.

Also (s/w corner of same interchange) on westbound Hotel Circle South at Bachmann Place. Ain't Google Earth great? Have fun!
I don't see how the signal arrangements in your three examples are bad.  I looked at the first two intersections on Google Maps and eliminating the near left signals would be a very bad idea because the main signals are located on a blind curve where drivers are not given enough warning on the current state of the signal.  This situation is really not that common in California but when it is used, there appears to be a good reason why the signals were set up that way.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on May 16, 2012, 08:33:59 PM


I agree that a green ball should not be located to the left of a left-turn arrow.
While I'm not against it, I note that when a signal turns horizontal, the up-down order of the signal becomes a right-left order. In keeping with that, I expect the left-turn arrows to be at the far right of the signal, after the RYG. It violates my expectancy to see arrows mixed between the balls. Just doesn't look natural.

Florida's horizontal signals have the yellow arrow and green arrow to the left of the green ball and right of the yellow ball.  Yet on the normal vertical mount it is all on the bottom below the green ball.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on May 16, 2012, 08:36:38 PM
I agree that a green ball should not be located to the left of a left-turn arrow. Regrettably this is a common practice in Calif, and N.J. But I think it's misleading. New York had a rule against this practice.
Can you provide some examples of this particular signal setup because I don't think this is common practice in California... at least in Northern California and I don't ever recall seeing a green ball left of a left turn signal.  If there is an overhead left turn signal, then the pole-mounted signal on the far left corner is also a left turn signal.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Clark,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.630256,-74.309142&spn=0.007817,0.021136&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.082817,86.572266&oq=clark&hnear=Clark,+Union,+New+Jersey&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.630286,-74.309022&panoid=YfsZJzRsd8OpoQshCXANbg&cbp=12,225,,0,0

Raritan Road Southbound at Central Avenue in Clark, NJ where a green ball is to the left of the left turn signal (hidden behind the GSP shield) as Raritan Road has a curve leading into Central Avenue.  The green 8 inch signal head (on the NB signal pole) is out of the cone of view for those making a left turn. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on May 17, 2012, 04:17:35 AM
I agree that a green ball should not be located to the left of a left-turn arrow.

While I'm not against it, I note that when a signal turns horizontal, the up-down order of the signal becomes a right-left order. In keeping with that, I expect the left-turn arrows to be at the far right of the signal, after the RYG. It violates my expectancy to see arrows mixed between the balls. Just doesn't look natural.

Florida's horizontal signals have the yellow arrow and green arrow to the left of the green ball and right of the yellow ball.  Yet on the normal vertical mount it is all on the bottom below the green ball.

The MUTCD prescribes the required positioning of arrows and circular faces of different colors. The order of arrows does change when a 5-section vertical is moved to horizontal, and also changes depending on whether it's a left or right arrow. The layout Roadman65 describes is the standard for a horizontal 5-section PPLT display.

I think the positioning of arrows for the left turn is this way to avoid having the left green arrow to the right of the circular green, which might be confusing. The concept is similar to how on a green guide sign, a left arrow is always left of the destination and a right arrow is always on the right.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on May 27, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
Is there any place other than Downtown Orlando, FL that has special bus signals using the Pennsylvania Railroad's positional bars rather than the red, yellow, and green balls?  For exclusive bus lanes there are these non MUTCD signal heads that use a cross bar for stop, an angle bar for caution, and a vertical bar for clear to proceed. 
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Orlando,+FL&hl=en&ll=28.545605,-81.37747&spn=0.009575,0.021136&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.082817,86.572266&oq=or&hnear=Orlando,+Orange,+Florida&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.545668,-81.37747&panoid=hQl0dEsvAl5Bsqy0M2t3Xg&cbp=12,0,,0,0

The assembly being questioned is to the left of the two main signal heads here.  Sorry I do not have a closeup to give you, but was wondering if any other place uses these for city buses on exclusive ROW?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PurdueBill on May 27, 2012, 08:58:39 PM
Is there any place other than Downtown Orlando, FL that has special bus signals using the Pennsylvania Railroad's positional bars rather than the red, yellow, and green balls?  For exclusive bus lanes there are these non MUTCD signal heads that use a cross bar for stop, an angle bar for caution, and a vertical bar for clear to proceed.  
The assembly being questioned is to the left of the two main signal heads here.  Sorry I do not have a closeup to give you, but was wondering if any other place uses these for city buses on exclusive ROW?

The "HealthLine" RTA bus on Euclid Ave in Cleveland (http://goo.gl/maps/g4fe) has dedicated signals something similar to that type.  They are in black housings vs. the vehicular ones in yellow, to increase the difference.

I could swear that I saw color-coded ones with bars in California one time--maybe Santa Clara? but I would have to dig for the possible picture I may have taken, if I am remembering right.

Edit: It wasn't a bus signal but a trolley signal (http://www2.uakron.edu/genchem/P1010478.JPG) in California--probably more common to have the bar indications.  The color as well as bar direction is interesting.  (Note that the picture was not taken from the trolley but from a conventional bus.)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on May 27, 2012, 09:38:48 PM
Is there any place other than Downtown Orlando, FL that has special bus signals using the Pennsylvania Railroad's positional bars rather than the red, yellow, and green balls?  For exclusive bus lanes there are these non MUTCD signal heads that use a cross bar for stop, an angle bar for caution, and a vertical bar for clear to proceed. 

The MUTCD has a similar signal scheme primarily designed for light rail vehicles but is also allowed to be used for bus rapid transit lanes and bus queue jumper lanes. This uses white indications with a horizontal bar signifying stop/red, a vertical bar signifying go/green (with an additional angle bar in a separate face used to indicate a turning movement, with the upper end of the bar slanted left or right as appropriate), and an equilateral triangle pointing up and flashing to indicate the caution/yellow.


This standard MUTCD transit signal is being used on Grand Central Pkwy in downtown Las Vegas where the express buses drive in exclusive bus lanes.

Reno, NV is also using the standard signal at selected bus lanes/queue jump lanes for the RTC Rapid bus along Virginia Street.

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: deathtopumpkins on May 30, 2012, 02:22:36 AM
The MBTA uses that for streetcar signals, but with the horizontal bar colored red rather than white.
I'm not sure if any of the BRT uses these or not though, as the only part I've had any exposure to is the Silver Line Washington Street, which does not.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kj3400 on May 30, 2012, 04:30:08 PM
I find it strange the the Baltimore light rail uses signals that look like they're encased in pedestrian signals.
We also use a diagonal line as opposed to a triangle.
http://goo.gl/maps/KFG7
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on June 13, 2012, 05:37:58 PM
I find it strange the the Baltimore light rail uses signals that look like they're encased in pedestrian signals.
We also use a diagonal line as opposed to a triangle.
http://goo.gl/maps/KFG7

In 2003 I noticed the NJ Transit Hudson-North Bergen Light Rail used (or might still use) signals that are also encased inside pedestrian signal heads.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: bulkyorled on June 14, 2012, 12:48:14 AM
I agree that a green ball should not be located to the left of a left-turn arrow. Regrettably this is a common practice in Calif, and N.J. But I think it's misleading. New York had a rule against this practice.
Can you provide some examples of this particular signal setup because I don't think this is common practice in California... at least in Northern California and I don't ever recall seeing a green ball left of a left turn signal.  If there is an overhead left turn signal, then the pole-mounted signal on the far left corner is also a left turn signal.

Yea I'd like to know where I can find that too haha There's actually ONE spot I know if that's even related to this at all but it's got a right turn arrow. But it's still the only one I've seen like it. Its in LA at the end of Cahuenga Blvd EAST for the right turn onto Barham Blvd
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on June 14, 2012, 04:31:38 PM
Bulkyorled, see my post on this page from 5/13/12 where I gave several Calif. examples of a green ball being postioned to the left of left-turn arrows where the road curves sharply to the right.

Also I just looked at that interesection of Cahuenga Bl. East at Barham Blvd. on Google Earth. The situation we're talking about doesn't exist there, if the view shown is current. There is a right-turn arrow, but no green-ball to the right of it. So...........maybe you misunderstood? 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: bulkyorled on June 14, 2012, 08:51:45 PM
I did misunderstand haha I had the imagine in my head of the one at Barham & Cahuenga and went with it. :pan:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on June 22, 2012, 08:20:40 AM
Well, just to say that I have been wrong about NJ having the best timed signals in the nation.  I just rode US 206 from Somerville to Lawrenceville, NJ and almost got nailed at every single signal.    I think NJ has gotten worse in addition to drivers sleeping at the wheel when the light turns green.  The Garden State always had perfectly timed signals on state highways.  I do not know what happened here, but it is not a good drive in this area.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mr. Matté on June 22, 2012, 10:31:40 AM
Well, just to say that I have been wrong about NJ having the best timed signals in the nation.

Not to mention that 63 out of the 85 red light cameras in the state have been temporarily suspended because of possibly mistimed yellow lights...

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/nj_slams_the_breaks_on_red-lig.html
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 1995hoo on June 23, 2012, 08:18:04 AM
We are in Fort Myers on vacation visiting relatives (leaving for Miami this morning) and I've noticed that a couple of traffic lights around here have an odd bright blue light attached to the bottom. Does anyone know what it's for? I haven't been able to get a picture (iPhone camera on a rainy day yesterday wasn't going to help) and I can't do Street View on my phone. But the primary instance I noted of this lighting was at the intersection of Gladiolus Drive and US-41. Even my wife noticed the blue lights and found them odd.


Edited to add: Never mind. The first result when I did a Bing search was a thread on this forum about that issue:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4918.0
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on June 23, 2012, 09:17:01 AM
We are in Fort Myers on vacation visiting relatives (leaving for Miami this morning) and I've noticed that a couple of traffic lights around here have an odd bright blue light attached to the bottom. Does anyone know what it's for? I haven't been able to get a picture (iPhone camera on a rainy day yesterday wasn't going to help) and I can't do Street View on my phone. But the primary instance I noted of this lighting was at the intersection of Gladiolus Drive and US-41. Even my wife noticed the blue lights and found them odd.


Edited to add: Never mind. The first result when I did a Bing search was a thread on this forum about that issue:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4918.0
Probably the "fink" lights that allow a police officer to see the orientation of the red signal (only goes on when your side is red?) from the side road or from the other direction.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on June 23, 2012, 10:41:53 AM
I was noticing in New Jersey in some places rather than the five lens doghouse, they use a four headed tower.  Unlike Illinois where there is a five lens tower with the yellow and green arrows below, these intersections have both the yellow and green arrow through the same lens.

I do not know what changes the color, but the green turns to yellow instead.  Plus, I have not seen it elsewhere.  It must be as new as the flashing yellow arrow.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on June 23, 2012, 01:10:56 PM
The inline 4 head signals in New Jersey aren't new by any means.  Many of these signals used to have a green only incandescent arrow.  Once dual color LED arrows came out, places began using them in signal installations.  But they've been in use for quite some time now. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on June 23, 2012, 05:05:36 PM
I dislike that New Jersey arrow arrangement, but I guess it saves them money. Seeing the arrow change position as it goes from green to yellow in a conventional signal gives drivers an additional visual aid to observe the change. Especially helpful for drivers who may have any degree of color-blindness. I'm a little surprised at New Jersey. They are usually pretty sharp re: traffic signal installations.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: swbrotha100 on June 23, 2012, 06:09:14 PM
When did New Jersey start using more of the straight mast arm signals? Nice to see, just don't remember them when I lived there in the 90s.

I've noticed that in living out west, the majority of areas that use left turn arrows or left turn signals have a minimum of two signals, either in the median on a divided road, or the far left overhead and the far left side. Most areas tend to use five head signals for permissive lefts, although in Arizona, the city of Scottsdale and ADOT are trending towards four head signals. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing more of the "doghouse" permissive overhead signals out there.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on June 23, 2012, 06:20:08 PM
When did New Jersey start using more of the straight mast arm signals? Nice to see, just don't remember them when I lived there in the 90s.

I've noticed that in living out west, the majority of areas that use left turn arrows or left turn signals have a minimum of two signals, either in the median on a divided road, or the far left overhead and the far left side. Most areas tend to use five head signals for permissive lefts, although in Arizona, the city of Scottsdale and ADOT are trending towards four head signals. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing more of the "doghouse" permissive overhead signals out there.
New Jersey had them in the 1980's when I lived there and the US 1 and Stiles Street intersection in Linden had them from the late 70's.   Atlantic City  even used them back in the mid 70's along Atlantic Avenue.

NJ also uses 2 signal heads for left turns like out west as well.  New Jersey, though, along with NYC will have one of its straight through heads on the left side (opposing) side of the road as well.  However, new signals on NJ 21 in Newark have them with three heads over each lane like other states do for through traffic with no left side heads.  MUTCD must be cracking down on New Jersey, as NJ always did their signals differently then the rest of the nation.
Heck, even the NJTA says FU to the MUCTD as their lane striping uses more paint then what is necessary meaning thicker and longer lines.  They were  even the last roadway around to convert the old safety control signs (merging traffic,etc.) to the international diagramical ones.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Scott5114 on June 23, 2012, 06:53:53 PM
I dislike that New Jersey arrow arrangement, but I guess it saves them money. Seeing the arrow change position as it goes from green to yellow in a conventional signal gives drivers an additional visual aid to observe the change. Especially helpful for drivers who may have any degree of color-blindness. I'm a little surprised at New Jersey. They are usually pretty sharp re: traffic signal installations.

This is exactly why the MUTCD doesn't allow them.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: akotchi on June 23, 2012, 08:05:58 PM
I dislike that New Jersey arrow arrangement, but I guess it saves them money. Seeing the arrow change position as it goes from green to yellow in a conventional signal gives drivers an additional visual aid to observe the change. Especially helpful for drivers who may have any degree of color-blindness. I'm a little surprised at New Jersey. They are usually pretty sharp re: traffic signal installations.

This is exactly why the MUTCD doesn't allow them.
Where do you see this prohibition?  Reading Section 4D.06, paragraph 06, it seems like the green/yellow bi-modal arrows are allowed.  NJ would have stopped using them for new installations if the 2009 Manual prohibited them.

I can appreciate SignBridge's point, though -- there might have been a loading issue on the mast arms using 5-section vs. 4-section heads.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on June 23, 2012, 08:54:53 PM
I doubt that it was a loading issue. Plenty of doghouses are used on these mast arms elsewhere including Bucks County along Lincoln Hwy and Street Road. My guess is that it's just cheaper to do it with 4 sections than 5.

And I agree that sec. 4D-06-06 does seem to permit New Jersey's practice, if I'm understanding it correctly. Some of these standards in the Manual can be hard to interpret. 

And yes I assume N.J. would not still be using them if they were prohibited, but you never know. New York DOT and Nassau County have some flashing strobes in their red traffic lights and I don't believe that's permitted. And Massachusetts has some flashing green lights, which is not authorized in the Manual.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Scott5114 on June 23, 2012, 09:05:36 PM
Huh. I could have sworn I read somewhere they were prohibited.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SidS1045 on June 23, 2012, 11:02:13 PM
New York DOT and Nassau County have some flashing strobes in their red traffic lights and I don't believe that's permitted.

As does Westchester County.  The red signals on the Saw Mill River Parkway at Readers Digest Road have strobe tubes across them.

And Massachusetts has some flashing green lights, which is not authorized in the Manual.

Flashing greens in Massachusetts pre-date the MUTCD by decades, although they're not covered in the current driver's manual, and the section of the state's MUTCD supplement on flashing lights (7-9.5) doesn't even mention them.  There are a few left, however.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ian on June 23, 2012, 11:22:22 PM
New York DOT and Nassau County have some flashing strobes in their red traffic lights and I don't believe that's permitted.

As does Westchester County.  The red signals on the Saw Mill River Parkway at Readers Digest Road have strobe tubes across them.

I've noticed all of New York has a lot of strobe signals. The signals at the south end of the Adirondack Northway have strobes, as well as Northway exit 8 have them amongst others in the Capital Area.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Central Avenue on June 25, 2012, 06:59:42 PM
Huh. I could have sworn I read somewhere they were prohibited.

Perhaps you were thinking of dual-mode flashing and steady yellow arrows in a FYA assembly? As I understand it, the MUTCD requires separate steady and flashing yellow arrow segments for those for the reason you mentioned before; the "jump" gives drivers a better visual indication than the light simply changing from steady to flashing.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on June 25, 2012, 08:32:37 PM
New York DOT and Nassau County have some flashing strobes in their red traffic lights and I don't believe that's permitted.

As does Westchester County.  The red signals on the Saw Mill River Parkway at Readers Digest Road have strobe tubes across them.

And Massachusetts has some flashing green lights, which is not authorized in the Manual.

Flashing greens in Massachusetts pre-date the MUTCD by decades, although they're not covered in the current driver's manual, and the section of the state's MUTCD supplement on flashing lights (7-9.5) doesn't even mention them.  There are a few left, however.
Morrissey Blvd., for example.

Huh. I could have sworn I read somewhere they were prohibited.
You shouldn't swear.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Scott5114 on June 25, 2012, 11:23:04 PM
Huh. I could have sworn I read somewhere they were prohibited.
You shouldn't swear.
[/quote]

Oh. Fuck.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on June 27, 2012, 02:12:57 PM
Flashing greens in Massachusetts pre-date the MUTCD by decades, although they're not covered in the current driver's manual, and the section of the state's MUTCD supplement on flashing lights (7-9.5) doesn't even mention them.  There are a few left, however.
Salem still has some old pedestrian-activated traffic signals that go into a steady red and yellow mode to signify that pedestrians can cross the street (instead of using separate pedestrian (WALK/DONT WALK) signals).  Some other Greater Boston communities may still have similar signals around as well.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 27, 2012, 03:12:04 PM
what does flashing green mean in Massachusetts?

in Mexico, it is "light is about to turn yellow".  there, they have a long flashing green phase, and a yellow of a second or two.  the total amount is comparable to a US yellow interval.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jwolfer on June 27, 2012, 03:59:15 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6799126368/in/photostream/  http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6945237857/in/photostream/     http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6799126238/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6945237857/in/photostream/


Pictures of an ugly signal assembly in Orlando, FL on US 17, 92, & 441. :pan:

Hideous!  we have one like that in Jax on Monument Road and Trednick Pkwy just west of the 295 interchange
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on June 27, 2012, 04:04:43 PM
what does flashing green mean in Massachusetts?

in Mexico, it is "light is about to turn yellow".  there, they have a long flashing green phase, and a yellow of a second or two.  the total amount is comparable to a US yellow interval.
IIRC, a flashing green means proceed but expect the light to change; usually after a pedestrian pushes a button.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PurdueBill on June 27, 2012, 04:52:05 PM
what does flashing green mean in Massachusetts?

in Mexico, it is "light is about to turn yellow".  there, they have a long flashing green phase, and a yellow of a second or two.  the total amount is comparable to a US yellow interval.
IIRC, a flashing green means proceed but expect the light to change; usually after a pedestrian pushes a button.

The way I learned it in Drivers' Ed in Mass a couple decades (plus a couple years) back is that flashing green means "subject to change"....if the 10-year-old on the corner wants to see the car coming down the street stand on end, he will push the pedestrian button at just the right time to make the light change red.  So yes, the same as you say--expect it to change and be ready for it.

I could swear I remember at least one flashing green in Delaware on US 13 some years back....that was definitely not a pedestrian-actuated light, so I don't know what was special about it.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on June 27, 2012, 05:04:58 PM
what does flashing green mean in Massachusetts?

in Mexico, it is "light is about to turn yellow".  there, they have a long flashing green phase, and a yellow of a second or two.  the total amount is comparable to a US yellow interval.
IIRC, a flashing green means proceed but expect the light to change; usually after a pedestrian pushes a button.
Isn't flashing green also used in some Canadian provinces?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on June 27, 2012, 08:05:07 PM
Flashing greens in Massachusetts pre-date the MUTCD by decades, although they're not covered in the current driver's manual, and the section of the state's MUTCD supplement on flashing lights (7-9.5) doesn't even mention them.  There are a few left, however.
Salem still has some old pedestrian-activated traffic signals that go into a steady red and yellow mode to signify that pedestrians can cross the street (instead of using separate pedestrian (WALK/DONT WALK) signals).  Some other Greater Boston communities may still have similar signals around as well.
Boston itself still has them on Charles St. north of the Commons. Re: flashing green, it has nothing to do with "expect to stop" in common usage. My understanding of it was, this is a location where people may cross, but unless you see people, assume it stays green. That may differ from the legal language, but it's how people treat it.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on June 27, 2012, 08:38:40 PM
what does flashing green mean in Massachusetts?

in Mexico, it is "light is about to turn yellow".  there, they have a long flashing green phase, and a yellow of a second or two.  the total amount is comparable to a US yellow interval.
IIRC, a flashing green means proceed but expect the light to change; usually after a pedestrian pushes a button.
Isn't flashing green also used in some Canadian provinces?
It is, or at least used to be, protected left turn; basically a green left arrow. The light went steady a few seconds before oncoming traffic got their green.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on June 27, 2012, 09:29:55 PM
I can't believe there are so many misconceptions about the Massachusetts flashing green. It indicates a traffic signal that is operated by pre-emption, usually either a pedestrian cross-walk, or in front of a fire-station where it is operated when the fire-trucks are leaving or backing in. It will not cycle the way a normal traffic light does. Stays flashing-green until manually activated. Hope this clears up the confusion.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Scott5114 on June 27, 2012, 10:39:27 PM
That's what happens when you use a non-standard traffic control device...people get misconceptions about it!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 28, 2012, 12:24:29 AM
Massachusetts is FULL of flashing greens. Most of the North Shore towns still have them (Salem, Beverly, Swampscott, Lynn), and some prior Googling and experience driving by them almost daily has taught me that flashing green indicates a non-activated pedestrian signal. What bothers me though is that the side street will have a flashing red AND a stop sign, indicating that the signal only applies to pedestrians. When a pedestrian activates the crossing, the light then changes to steady yellow and then steady red for both directions before reverting back to flashing green and red.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on June 28, 2012, 03:20:16 AM
what does flashing green mean in Massachusetts?

in Mexico, it is "light is about to turn yellow".  there, they have a long flashing green phase, and a yellow of a second or two.  the total amount is comparable to a US yellow interval.
IIRC, a flashing green means proceed but expect the light to change; usually after a pedestrian pushes a button.
Isn't flashing green also used in some Canadian provinces?
It is, or at least used to be, protected left turn; basically a green left arrow. The light went steady a few seconds before oncoming traffic got their green.

Oh, ok.  Thank you for clarifying.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: realjd on June 28, 2012, 05:37:57 AM
I can't believe there are so many misconceptions about the Massachusetts flashing green. It indicates a traffic signal that is operated by pre-emption, usually either a pedestrian cross-walk, or in front of a fire-station where it is operated when the fire-trucks are leaving or backing in. It will not cycle the way a normal traffic light does. Stays flashing-green until manually activated. Hope this clears up the confusion.

Why not use a regular green? Or a flashing yellow? Down here we use regular lights for pedestrian signals and flashing yellow for emergency signals, with the flashing yellow on the bottom in place of green. Does the flashing green add any information to the driver that a steady green doesn't?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on June 28, 2012, 08:40:30 AM
Why not use a regular green? Or a flashing yellow?
Funny you should say that.  One traffic signal in Downtown Marblehead, MA went from a flashing yellow to a flashing green about a decade ago.  It's the pedestrain-activated signal located at the intersection of Pleasant & School Streets.; Pleasant having the yellow-to-green, School St. has a flashing red.

The way I learned it in Drivers' Ed in Mass a couple decades (plus a couple years) back is that flashing green means "subject to change"
I took my Mass. Driver's Ed. class back in 1982 and the wording was indeed the same.

Re: flashing green, it has nothing to do with "expect to stop" in common usage. My understanding of it was, this is a location where people may cross, but unless you see people, assume it stays green. That may differ from the legal language, but it's how people treat it.
Steve, the expect to stop or subject to change regarding flashing greens (sounds like a nudist environmental group) language is straight from the Massachusetts Driver's Manual... at least the one from the 70s & 80s that PurdueBill and I read when we were learning how to drive.  However, you are correct in most drivers' real world interpretation of it.

Keep in mind, that back in the 70s/80s; MA had a lot more flashing green signals around than today.  Most of them, with the exception of the above-mentioned Pleasant St. signal, were originally erected in the 50s & 60s.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PurdueBill on June 28, 2012, 12:59:58 PM
Why not use a regular green? Or a flashing yellow?
Funny you should say that.  One traffic signal in Downtown Marblehead, MA went from a flashing yellow to a flashing green about a decade ago.  It's the pedestrain-activated signal located at the intersection of Pleasant & School Streets.; Pleasant having the yellow-to-green, School St. has a flashing red.

The way I learned it in Drivers' Ed in Mass a couple decades (plus a couple years) back is that flashing green means "subject to change"
I took my Mass. Driver's Ed. class back in 1982 and the wording was indeed the same.

Re: flashing green, it has nothing to do with "expect to stop" in common usage. My understanding of it was, this is a location where people may cross, but unless you see people, assume it stays green. That may differ from the legal language, but it's how people treat it.
Steve, the expect to stop or subject to change regarding flashing greens (sounds like a nudist environmental group) language is straight from the Massachusetts Driver's Manual... at least the one from the 70s & 80s that PurdueBill and I read when we were learning how to drive.  However, you are correct in most drivers' real world interpretation of it.

Keep in mind, that back in the 70s/80s; MA had a lot more flashing green signals around than today.  Most of them, with the exception of the above-mentioned Pleasant St. signal, were originally erected in the 50s & 60s.

Also common at intersections where there is a flashing green for the main road is that the side street usually has a flashing red in the bottom of the signal (that is, the signal is red, yellow, red from top to bottom).  In the absence of pedestrian signals, the pedestrian actuation of the lights would result in the lights going from flashing bottom color all ways, to yellow all ways, to red all ways, then red-and-yellow all ways, which means WALK in all directions.  Again, this was particular to Mass and is disappearing slowly--but is still very common in places including the North Shore.  I think that even Peabody had some on streets near Salem (like Margin Street). 

I should be sure to clarify that the "subject to change" meaning pertained to pedestrians--if there were no people in sight, then it was likely that the flashing green would stay so.  However, it was always possible for someone to come out of nowhere and push the button and get an instant signal change, perhaps unless the signal had changed very recently and the controller had provisions for a minimum time between cycles.

While many flashing green signals are quite old equipment, there are many out there that are newer signals that were carbon-copy replacements of old ones (like the Margin St. Peabody ones at the Salem line).  I am surprised that they are allowed to stay as flashing green like that, but maybe there isn't any specific language about it that prohibits them being replaced in-kind like that.

I still think that when they were coming up with the meanings of flashing lights, the flashing green would have been more suitable than flashing yellow for some purposes.  As it is, flashing green is basically wasted, and flashing yellow winds up having different meanings when found as a signal at an intersection vs. as a standalone flashing yellow accompanying a sign (prepare to stop when flashing, urgent message when flashing, etc.).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: myosh_tino on June 28, 2012, 04:39:09 PM
The way I learned it in Drivers' Ed in Mass a couple decades (plus a couple years) back is that flashing green means "subject to change"
Heh, that statement brought back a funny high school memory.  When I took Drivers Ed in California a couple of decades ago, we were discussing traffic lights and one of the comments the teacher made was if we see a flashing green light, that means we were smoking crack.  He goes on to say we should *never* see a flashing green light... EVER! (except in Massachusetts)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on June 28, 2012, 05:06:28 PM
I have seen lights in Fort Lauderdale and in the State of Delaware where flashing red appears at left turn signals meaning that if the way is clear you can go.  Otherwise, if not the signal timer will expire on the opposing side and turn a steady red (as the signal is always green on the other side when flashing red on yours). 

Glens Falls, NY used to use them at one intersection north of NY 254 on US 9 for the side road there.   It was a regular intersection that never had a steady red on the side road, and was always flashing as this really just was a typical stop street. It was just with a traffic light that kicked in if there was too much traffic on US 9 after a motorist waited to cross it indefinetley here.  I did not see it last week when I was there, so it must be one of the many added working signals along US 9 as traffic counts increased over the decades ( we are talking about back in the 70s when I saw this) and a full signal is now needed there.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on June 28, 2012, 05:27:18 PM
I still think that when they were coming up with the meanings of flashing lights, the flashing green would have been more suitable than flashing yellow for some purposes.  As it is, flashing green is basically wasted, and flashing yellow winds up having different meanings when found as a signal at an intersection vs. as a standalone flashing yellow accompanying a sign (prepare to stop when flashing, urgent message when flashing, etc.).

Agreed.  The flashing yellow light is very ambiguous.  Does it mean "It's a good idea to slow down", "You are required to slow down", "Cross traffic has a flashing red light so you're good to go", "Yield", ......

Yet the flashing green light isn't used, nor are combinations (e.g. steady green ball with flashing yellow ball).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on June 28, 2012, 06:50:56 PM
The flashing yellow light is very ambiguous.  Does it mean "It's a good idea to slow down", "You are required to slow down", "Cross traffic has a flashing red light so you're good to go", "Yield", ......

Try "proceed with caution". Works for any instance of flashing yellow at a signal, whether FYA or red/yellow flash mode.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on June 28, 2012, 07:01:24 PM
While many flashing green signals are quite old equipment, there are many out there that are newer signals that were carbon-copy replacements of old ones (like the Margin St. Peabody ones at the Salem line).  I am surprised that they are allowed to stay as flashing green like that, but maybe there isn't any specific language about it that prohibits them being replaced in-kind like that.
That's probably because only the signal-heads were replaced but not the control box.  My guess is that if the control box is replaced, then the signals have to be updated to modern operating standards.

Also common at intersections where there is a flashing green for the main road is that the side street usually has a flashing red in the bottom of the signal (that is, the signal is red, yellow, red from top to bottom).
Red with yellow both in the middle and bottom is also a common sight for pedestrian-activated signals at intersections for the major roadway (the minor intersecting road had red-yellow-red).  The bottom signals, regardless of lens color would be the flashing signal.

Several of Marblehead's traffic signals featured the above (including the Pleasant/School Street signal) until a decade or two ago.  Two of them changed to a more conventional red-yellow-green operations.  To my knowledge, Marblehead never had the steady red & yellow operations for pedestrian crossings (en lieu of a WALK signal).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on June 28, 2012, 07:41:00 PM
The flashing yellow light is very ambiguous.  Does it mean "It's a good idea to slow down", "You are required to slow down", "Cross traffic has a flashing red light so you're good to go", "Yield", ......

Try "proceed with caution". Works for any instance of flashing yellow at a signal, whether FYA or red/yellow flash mode.

I was taught in driver's ed that a green light means 'proceed with caution'.  Case in point.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Scott5114 on June 28, 2012, 09:38:51 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/90LII.jpg)
Perhaps someone reacted violently to being confused by a flashing green light?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PurdueBill on June 28, 2012, 10:32:57 PM
While many flashing green signals are quite old equipment, there are many out there that are newer signals that were carbon-copy replacements of old ones (like the Margin St. Peabody ones at the Salem line).  I am surprised that they are allowed to stay as flashing green like that, but maybe there isn't any specific language about it that prohibits them being replaced in-kind like that.
That's probably because only the signal-heads were replaced but not the control box.  My guess is that if the control box is replaced, then the signals have to be updated to modern operating standards.

Also common at intersections where there is a flashing green for the main road is that the side street usually has a flashing red in the bottom of the signal (that is, the signal is red, yellow, red from top to bottom).
Red with yellow both in the middle and bottom is also a common sight for pedestrian-activated signals at intersections for the major roadway (the minor intersecting road had red-yellow-red).  The bottom signals, regardless of lens color would be the flashing signal.

Several of Marblehead's traffic signals featured the above (including the Pleasant/School Street signal) until a decade or two ago.  Two of them changed to a more conventional red-yellow-green operations.  To my knowledge, Marblehead never had the steady red & yellow operations for pedestrian crossings (en lieu of a WALK signal).

Yep, the red-yellow-yellow is also common at fire stations as well as some pedestrian ones.  Near my old home in Peabody at the Y-intersection of Lowell St. and Johnson St. was a fun combination of flashers and regular R-Y-G lights.  Westbound, bottom yellow flashers.  On the opposite sides of those, for eastbound Johnson St. ending at Lowell St, red bottom flashers. (http://goo.gl/maps/Txv8)  West of there on Lowell St. for both directions, R-Y-G signals with Walk signals, one newer (a replacement for an old one) and one original and old, (http://goo.gl/maps/6emL) with an additional signal for the exit from the fire station (http://goo.gl/maps/uIVi); the fire station can change the signals at the intersection to go all red and the eastbound Lowell St. signal to also go red while westbound Lowell St. stays green to clear traffic.  Finally, on Johnson St. (no street view), regular R-Y-G for a crosswalk, pedestrian-actuated with Walk signals--both old like the other older signals, and painted green for some years now for whatever reason.  All of this is because of the nearby elementary school on Johnson St., the convenience store in the middle of the Y, the fire station across Lowell St. from the store, and the public library branch next door to the fire station.  It's a busy area for pedestrians and vehicles alike.  The variety of signal change possibilities is quite interesting, as is the variety of arrangements (R-Y-Y, R-Y-R, and R-Y-G all together).

I would agree that for sure the controller box on Margin St. is old and thus the new signal heads are just doing the same as the older ones and like you say, if that is updated, flashing green is gone.  Interesting thing about the flashing greens and bottom reds there--check out this street view, making sure to turn 180 degrees to face the other way across the street. (http://goo.gl/maps/S4Vv)  Yes, those are bottom red flashers for a crosswalk!  Push the button to get red and yellow all ways to cross.  (The next time I'm in that area, I'm going to have to get good video of those in action.  They can't live forever and need to be documented.)

I remember back when the area around Peabody Square was redone in the late 80s/early 90s that for a period of time, the side street across from the main Peabody fire station and next to City Hall had two signal heads facing it at its intersection with Lowell St. that were tied into the fire station signals and were first installed Red-Red-Yellow, with the middle red flashing in normal operation.  Fortunately that was eventually fixed. (http://goo.gl/maps/gtfY)

I must say, being a born-there and trained-there Boston Driver, I was ready to see almost anything!  Woe to the tourists who encounter these crazy things and have never seen anything even close before!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jwags on June 28, 2012, 10:59:07 PM
Here in Wisconsin our horizontally mounted signals have the arrows between the solid yellow and the green.  It typically goes from left to right R-Y-YA-GA-G

Here's a pic: http://goo.gl/maps/Xn44
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Scott5114 on June 28, 2012, 11:12:21 PM
The only fire station stoplight I have seen is in Del City. It's a two section light, red 16" and yellow 12". The yellow flashes. It looks ancient...anyone want to guess the vintage?

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=SE+15th+and+Sunnylane+Del+City+OK&hl=en&ll=35.449711,-97.437422&spn=0.007202,0.016469&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=56.59387,134.912109&hnear=SE+15th+St+%26+S+Sunnylane+Rd,+Del+City,+Oklahoma,+73115&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=35.449706,-97.437294&panoid=aPvSkU32wz2gF5nxHKgl2Q&cbp=12,102.68,,0,2.76
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: DaBigE on June 29, 2012, 12:47:47 AM
Here in Wisconsin our horizontally mounted signals have the arrows between the solid yellow and the green.  It typically goes from left to right R-Y-YA-GA-G

Here's a pic: http://goo.gl/maps/Xn44

Except if the arrows are for a right turn, then it's R-Y-G-YA-GA, just as Figure 4D-18 of the MUTCD depicts.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jwags on June 29, 2012, 01:01:06 AM
Here in Wisconsin our horizontally mounted signals have the arrows between the solid yellow and the green.  It typically goes from left to right R-Y-YA-GA-G

Here's a pic: http://goo.gl/maps/Xn44

Except if the arrows are for a right turn, then it's R-Y-G-YA-GA, just as Figure 4D-18 of the MUTCD depicts.

That configuration is at the next signal southbound.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on June 29, 2012, 08:46:10 AM
PurdueBill, next time you're in the North Shore; you might want to check out the signals at the Abbott Public Library in Marblehead (along Pleasant St., after the MA 114/129 jct.) for some odd signalhead arrangements.  The signal's a combination of a pedestrain signal w/supplemental heads likely used for when fire trucks from the nearby station depart.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mr_Northside on June 29, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
The flashing yellow light is very ambiguous.  Does it mean "It's a good idea to slow down", "You are required to slow down", "Cross traffic has a flashing red light so you're good to go", "Yield", ......

Try "proceed with caution". Works for any instance of flashing yellow at a signal, whether FYA or red/yellow flash mode.

Here in PA, it's taught that flashing yellow means treat like green, except proceed with more caution.
An arrow means your turn movement is protected (you don't have to yield)

Logically, a Flashing Yellow should then be treated just like a solid green arrow... except you proceed with more caution.
* "proceed with more caution" should not mean automatically expecting to yield.  You expect oncoming traffic to still yield / stop for you

However, it is my understanding that if you turn left at a FYA without yielding to approaching oncoming traffic, bad things might happen... even though you had an arrow.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on June 29, 2012, 08:06:19 PM
The flashing yellow light is very ambiguous.  Does it mean "It's a good idea to slow down", "You are required to slow down", "Cross traffic has a flashing red light so you're good to go", "Yield", ......

Try "proceed with caution". Works for any instance of flashing yellow at a signal, whether FYA or red/yellow flash mode.

I was taught in driver's ed that a green light means 'proceed with caution'.  Case in point.


The distinction is made between "permitted to enter the intersection" (on steady green) versus "permitted to cautiously enter the intersection" (on flashing yellow) in the MUTCD.


Here in PA, it's taught that flashing yellow means treat like green, except proceed with more caution.
An arrow means your turn movement is protected (you don't have to yield)

Logically, a Flashing Yellow should then be treated just like a solid green arrow... except you proceed with more caution.
* "proceed with more caution" should not mean automatically expecting to yield.  You expect oncoming traffic to still yield / stop for you

However, it is my understanding that if you turn left at a FYA without yielding to approaching oncoming traffic, bad things might happen... even though you had an arrow.

A green arrow means your turn movement is protected and you do not have to yield, but this doesn't extend to other arrow colors.

Flashing yellow does not mean that you should expect oncoming traffic to yield to you. Similarly, making a permissive left turn on a circular green does not automatically mean the opposing traffic will yield to your left turn maneuver.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on June 29, 2012, 09:14:47 PM
Scott, that fire station signal in Del City might be from the 1970's. It's almost identical to the one in front of my neighborhood fire station , erected in 1976. BTW, those lens sizes are 12-inch and 8-inch. Similar signals built today are usually 3-section with (from top-to-bottom) a 12-inch red, 12-inch yellow for the change interval, and 8-inch yellow for the normal flashing mode.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Scott5114 on June 29, 2012, 09:51:01 PM
Ah, 12/8. I dunno why I thought it was 16/12...
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on June 29, 2012, 10:29:56 PM
(Chuckle!) Maybe you thinking of letter sizes on the BGS's?!  :)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on June 30, 2012, 01:43:58 PM
The flashing yellow light is very ambiguous.  Does it mean "It's a good idea to slow down", "You are required to slow down", "Cross traffic has a flashing red light so you're good to go", "Yield", ......

Try "proceed with caution". Works for any instance of flashing yellow at a signal, whether FYA or red/yellow flash mode.

I was taught in driver's ed that a green light means 'proceed with caution'.  Case in point.


The distinction is made between "permitted to enter the intersection" (on steady green) versus "permitted to cautiously enter the intersection" (on flashing yellow) in the MUTCD.

This is sort of confirming my assertion that the meaning of a flashing yellow is ambiguous.  I really don't think we should be expecting people to read the MUTCD in order to know what the difference is between two colors of stoplights in certain circumstances (the difference between a solid green ball and a flashing yellow ball is not the same as the difference between a solid green arrow and a flashing yellow arrow)—especially when phases like flashing green and most color combinations aren't being used at all.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on June 30, 2012, 11:06:23 PM
The flashing yellow light is very ambiguous.  Does it mean "It's a good idea to slow down", "You are required to slow down", "Cross traffic has a flashing red light so you're good to go", "Yield", ......

Try "proceed with caution". Works for any instance of flashing yellow at a signal, whether FYA or red/yellow flash mode.

I was taught in driver's ed that a green light means 'proceed with caution'.  Case in point.

The distinction is made between "permitted to enter the intersection" (on steady green) versus "permitted to cautiously enter the intersection" (on flashing yellow) in the MUTCD.

This is sort of confirming my assertion that the meaning of a flashing yellow is ambiguous.  I really don't think we should be expecting people to read the MUTCD in order to know what the difference is between two colors of stoplights in certain circumstances (the difference between a solid green ball and a flashing yellow ball is not the same as the difference between a solid green arrow and a flashing yellow arrow)—especially when phases like flashing green and most color combinations aren't being used at all.

I'm still trying to understand what about the flashing yellow is ambiguous, and how green is interpreted as "proceed with caution"...

The difference between a solid circular green & flashing circular yellow versus a solid green arrow and flashing yellow arrow is not all that different. A flashing yellow, regardless of circular or arrow, is that you are permitted to enter the intersection cautiously to proceed through, yielding if necessary to any other traffic legally in the intersection. The flashing yellow arrow allows you to make that movement, after yielding if necessary; the flashing circular yellow lets you go straight through or turn, after yielding if necessary. If anything, the meaning of a permissive left turn on circular green is the most ambiguous, which is one of the reasons for development of the FYA in the first place.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mr_Northside on July 01, 2012, 04:22:37 PM
The difference between a solid circular green & flashing circular yellow versus a solid green arrow and flashing yellow arrow is not all that different.

I'd have to disagree.  There's no real difference between a solid curricular ("ball") green & a flashing yellow ball.  However the difference between expecting to not have to yield to oncoming traffic (SGA) and having to yield (FYA) is a pretty noticeable difference.

Quote
A flashing yellow, regardless of circular or arrow, is that you are permitted to enter the intersection cautiously to proceed through, yielding if necessary to any other traffic legally in the intersection. The flashing yellow arrow allows you to make that movement, after yielding if necessary; the flashing circular yellow lets you go straight through or turn, after yielding if necessary.

A flashing yellow ball sounds right for that.  It's the addition of the arrow that might make it "ambiguous" - (Though I don't want to speak for the other poster who was using that term)

Quote
If anything, the meaning of a permissive left turn on circular green is the most ambiguous, which is one of the reasons for development of the FYA in the first place.

I guess that's what irks me about this "issue".  Maybe it's just a sign of how dumb most of the general motoring public is.  There are plenty of simple traffic signals that don't have any arrows at all. Just "circulars", and most people get that the absence of an arrow means you yield to oncoming traffic.  In general, you always have to yield to oncoming traffic.  Not just at signals, but in general.  A 4-way stop (at a 4-way intersection), of course is an exception where you can turn left when it's your "turn"... 
Another exception is at a signal that has arrows, which indicate you have the right-of-way to turn, because they're arrows!

I guess if they wanted to replace the doghouse, I wouldn't raise a stink (on a roads message board) if they just had a F-Y-[ball (or "circular")], instead of an arrow.

Having to yield to oncoming traffic when you have an arrow (even a yellow one that is flashing) just seems very oxymoronic to me.

/rant.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on July 02, 2012, 06:51:23 AM
The difference between a solid circular green & flashing circular yellow versus a solid green arrow and flashing yellow arrow is not all that different.

I'd have to disagree.  There's no real difference between a solid curricular ("ball") green & a flashing yellow ball.  However the difference between expecting to not have to yield to oncoming traffic (SGA) and having to yield (FYA) is a pretty noticeable difference.

Quote
A flashing yellow, regardless of circular or arrow, is that you are permitted to enter the intersection cautiously to proceed through, yielding if necessary to any other traffic legally in the intersection. The flashing yellow arrow allows you to make that movement, after yielding if necessary; the flashing circular yellow lets you go straight through or turn, after yielding if necessary.

A flashing yellow ball sounds right for that.  It's the addition of the arrow that might make it "ambiguous" - (Though I don't want to speak for the other poster who was using that term)

Quote
If anything, the meaning of a permissive left turn on circular green is the most ambiguous, which is one of the reasons for development of the FYA in the first place.

I guess that's what irks me about this "issue".  Maybe it's just a sign of how dumb most of the general motoring public is.  There are plenty of simple traffic signals that don't have any arrows at all. Just "circulars", and most people get that the absence of an arrow means you yield to oncoming traffic.  In general, you always have to yield to oncoming traffic.  Not just at signals, but in general.  A 4-way stop (at a 4-way intersection), of course is an exception where you can turn left when it's your "turn"... 
Another exception is at a signal that has arrows, which indicate you have the right-of-way to turn, because they're arrows!

I guess if they wanted to replace the doghouse, I wouldn't raise a stink (on a roads message board) if they just had a F-Y-[ball (or "circular")], instead of an arrow.

Having to yield to oncoming traffic when you have an arrow (even a yellow one that is flashing) just seems very oxymoronic to me.

/rant.

What I'm getting from this interpretation is the thought that the presence of an arrow signal assigns right of way. That is not the case, and where I'm guessing the ambiguity comes from. An arrow signal is designed to control certain movements heading in the direction of the arrow, but doesn't assign right of way any more than a signal with circular indications. (I will concede the point that a green arrow does provide a protected movement, but that is separate from right of way).

The flaw I see in your argument is that "most people get that the absence of an arrow means you yield to oncoming traffic". The study that led to the adoption of the FYA design showed that many drivers found a circular green over their left turn lane to be ambiguous and often interpreted it as a "go" when they should yield first--remember, many people drive with the notion that "green means go". This is what led to the 2009 MUTCD adopting the stance that no circular indications should appear over a left lane or for dedicated left turn signal heads, instead favoring FYA. Testing showed FYA to be more intuitively understood by drivers, and would generate more "fail safe" responses when not understood.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: codyg1985 on July 02, 2012, 08:29:32 AM
An arrow signal is designed to control certain movements heading in the direction of the arrow, but doesn't assign right of way any more than a signal with circular indications. (I will concede the point that a green arrow does provide a protected movement, but that is separate from right of way).

As the case with a red arrow. You aren't permitted to turn left with a left red arrow indication.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Central Avenue on July 02, 2012, 12:59:02 PM
I guess if they wanted to replace the doghouse, I wouldn't raise a stink (on a roads message board) if they just had a F-Y-[ball (or "circular")], instead of an arrow.

That's been done, actually. It's called Dallas phasing. I think this photo (by fellow forumgoer US 71) demonstrates the problem with this setup pretty well:

(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4047/4292968965_412a54c2e5_z.jpg)

Yes, most people, if they take the time to think it through, will arrive at the correct conclusion--that a green ball indicates a permissive left turn. But in reality, people don't drive that way--they see the lights, and make an automatic, split-second decision about what the "right" thing to do is. With this setup, too many people saw that the other two lanes were being held by red, and automatically assumed the green over exclusively the left lane meant it was a protected turn.

Ironically, if this setup were more common, this would probably be much less of an issue, because people would have become accustomed to the correct meanings.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 02, 2012, 01:05:09 PM
I'm assuming, in that photo, oncoming traffic has green to go straight and a protected left?

I've seen that scenario only a handful of times in my life - and each time, it had the small informative sign.

would a flashing yellow arrow be appropriate in this context?  I've only seen flashing yellow paired with green for the forward directions, never with red. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 02, 2012, 01:17:02 PM
as for flashing yellow ball, I've always seen it paired with flashing red ball, and generally at night.  I've interpreted it as "yellow has right of way over red ... unless red is apparently drunk, doing 60mph in downtown Casper, WY at 4am, and paying no attention whatsoever to signals, in which case just let him burn out on his own time, not yours".
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mr_Northside on July 02, 2012, 02:48:05 PM
An arrow signal is designed to control certain movements heading in the direction of the arrow, but doesn't assign right of way any more than a signal with circular indications. (I will concede the point that a green arrow does provide a protected movement, but that is separate from right of way).

As the case with a red arrow. You aren't permitted to turn left with a left red arrow indication.

Except that really has nothing to do with the arrow aspect and everything to do with the RED aspect.  Yielding is not an issues when you can't "go".

I guess if they wanted to replace the doghouse, I wouldn't raise a stink (on a roads message board) if they just had a F-Y-[ball (or "circular")], instead of an arrow.

That's been done, actually. It's called Dallas phasing. I think this photo (by fellow forumgoer US 71) demonstrates the problem with this setup pretty well:

That wasn't what I was referring to.  I was just saying to switch the arrow in a FYA to a "ball".  This appears to just be a standard vertical doghouse with some really wacky timing/phasing.  I don't know that I've seen a situation like that, ever.  And it seems that swapping a FYA for that V-doghouse and keeping the timing, it would still seem wacky.

Quote
Yes, most people, if they take the time to think it through, will arrive at the correct conclusion--that a green ball indicates a permissive left turn. But in reality, people don't drive that way--they see the lights, and make an automatic, split-second decision about what the "right" thing to do is. With this setup, too many people saw that the other two lanes were being held by red, and automatically assumed the green over exclusively the left lane meant it was a protected turn.

I guess that's what grinds my gears about it.  It seems like it should be simple enough to inherently know that you always yield to oncoming traffic, unless an arrow "protects" you from oncoming traffic.  Which is why I personally hate the notion of using an arrow for a yield situation.

I would also assume that states that have been using these have adapted their drivers ed manuals to account for this....

And don't get me wrong, as long as traffic moves efficiently and safely, that's what really counts in the end....  Like I said, for some reason these things just bug me.  (Though beyond a couple of minutes typing, I don't actually dwell on it that much)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on July 03, 2012, 05:55:23 AM
I guess if they wanted to replace the doghouse, I wouldn't raise a stink (on a roads message board) if they just had a F-Y-[ball (or "circular")], instead of an arrow.

That's been done, actually. It's called Dallas phasing. I think this photo (by fellow forumgoer US 71) demonstrates the problem with this setup pretty well:

(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4047/4292968965_412a54c2e5_z.jpg)

Yes, most people, if they take the time to think it through, will arrive at the correct conclusion--that a green ball indicates a permissive left turn. But in reality, people don't drive that way--they see the lights, and make an automatic, split-second decision about what the "right" thing to do is. With this setup, too many people saw that the other two lanes were being held by red, and automatically assumed the green over exclusively the left lane meant it was a protected turn.

Ironically, if this setup were more common, this would probably be much less of an issue, because people would have become accustomed to the correct meanings.

Yes, this photo shows an application of Dallas Phasing. The error with this installation is that the circular green on the left turn signal is not shielded or louvered in any way from the adjacent thru lanes (nor does it use a programmed visibility head). This leads to an even more ambiguous situation, in that there are conflicting indications on adjacent signal heads. The setup also uses the standard sign, instead of the modified sign "Left turn signal / yield on green [circular green symbol]", which was highly recommended where this type of phasing was in use.

I'm assuming, in that photo, oncoming traffic has green to go straight and a protected left?

I've seen that scenario only a handful of times in my life - and each time, it had the small informative sign.

would a flashing yellow arrow be appropriate in this context?  I've only seen flashing yellow paired with green for the forward directions, never with red. 

Jake, you've got the interpretation correct. Oncoming traffic has a straight ahead and a protected left.

This situation was quite common in some areas of Texas (Dallas, obviously). It was becoming increasingly common in the Las Vegas area over the last several years with at least 20 installations that I am aware of. The whole purpose behind Dallas Phasing was to enable lead-lag protected left turns (thus enabling better signal timing progression) while retaining protected/permitted display for off-peak hours.

This application would not be allowed under current MUTCD rules--it would be replaced by a flashing yellow arrow, and is an ideal situation for an FYA to be used. At the instant the photo was taken, the left turn signal would have a flashing yellow arrow displayed instead of the circular green. In the typical left turn FYA setup, the flashing yellow arrow is tied to the opposing through movement--thus, it can appear when the adjacent through movement is red still allowing the left turn traffic to yield to oncoming traffic to make the turn.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Central Avenue on July 03, 2012, 08:52:01 AM
The error with this installation is that the circular green on the left turn signal is not shielded or louvered in any way from the adjacent thru lanes

...How can you tell? It looks like the camera is looking at the left turn signal straight-on...
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: codyg1985 on July 03, 2012, 08:55:01 AM
The error with this installation is that the circular green on the left turn signal is not shielded or louvered in any way from the adjacent thru lanes

...How can you tell? It looks like the camera is looking at the left turn signal straight-on...

It is hard to see in the photo, but the left turn signal assembly appears to be louvered. A larger version of the photo (http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/194888_3909310743661_443230229_o.jpg) shows more detail.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: US71 on July 03, 2012, 09:23:26 AM
The error with this installation is that the circular green on the left turn signal is not shielded or louvered in any way from the adjacent thru lanes

...How can you tell? It looks like the camera is looking at the left turn signal straight-on...

It is hard to see in the photo, but the left turn signal assembly appears to be louvered. A larger version of the photo (http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/194888_3909310743661_443230229_o.jpg) shows more detail.

It has vertical louvers (I had to pull up my original). Most signals now have horizontal louvers, I believe. I'll have to make another trip up there to verify.

As far as FYA, Fayetteville, AR has thus far refused to install them. I asked Gridlock Guru about this, but I don't remember the city's reasoning (and GG's column has been discontinued)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PurdueBill on July 03, 2012, 11:36:48 PM
I forgot that I had taken video in May of a flashing green in action on Eastern Ave in Malden, Mass. 

Here is the flashing green on Eastern Ave (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10101619841002578), and here is the bottom flashing red on the side street (https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10101619855263998).

Note that Street View shows a pole-mounted signal for the side street that is gone now (http://goo.gl/maps/dEY4).  Also, these are somewhat modern signals but still flashing green--most flashing green ones in Mass are older than these, or at least their controllers are old.  Also there are separate Walk signals, unlike many flashing green locations where red-and-yellow indications stand in for Walk signals.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on July 04, 2012, 04:14:28 AM
The error with this installation is that the circular green on the left turn signal is not shielded or louvered in any way from the adjacent thru lanes

...How can you tell? It looks like the camera is looking at the left turn signal straight-on...

It is hard to see in the photo, but the left turn signal assembly appears to be louvered. A larger version of the photo (http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/194888_3909310743661_443230229_o.jpg) shows more detail.

It definitely didn't look louvered before, but I see it now on the larger version. I stand corrected. But the point about conflicting signal indications still remains.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on July 05, 2012, 04:42:21 PM
That's been done, actually. It's called Dallas phasing. I think this photo (by fellow forumgoer US 71) demonstrates the problem with this setup pretty well:

(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4047/4292968965_412a54c2e5_z.jpg)

Yes, most people, if they take the time to think it through, will arrive at the correct conclusion--that a green ball indicates a permissive left turn. But in reality, people don't drive that way--they see the lights, and make an automatic, split-second decision about what the "right" thing to do is. With this setup, too many people saw that the other two lanes were being held by red, and automatically assumed the green over exclusively the left lane meant it was a protected turn.

Ironically, if this setup were more common, this would probably be much less of an issue, because people would have become accustomed to the correct meanings.
That long signal-head setup was tried along MA 114 in Peabody, Massachusetts back in 1973 at the Andover St./Pulaski St./Central St./Endicott St. intersection.  Two long signal-heads, mounted on a mast-arm, faced eastbound 114/Andover St. traffic and originally sported only upright and right-turn green arrows below the circular green (which was centered).

The center-green would only light up when left-turns onto Pulaski St./114 East became available in the signal cycle; there was a supplemental ground-mount signal that would had a left-green arrow on the median island.

When left turns were not allowed (so that westbound Central St. traffic can move), the long signal-heads would only display the straight and right green arrows.  The supplemental signal-head, simply displayed a red light (red arrows were decades away).  Note: this phase too place prior to the left-turn movement onto Pulaski phase.

Apparently, after 8 to 10 years, either Peabody or the MassDPW changed the bottom lens of the left-most long signal-head to a left-green arrow and reprogramed the signal so that the center-located green light would no longer light up.  The "NO LEFT TURN" phase now just featured just 3 lenses (2 straight, 1 right-turn) lit on the mast-arm heads instead of 4 (originally 2 straight, 2 right-turn).  The LEFT TURN ALLOWED phase featured 4 lenses (2 straight, 1 left-turn, 1 right-turn) lit on the mast-arm heads.

These 1973-era signals were replaced just a few years ago with a more conventional & modern arrangement; plus, to the delight of many motorists, had the Left-Turn phase onto Pulaski St./114 Eastbound take place on the first green as opposed to later.  The old phase caused many traffic back-ups along Andover St./114 Eastbound for decades.

Note: the nearby signals along MA 114 at the Pulaski St./Gardner St./Pound Ln./Buxton Ln. intersection are also of the same 1973 vintage as the previous signals of the other intersection; they're still presently there but never sported a vertically-stacked 5-lens signal-heads.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on July 28, 2012, 10:44:59 AM
I just saw something unusual in Kissimmee, FL.   Lately the State of Florida has been installing more mast arm signal assemblies than the traditional span wire using the concrete strain poles that other states using those have either metal or wooden type of poles.   However, currently in Kissimmee, FL at the intersection of Vineland Road and Poinciana Boulevard where there has been a mast arm signal assembly for years is now being replaced with the traditional Florida span wires among concrete strain poles.

 I think that is odd considering elsewhere the wires are being replaced with mast arms and many new signals are mast arms from instalation. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: doorknob60 on August 11, 2012, 04:09:35 AM
I'm assuming, in that photo, oncoming traffic has green to go straight and a protected left?

I've seen that scenario only a handful of times in my life - and each time, it had the small informative sign.

would a flashing yellow arrow be appropriate in this context?  I've only seen flashing yellow paired with green for the forward directions, never with red.

If I saw that photo in real life, I'll admit I'd be confused at first, but probably figure it out in time. A flashing yellow arrow would work better there in my opinion, and I've seen plenty of times a flashing left turn arrow with red forward movements here in Bend, so it works fine that way.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 14, 2012, 10:23:09 PM
Friend of mine posted this on FB yesterday...
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/561907_10151113898152996_752771498_n.jpg)

Any idea where this is at?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 1995hoo on August 14, 2012, 10:30:34 PM
Could that be Prypiat, perhaps?

Edited to say: No. Turns out the lights there used a black housing.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ian on August 15, 2012, 01:57:30 AM
Friend of mine posted this on FB yesterday...
<img snip>
Any idea where this is at?

I saw this on Reddit a few months ago. It's at an abandoned children's safety village in Ottawa. Here's a street view that shows it:
http://goo.gl/maps/3orfb
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: codyg1985 on August 15, 2012, 07:43:23 AM
^ I was going to guess somewhere in Canada based on the traffic signal head design.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Takumi on August 18, 2012, 06:05:27 PM
The elusive double yellow ball. US 301 in Petersburg, VA:
(http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/c56.0.608.405/305012_4403444725511_2118702671_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on August 19, 2012, 08:17:36 AM
^I assume the green section is a green ball and green arrow on the left?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Takumi on August 19, 2012, 08:48:19 AM
^ The green arrow is on the right, but yes, it's correct. The yellow ball on the right is actually pretty recent; it was an arrow earlier this year.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on August 19, 2012, 09:28:45 AM
Ugh!  I meant right arrow.   :banghead:  Of course it's a right turn signal, it's on the right side of the mast arm.  However, it is interesting that it was changed from a yellow arrow to a yellow ball.  I wonder what prompted the change. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on August 19, 2012, 08:11:12 PM
Seems wrong for both yellows to be on at the same time. If both the green arrow and the green ball are being terminated the normal display would be just a single yellow ball.
Not unless it was a 4-head doghouse with only one yellow. Yes, it should be a yellow arrow above and not a ball, but you can't skip it and go to a single ball if the head's there.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 19, 2012, 10:03:02 PM
Completely unrelated to the above double-yellow ball, I discovered a signal in Massachusetts today that featured both a flashing yellow ball and steady green arrow... at the same time. Over through lanes.

It was at the entrance to a large office complex, and, since it is the weekend right now, I presume that this indication basically means that you can proceed as if it were a flashing yellow, but there's a 99.99999% chance you won't encounter any opposing movements so don't bother slowing down. If my camera battery weren't dead I would have snapped a pic, but I believe it was somewhere along a multilane portion of MA 62 west of Burlington.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on August 20, 2012, 03:26:13 PM
Steve, thank-you...........Yes I stand corrected about the 2 yellows. Today I observed 2 different 5-stacks in my area. And in both cases where the green-ball and turn-arrow are terminated together, both the yellow-ball and yellow-arrow are displayed together. I can't believe I didn't know that........... I've deleted my previous post.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on August 20, 2012, 08:48:59 PM
Completely unrelated to the above double-yellow ball, I discovered a signal in Massachusetts today that featured both a flashing yellow ball and steady green arrow... at the same time. Over through lanes.

It was at the entrance to a large office complex, and, since it is the weekend right now, I presume that this indication basically means that you can proceed as if it were a flashing yellow, but there's a 99.99999% chance you won't encounter any opposing movements so don't bother slowing down. If my camera battery weren't dead I would have snapped a pic, but I believe it was somewhere along a multilane portion of MA 62 west of Burlington.
Eh, drive around Massachusetts long enough and after seeing red balls with green through arrows, red and green balls simultaneously, flashing and solid indications simultaneously... you just get numb.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Michael on September 14, 2012, 06:28:09 AM
As I'm typing this, a construction crew is squaring off a milled area to be repaved in front of a stoplight on my street.  They have a bulldozer to help, and it was in the same position for a few minutes over the sensor loops for the stoplight in two of the three lanes (all one way, one is open).  When a line of cars came to the light, it took about 2-3 minutes for it to change to green.  I thought they damaged the loops since I've never seen it red for that long.  If a sensor loop detects something over it for an extended period of time, will it ignore the approach?

EDIT: I went back outside and saw one person drive into the coned off area (they're waiting for the asphalt), stop, then turn.  Everyone else followed, treating it as a stop sign.  As a bonus, an out of town taxi driver turned the wrong way onto my street and both one of the workers and myself went to help him get going the right way.  I walked down and pushed the crosswalk button and it turned green after about 20 seconds.  I thought that might have reset the controller, but it didn't.  I was heading back inside to call the DPW, but I saw a city SUV pull up.  I went over to talk to him, but I waited a bit longer before I did, and then pushed the button and it turned green again.  I went to talk to the guy to let him know what happened, and they were looking at a spot on the ground, so I'm guessing they damaged the sensor loops.  As another bonus, I told him I was a roadgeek and asked him if he knew what the MUTCD was.  He said yes, and I said I have a physical copy and he chuckled.

EDIT 2: I looked again, and it seems to be working normally.  Since it's past 7:00 now, I'm guessing that it might be on a different timing schedule.

While I'm talking about this light, I should post what I wanted to about it forever ago:
Has anyone here seen a stoplight have an extremely short green phase?  In the middle of the night, this light has a one second green phase for my street (which is the minor crossing) every 2 minutes or so, unless it detects traffic.  The yellow phase is the minimum 3 seconds, which ends up being longer than the green!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2012, 09:43:07 AM

While I'm talking about this light, I should post what I wanted to about it forever ago:
Has anyone here seen a stoplight have an extremely short green phase?  In the middle of the night, this light has a one second green phase for my street (which is the minor crossing) every 2 minutes or so, unless it detects traffic.  The yellow phase is the minimum 3 seconds, which ends up being longer than the green!

NJ 29 and an office complex's parking lot in NJ, where I drop someone off in a carpool many mornings.  I call it a token green.  Since very few people are exiting in the morning, when there is a car(s) waiting to leave, there's about a 2 second green.  1 car gets thru on the green, another 2 cars can get thru on the yellow.  Anyone after that (extreme rare) either waits about 5 minutes, or runs the just-turned red light .This only occurs from about 6am - 9am. During the other 21 hours, the light operates with a more normal green cycle leaving the office complex.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on September 14, 2012, 07:33:49 PM
If a sensor loop detects something over it for an extended period of time, will it ignore the approach?
This typically happens with video, but it can happen with loops too. The video fuzzy logic looks for changes in the pattern. If it detects a change that doesn't move after 3 (ish) cycles, it turns the change into background and assumes it's permanent. (Could be a new tree on the corner, snowbank on the sidewalk, who knows?) If loop detectors are set up with advanced logic, they could look at changes in induction over time rather than strictly compared to a baseline.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on September 14, 2012, 11:13:04 PM
If a sensor loop detects something over it for an extended period of time, will it ignore the approach?
This typically happens with video, but it can happen with loops too. The video fuzzy logic looks for changes in the pattern. If it detects a change that doesn't move after 3 (ish) cycles, it turns the change into background and assumes it's permanent. (Could be a new tree on the corner, snowbank on the sidewalk, who knows?) If loop detectors are set up with advanced logic, they could look at changes in induction over time rather than strictly compared to a baseline.
The flip side of this: if there is a loss of detection capability (i.e. the loop gets cut), the controller often registers it as a constant call for service and usually runs that phase to the maximum green setting.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on September 16, 2012, 03:13:57 AM
If a sensor loop detects something over it for an extended period of time, will it ignore the approach?
This typically happens with video, but it can happen with loops too. The video fuzzy logic looks for changes in the pattern. If it detects a change that doesn't move after 3 (ish) cycles, it turns the change into background and assumes it's permanent. (Could be a new tree on the corner, snowbank on the sidewalk, who knows?) If loop detectors are set up with advanced logic, they could look at changes in induction over time rather than strictly compared to a baseline.
The flip side of this: if there is a loss of detection capability (i.e. the loop gets cut), the controller often registers it as a constant call for service and usually runs that phase to the maximum green setting.
It's not so much "registering as a constant call" as "defaulting to maximum recall." When the system knows there's a problem and it won't be able to detect traffic, it switches to default and notifies central command (if there is any).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on October 03, 2012, 03:06:47 PM
Does anyone know why with all the modern technology and inventions, why detector loops are so slow in response in certain situations?  I noticed that when I leave my subdivision on to the highway that has our main street and the arterial where there is a another automobile on the other road already activating the detector and his light begins the change process AFTER I come to a full stop at the stop bar, I have to wait another light turn.  In other words the signal completely ignored me even though I was there before the cycle began setting.  I can see if I activated my detector loop when the signal was already set in motion for me to have to wait, but not when I have arrived at the stop bar a second or two before the light set itself up for his signal to turn a green arrow.

I thought this was a rare case, but today I was screwed out of a protected left turn arrow at another intersection near my job.  In this case I had already arrived at the stop bar only one second before the light on the side road began to turn yellow.  I would think that the computer would already figured out that I am there as things can happen at the speed of light when it comes to electronics, and even if you arrive at the intersection when the cycle already started, it should be able to reconfigure in less than a second.

Are they designing signals to be slow or stupid instead of following the God of technology like we all do each day?  That seems too old fashioned for me and I find it hard to believe the slow response.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on October 03, 2012, 04:49:52 PM
There is more to this than meets the eye. Signals are programmed to respond to a variety of different circumstances and criteria, that's not always obvious to us drivers. I believe some are also synchronized with other signals along the main route, so it may be doing what it does for reasons not readily apparent to us frustrated drivers who just miss the arrow. I often share your frustration.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 03, 2012, 07:12:15 PM
I've seen programming where it waits a few moments to see if you do a right turn on red so it does not need to change the signal
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: DaBigE on October 03, 2012, 08:10:55 PM
I've seen programming where it waits a few moments to see if you do a right turn on red so it does not need to change the signal

That would be an example of non-locking vs. locking memory.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: tradephoric on October 03, 2012, 08:45:45 PM
Quote
I thought this was a rare case, but today I was screwed out of a protected left turn arrow at another intersection near my job.  In this case I had already arrived at the stop bar only one second before the light on the side road began to turn yellow.  I would think that the computer would already figured out that I am there as things can happen at the speed of light when it comes to electronics, and even if you arrive at the intersection when the cycle already started, it should be able to reconfigure in less than a second.

Here’s an example where this situation could occur.  If an inductive loop left-turn detector is getting clipped by opposing traffic a delay will often be inputted into the controller.  A 3 second delay on the left-turn detector will help prevent a call being placed into the controller when the left-lane gets clipped.  However, the solution to the clipping problem creates the scenario you just described. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Scott5114 on October 04, 2012, 02:13:26 AM
This happens all the time on SH-9 in Norman. There's a left turn bay going eastbound that literally goes nowhere (it leads to a cell phone tower). Sometimes eastbound traffic will clip the detector loop, causing westbound traffic to get held up for no reason.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: tradephoric on October 04, 2012, 09:03:53 AM
Here are the different detection setups:

Locking detector w/no delay. The instant a vehicles passes over the detection zone a call is placed in the controller until the call has been serviced regardless if the vehicle that placed the call has left the detection zone.

Locking detector w/delay. A locking call is placed into the controller only if a vehicle is continuously detected beyond a preset value (the delay value).

Non-locking detector w/no delay.  The instant a vehicle passes over the detection zone a call is placed in the controller.  When the vehicle leaves, the call drops.  With this setup a vehicle is serviced only if they are detected during the controller’s “decision point” to switch phases.

Non-locking detector w/delay.  Same as non-locking detector w/no delay, but the non-locking call is placed into the controller only if a vehicle is continuously detected beyond a preset value.  The call is dropped the moment the vehicle leaves the detection zone.

A locking detector w/no delay would most likely be used at a dedicated thru-lane or protected left-turn lane detector (where clipping isn’t a problem).   The benefit of this setup is that it’s the least likely to miss or skip a legitimate vehicle call.  The disadvantage of this setup is that it’s the most likely to lead to false calls (I.E. clipping vehicles, right turners who have already left the intersection).

A non-locking detector w/delay would most likely be used for a dedicated right turn lane where right turns on red are permitted.  The benefit of this setup is that it’s the least likely to lead to false calls.  The disadvantage is it’s the most likely setup to miss or skip a legitimate vehicle call. 

In the end, efficient signal operation is often sacrificed to service the lowest common denominator driver.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: theline on October 04, 2012, 01:39:41 PM
Great explanation! I've often wondered. Thanks.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on October 04, 2012, 04:18:26 PM
Right, thanks Tradephoric; very interesting info.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on October 09, 2012, 04:01:01 PM
Are we roadgeeks the only ones who report malfunctioning signals to the road agencies?  The signal at Orange Blossom Trail and LaQuinta Drive has been shortchanging NB vehicles on OBT when a SB motorist turns left onto EB LaQuinta it does not turn green at all, but turns green a second time on LaQuinta Drive causing long waits for NB OBT.

You figure some blowhard would report this problem after 6 months of happening.  Thousands of cars and trucks pass through this everyday and not one is saying anything!  No wonder why the world is in trouble.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on October 09, 2012, 04:23:57 PM
The answer to your original question may be "yes".  Example: A signal in my neighborhood at the intersection of a 4-lane county road and the driveway to an office bldg. on one side and a courthouse parking lot on the opposite side. Normal operation is continuous green for the county road unless activated by a vehicle coming out of either driveway driving over what I believe is a no delay/locking loop detector.

A couple of times in the last 10 years it's malfunctioned and activated repeatedly even when no car drives over the detectors, causing the signal to change periodically for no reason. The local police have a shift-change point in one parking lot and must pass thru this intersection 20 times a day, and do you think they report the problem? No!

After a week of this malfunction I finally called it in to the county traffic dept. and a service-man arrived 2 hours later and made an adjustment that corrected the problem. So yes, I guess only us roadgeeks notice or care enough to call these things in.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 10, 2012, 10:32:05 AM
When I talk to other people about roads, most people incorrectly mention the agency that they believe is in charge of the the roadway.  In most cases, people believe the county is in charge of what are actually state roadways.

Even when I was at a township council meeting, I wanted them to push the state to do something about a specific traffic light.  Because the traffic light was at the end of ramps to a state limited access highway and the intersecting road was a county road, they insisted the light was county jurisdiction.  While I politely informed them any which way I could that it's actually a state light, they would only pursue my issue with the county.

BTW...nothing ever got done.  I wonder why!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on October 10, 2012, 05:12:40 PM
Scary isn't it?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PurdueBill on October 10, 2012, 08:03:05 PM
Even when I was at a township council meeting, I wanted them to push the state to do something about a specific traffic light.  Because the traffic light was at the end of ramps to a state limited access highway and the intersecting road was a county road, they insisted the light was county jurisdiction.  While I politely informed them any which way I could that it's actually a state light, they would only pursue my issue with the county.

BTW...nothing ever got done.  I wonder why!

I've dealt with that kind of thing and nothing ever got corrected....this intersection at an interchange on I-76/77 (http://goo.gl/maps/v4t7G) has the evidently wacky Yield sign that faces traffic that just came through a signal either by left turn from Wolf Ledges or straight through on the frontage road, with traffic from the right that also has a signal.  The Yield sign is silly facing the way it is.  (People with a green light on the frontage road going straight through see a yield sign too.  Yield to what?  I was not the only one to inquire to ODOT about it and they insisted that despite the ramps being ODOT territory (despite the city being responsible for regular maintenance issues), the city owns the intersection (evident by the Akron city signals) and there is nothing they could do about the sign, even though they agreed with me that the sign was nonsense.  Finally the sign was knocked down and for a time put back up facing the traffic turning right onto the ramp, but it was soon "corrected" to face the way you see in Street View, with a bright orange "ODOT" marking next to a orange spray-painted circle around the base of the new post.  I wonder what that means?  ODOT wanted the sign put back that way?  ODOT is coming to replace or remove it?  Who knows.

The city also had erected totally stupid No Turn On Red signs facing traffic turning right onto the ramp, which was incredibly dumb--that acted as a reverse ramp meter, bunching traffic together artificially to come down the already-dangerous ramp instead of more spaced out like they would have been without the No Turn On Red.  The city's reasoning, challenged in the local paper even, was that No Turn On Red increased safety by avoiding conflicts at the intersection.  Maybe some of the conflicts that caused accidents were caused by traffic getting simultaneous green lights and yield signs while interacting with other trafffic?  (that is, see just above.)  Sigh.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on October 10, 2012, 09:01:53 PM
Is somebody ever going to realize that too many traffic signals, not only cause hardship on the roads, but also create safety concerns as well.  When you have to much stop and go it can cause rage in some motorists and other issues.  Plus when you have two traffic lights too close to one antother, a gridlock situation can occur.

A perfect example of two signals that are close together that has gridlock at one intersection is John Young Parkway at LB McLeod Road, and the other less than 1/5 mile north of that intersection at JYP and Clear Way.  The former is a major intersection between two Orlando arteries, but the latter is a street that does not have much traffic and should be a right in and right out, but city officials made a deal with the nearby neighborhood to have a signal for residents to enter and leave their subdivision with ease.  The real thing that gets me is that there was another signal on LB McLeod for the other road leading in and out of the same neighborhood that was removed so this here signal went up in its place.  The previous signal was in a better and safer location and was far enough away from the big intersection to create gridlock conditions.

Orlando, FL is notorious for erecting traffic signals and putting them up everywhere!  There is just too much development going on clogging up all the main roads. However, there is a better solution to this.  They just cannot keep adding lights to every cross road, business driveway, or apartment complex.  There is just too many of them and with Orange County, FL not timing traffic signals the way they should be, adds to this mess.

I lived in New Jersey for over 20 years and NJDOT would not allow too many signals close to each other on major highways.  If one intersection is too dangerous that has low traffic counts like Clear Way in Orlando being too close to another major intersection, a riro would be implimented for sure and the other light (if they were foolish enough to make a deal with local residents in a small subdivision) would have been kept. 

Then there is the Wal Mart Neighborhood signal on Orange Blossom Trail that was bought and paid for by Wal Mart as their contribution to the city to help traffic flow on OBT that is making that artery a nightmare in reality! Plus, where its at is not at a major crossing or legitimate street, but two driveways meeting head to head with one of them serving an apartment complex that has people driving in and out of it 24/7.  One of the things we have problems with is apartments because they seem to attract the rift raff (if any of you live in one of these no offense to you as I may someday live there as well someday as it is very hard to pay for a house) as there seem to be more drug arrests and other domestic desputes in those dwellings then private homes according to police and what you see on the evening news.  That puts more motorists out there in additon to Wal Mart and other shoppers that patronize local businesses there.

OBT is a major highway that does not need more obstructions.  In fact years ago it was a rural highway making travel between Kissimmee and Orlando easy and within 20-25 minuets.  Now, it can take 45-60 or even more depending on traffic.

I think its time to review other alternatives to making roads more accesible and easier flowing.  Make new developers pay a hefty impact fee for the extra traffic they add to the roads and damage they do to the roadways.  In New Jersey on US 1 in North and South Brunswicks, all developers had to add an extra lane to US 1 to even build their establishments in front of their properties.  This way when NJDOT widens the highway at a later date, some of the work is already performed.  Traffic lights are good, but even KSDOT even has a article on their website's Q & A about the dangers traffic signals can also create.  I see the dangers everyday.  Also, hire compitent people to time the signals!  Orlando sucks with their timings especially on Orange Blossom Trail.  I am glad they do not run US 202 in Readington, NJ where NJDOT elimated a high accident intersection with a riro as the crossroads are in a ravine where a signal would create more accidents then prevent them there due to very limited sight distance, or else there would be a traffic signal at Pleasant Hill Road and US 202 if they did.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 10, 2012, 09:55:40 PM
Orlando

Quote
Orlando, FL

Quote
Orlando

Quote
Orlando
I'm beginning to see the problem...

Quote
Orlando sucks
yep!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on October 10, 2012, 10:31:47 PM
Oh no, it can't be Orlando, just the apartments and their "rift raff"!

PS: the Turnpike to I-4 gets you from Kissimmee to Orlando.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on October 12, 2012, 03:41:13 PM
Oh no, it can't be Orlando, just the apartments and their "rift raff"!

PS: the Turnpike to I-4 gets you from Kissimmee to Orlando.
Yeah it does, but some of us locals cannot use it.  From where I am located the FL Turnpike is out of the way.  Anyone who lives in the Southchase and Hunters Creek area are right between the middle of two interchanges that you can get on to bypass everything.  Then you have the shunpikers who love to complain anyway, even if they have access to the toll road.  I will use the Turnpike sometimes to go from OBT to Millenia or use it to go from my work to Kissimmee, but others I know do not even make it an option.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ace10 on October 12, 2012, 11:06:44 PM
Oh no, it can't be Orlando, just the apartments and their "rift raff"!

PS: the Turnpike to I-4 gets you from Kissimmee to Orlando.
Yeah it does, but some of us locals cannot use it.  From where I am located the FL Turnpike is out of the way.  Anyone who lives in the Southchase and Hunters Creek area are right between the middle of two interchanges that you can get on to bypass everything.  Then you have the shunpikers who love to complain anyway, even if they have access to the toll road.  I will use the Turnpike sometimes to go from OBT to Millenia or use it to go from my work to Kissimmee, but others I know do not even make it an option.

Back when I lived in Orlando, I was hardly in the OBT area, but the few times I ventured into that part of town, I made it a point to use the parallel John Young Pkwy as much as possible over OBT. Sure, JYP had lots of traffic, too, but there are definitely not as many businesses/storefronts and traffic signals on JYP. And there are lots of connecting roads between JYP and OBT. This made my travels in that area a lot more bearable.

If I remember correctly, FTE or maybe OOCEA wanted to build SR 529, which would roughly parallel already-existing SR 527, though I'm not sure how extensive SR 529 would have been, or how convenient it would have made getting from Kissimmee to Orlando or vice versa.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on October 12, 2012, 11:49:41 PM
If I remember correctly, FTE or maybe OOCEA wanted to build SR 529, which would roughly parallel already-existing SR 527, though I'm not sure how extensive SR 529 would have been, or how convenient it would have made getting from Kissimmee to Orlando or vice versa.
SR 529 would have been only north of SR 528, where SR 527 has relatively few lights. To the south, the Turnpike makes it redundant.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on October 14, 2012, 03:10:43 PM
My original post on this was that the County of Orange and the City of Orlando are getting overkill with traffic signals.  Sure we have traffic counts that are high due to sprawl, but many intersections could easily be RIRO and you, NE 2, should know yourself that you have to stop too many times to get from one end of Orlando to another.  I also wager, that every time you get nailed at a traffic signal you probably complain out loud, especially when you have to wait a long time for it to turn green when few vehicles are using the cross street.

You know that Orlando is one of the worst in signal timings in the nation.  The signal at the intersection of  OBT and Oakridge, that treats both roadways the same, is definetly timed wrong!  At 8AM you have three light changes to wait for going NB on OBT, when there is far less traffic on Oakridge Road at the time and furthermore Oakridge traffic, if you hit the light right, does not have to wait at all!  Now its been a while, but things may have changed, but I doubt it.  My friend, who works for the county, told me that both roads have to be treated equally as they both are the same.  I do not think so as OBT  has much more volume than Oakridge.  Remember, OBT is a highway and Oakridge is not, even though it a main drag OBT wins out.  Also, when the signal malfunctions to flash mode, did you know that it flashes as a four way red?  One night I was driving down OBT and the light was flashing.  I could not believe that it was red on OBT!  Other signals like Lancaster Road, American Boulevard, and even Holden Avenue flash yellow for OBT if in that particular mode.  Of course you are definetley aware that it is much easier to cross Sand Lake Road on OBT than it is Oakridge Road!  It does not take a genius to see that Sand Lake Road has hundreds of times more traffic than Oakridge does, and you only have to wait one or NO light changes to cross Sandlake.

Orange County does not look at the big picture, but listens too much to local neighborhoods and eventually gives in to their demands.  Heck with the native Floridians who were there first or you guys now have to make sacrifices and not have your expressways anymore as each subdivision and developer has to have his own traffic light. 

I lived in New Jersey, where we did things much different on the same issues.  If two roads were a block apart and one was a major thoroughfare while the other was a small traffic side street, only one would get a light and if the lightly traveled street had issues that warranted a signal, then a RIRO would be created for it!  There are much better solutions and I think we need to start exploring them.  If not we will be like NYC with a light on almost every block.  One thing though, NYC can time their lights better and with old analogue equipment.  Remember, there is no such thing as a detector loop in NY, and all lights are on timers as well.  I have made more signals on 10th Avenue in Manhattan than on OBT or JYP in a place that has more people and cars than we do!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: amroad17 on October 15, 2012, 05:56:34 AM
I remember driving in Manhattan and going down Broadway from the GWB to 19th ST.  I would stop every 10-12 blocks from 178th to 98th then I could get to Times Square without stopping from 98th because of the way NYC does the traffic lights.  Leaving, I would go up Amsterdam and, while sitting at a stop light, would watch the next 10-15 lights change to green at the same time.  Every city in their urban/downtown area should follow this synchonization instead of having a light change to green and two blocks later stop at the next light because of sensors instead of timers.  I always found it better to drive in Manhattan than to drive on the Cross-Bronx or the Brooklyn-Queens.  There may be much traffic (aggressive, sometimes) but it beats a stop-and-go on a freeway/expressway that, mentally, you are thinking "Why aren't I moving on this freeway?  I should be moving!"
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: BamaZeus on October 15, 2012, 11:46:40 AM
When I was a kid, I remember my father taking us into the city on a Sunday for a day-trip.  I think we went down to Grand Central on Park Avenue and did the loop-around there.  From there we waited for a fresh green light and went 100-something blocks with green lights on the timers at 35mph or so, until we exited to cross over into the Bronx.

I have no idea if they still have all the lights timed like that or not, but at least it existed circa 1985 :)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on October 15, 2012, 04:28:45 PM
NYC's signal timing goes all the way back to the 1960's when they changed from 2-color to 3-color signals. They had a legendary smart traffic engineer/Commissioner back then named Henry Barnes who started it all. And it's not just in Manhattan. I've had similar experiences driving the length of Queens Blvd. where I've gotten as many as 9 greens in a row before hitting a red light. Unfortunately the opposite is also true. If you hit it wrong, you end up stopping for a red light at every corner for a while. I remember my Dad commenting on that when the system began back in the 1960's.

BTW, I'm surprised to hear that NYC has no loop detectors. Roadman, are you sure about that? The entire city runs on timed signals? 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 15, 2012, 04:48:59 PM
When I was a kid, I remember my father taking us into the city on a Sunday for a day-trip.  I think we went down to Grand Central on Park Avenue and did the loop-around there.  From there we waited for a fresh green light and went 100-something blocks with green lights on the timers at 35mph or so, until we exited to cross over into the Bronx.

I have no idea if they still have all the lights timed like that or not, but at least it existed circa 1985 :)

the last time I caught a green wave like that was in 2003 or so in Brooklyn.  at least 20-30 lights before we reached our intended destination.

other times I've driven in the city, I have not taken a single boulevard for a long distance, instead choosing to explore various side streets.  I do recall a run down Queens Blvd in 2008 for about 6-7 greens before it was my time to turn.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on October 16, 2012, 01:28:02 PM
I remember going down Columbus Avenue for around 20 blocks without stopping, I never thought that I would experience a free-flow of traffic volume in Manhattan!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SidS1045 on October 16, 2012, 10:53:19 PM
NYC's signal timing goes all the way back to the 1960's when they changed from 2-color to 3-color signals.

This conversion was still ongoing when I lived in Manhattan briefly in the 1970s.  (I used to work nights and the noise of the equipment woke me up out of a sound sleep promptly at 8AM.)  Supposedly there are still a few two-color signals left in some outlying areas of the city.

The way it was explained to me:  The city speed limit is 30mph unless otherwise posted.  The signals on the (approximately) north-south one-way avenues in Manhattan are set to sequence for a vehicle traveling at 28mph.  If you maintain that speed, you'll make every light.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 1995hoo on October 17, 2012, 09:45:19 AM
NYC's signal timing goes all the way back to the 1960's when they changed from 2-color to 3-color signals.

This conversion was still ongoing when I lived in Manhattan briefly in the 1970s.  (I used to work nights and the noise of the equipment woke me up out of a sound sleep promptly at 8AM.)  Supposedly there are still a few two-color signals left in some outlying areas of the city.

....

I recall there being some two-color signals in Far Rockaway; the one that most readily comes to mind was where Seagirt Boulevard passes under the elevated A train structure and crosses Rockaway Freeway. My father's mother lived in the "Wavecrest Gardens" apartments at the intersection of Seagirt and Crest Road (though her unit overlooked Watjean Court and Fernside Place) and we used to take Beach Channel Drive to Seagirt Boulevard to go visit. I have not been there since she died (except in conjunction with the funeral Mass) and I see on Google Street View that there are now three-color signals at that particular intersection. I know they've been trying to make Rockaway Freeway less dangerous and I wonder if the traffic signal replacement might be part of that under the theory that the yellow light is needed for people blasting down Rockaway Freeway. I remember people always went WAY too fast on there.... (indeed after the first few trips when our grandmother moved out there, our father refused to use that road anymore and opted for Beach Channel Drive instead because it felt safer to him).

Funny thing is that for as long as I can remember (going back to the 1970s) the two traffic lights in Breezy Point were always three-color signals. From a practical standpoint I'd think that a private neighborhood would be one of the last ones to have the lights replaced, even if Rockaway Point Boulevard is a public road.



The guy who would probably know how many two-color signals are left, and where they are, is the webmaster of http://www.forgotten-ny.com.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 17, 2012, 12:07:31 PM
The way it was explained to me:  The city speed limit is 30mph unless otherwise posted.  The signals on the (approximately) north-south one-way avenues in Manhattan are set to sequence for a vehicle traveling at 28mph.  If you maintain that speed, you'll make every light.

in Klamath Falls, OR, the speed limit on the downtown main drag (business US-97/OR-39) is 25.  at each intersection, there is a sign that says "lights timed for 23 mph".
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 1995hoo on October 17, 2012, 04:31:13 PM
The way it was explained to me:  The city speed limit is 30mph unless otherwise posted.  The signals on the (approximately) north-south one-way avenues in Manhattan are set to sequence for a vehicle traveling at 28mph.  If you maintain that speed, you'll make every light.

in Klamath Falls, OR, the speed limit on the downtown main drag (business US-97/OR-39) is 25.  at each intersection, there is a sign that says "lights timed for 23 mph".

I've seen similar signs in many places, usually a white-on-green sign that says "Signals Set for [xy] MPH."

There's an unusual twist on the signals being set for a specific speed on Taylor Run Parkway in Alexandria, Virginia (http://goo.gl/maps/zWQ57). That's a Street View link; the item of interest is the yellow sign to the right that says "Signals Turn Red When Speeding." The light in question can be seen if you move ahead a short distance; it's an annoying mid-block light that presumably they'd say is intended to ease pedestrian access to the park on the east side of the street but is almost certainly there to discourage cut-through traffic and speeding. First time I went through there I saw the yellow sign and said, "OK, whatever," and kept going at 30 mph in the 25-mph zone. Bam, the light turned red. Tried exceeding 25 two more times and the light turned every time. When I went 25 mph, it stayed green.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 17, 2012, 04:34:08 PM
30 in a 25 isn't even all that dangerous!

I looked at the road on Street View and it looks like the correct speed limit is either 25 or 30.  to enforce the speed limit like that is asinine.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 1995hoo on October 17, 2012, 05:22:22 PM
30 in a 25 isn't even all that dangerous!

I looked at the road on Street View and it looks like the correct speed limit is either 25 or 30.  to enforce the speed limit like that is asinine.

It's 25. If you go back a short distance before the yellow sign to which I was referring, you'll see the Speed Limit 25 sign mounted on one of the telephone poles on the same side of the street.

This discussion is giving me the idea of driving down that street with my Valentine One turned on to try to find out what the signal uses to determine your speed—though I'd first have to make another pass through to ensure there's no cop around, as it's illegal to use a radar detector in Virginia.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 17, 2012, 05:27:54 PM

It's 25. If you go back a short distance before the yellow sign to which I was referring, you'll see the Speed Limit 25 sign mounted on one of the telephone poles on the same side of the street.


it is.  I meant that, from the perspective of what the road looks like, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if it were signed 30.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 1995hoo on October 17, 2012, 05:39:55 PM

It's 25. If you go back a short distance before the yellow sign to which I was referring, you'll see the Speed Limit 25 sign mounted on one of the telephone poles on the same side of the street.


it is.  I meant that, from the perspective of what the road looks like, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if it were signed 30.

Ah, I misunderstood your meaning.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 17, 2012, 06:08:01 PM
indeed, I was driving some very similar residential streets today as part of avoiding a busy arterial, and the roads were almost all 30, with a few 35s where it opened up a bit, and a handful of 25s which were all (as far as I can tell) near schools and playgrounds.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on November 22, 2012, 02:14:39 PM
An example (three blocks from my house) of why I think all intersections should have post-mounted signals in addition to whatever overhead signals there are:
(http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/i410/kphoger/edgemoor.png)

Is the light red or green?  Who knows!  Imagine sitting in a line of vehicles at a red light, and you're twelfth in line.  With that many cars having made it through a green light, there's a really good chance it'll turn red before you get there.  You might be able to see the red just before getting to the intersection (as the truck clears your line of vision), but the driver of the pickup in front of you won't see it until he's already made it to the stop line.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2012, 02:25:44 PM
An example (three blocks from my house) of why I think all intersections should have post-mounted signals in addition to whatever overhead signals there are:
(http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/i410/kphoger/edgemoor.png)

Is the light red or green?  Who knows!  Imagine sitting in a line of vehicles at a red light, and you're twelfth in line.  With that many cars having made it through a green light, there's a really good chance it'll turn red before you get there.  You might be able to see the red just before getting to the intersection (as the truck clears your line of vision), but the driver of the pickup in front of you won't see it until he's already made it to the stop line.
That is what I experience in Florida.  Unfortunately, the MUTCD does allow this.  Only CA and NJ, and IL seem to post pole mounted signal heads.  In New Jersey, if there is no side mounted heads, usually the left side signal is placed on the backside of the opposing signal head over the opposite travel lane.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on November 22, 2012, 04:32:51 PM
You can add Colorado and Wisconsin to that list also. And that photo certainly does make the case.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: deathtopumpkins on November 22, 2012, 06:45:39 PM
Massachusetts also almost always posts both pole-mounted and overhead signals.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on November 22, 2012, 07:14:27 PM
That was true on older Massachusetts signals. But I've noticed some new installations in Boston suburbs where they just have the typical 2 overhead signals on the standard tubular mast-arm.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on November 22, 2012, 07:32:50 PM
Minnesota also places signals on the pole supporting the mast arm.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on November 22, 2012, 11:16:09 PM
It's also done in Maryland, specifically on SHA maintained roads. It's not everywhere but it is quite common to see, especially throughout state routes in Baltimore County. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on November 23, 2012, 01:17:01 AM
Only CA and NJ, and IL seem to post pole mounted signal heads.  In New Jersey, if there is no side mounted heads, usually the left side signal is placed on the backside of the opposing signal head over the opposite travel lane.

Nevada religiously uses far side post mount signal heads at all new signal installations for the through and left turn movements (this is also typical for most installations after the late 80s, at least in the Vegas area).

The Vegas area will also use an additional left turn signal head on the backside of opposing mast arm and a near side pole mount for through vehicles at wide intersections.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: deathtopumpkins on November 23, 2012, 07:39:55 PM
That was true on older Massachusetts signals. But I've noticed some new installations in Boston suburbs where they just have the typical 2 overhead signals on the standard tubular mast-arm.

The difference there might be whether they're town- or state-posted signals. I've found all kinds of oddities among town-posted signals, but state seem to be fairly uniform.

Note though that by saying "fairly uniform", I mean "most of the time, but not all the time. I recognize that there are counterexamples but have noticed this as a general trend."
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on November 24, 2012, 01:25:35 PM
Kansas is similarly usually good about this.  In fact, the next light to the west has post-mounted signals in addition to the overheads.  Usually just doesn't cut it for me, though, when it comes to stoplight visibility.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on December 08, 2012, 04:56:26 PM
Just last night, I saw a red light that was flickering quickly—not just pulsing in strength, but on-off-on-off-on-off, about as fast as you can say 'on-off-on-off-on-off'.  Kinda funny lookin'.
(Douglas & Woodlawn here in Wichita)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on December 09, 2012, 10:21:20 AM
Just last night, I saw a red light that was flickering quickly—not just pulsing in strength, but on-off-on-off-on-off, about as fast as you can say 'on-off-on-off-on-off'.  Kinda funny lookin'.
(Douglas & Woodlawn here in Wichita)
Noticed the same with a green light yesterday. I wonder if that's a downside to LEDs or if it's just something about improper specs/installation.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on December 11, 2012, 02:27:26 PM
Does anyone know for sure what tends to cause this?  Last time I drove through the light, it was still flickering like that, and I should probably report it.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on December 11, 2012, 04:00:45 PM
I've seen that flickering once or twice also; don't know what causes it. Like many supposed cure-alls, LED traffic lights created a new set of problems, such as snow accumulating on the lenses, due to the lack of heat. We think we're so friggin' smart; bet they didn't think of that ahead of time........
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mark68 on December 17, 2012, 02:07:08 AM
You can add Colorado and Wisconsin to that list also. And that photo certainly does make the case.

In Colorado, it's somewhat sporadic outside of Denver Metro & Fort Collins/Loveland. Newer lights (I'd say since the early 90s) in Colorado Springs seem to have them on the far right poles, and, from what I've seen, Pueblo and Grand Junction are starting to add them to their newest lights. In rural areas, it seems to be hit-or-miss, with the poles getting them on most of the newer ones.

Denver and Aurora seem to be religious in that they add pole-mounted lights on both the right and left (with left-turn signals on the left-pole ones where appropriate), and have done so for quite some time (30 years? in Aurora, much longer in Denver).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on December 17, 2012, 04:25:40 PM
Yes, I remember travelling thru the south suburbs of Denver several years ago and noting they used more signal heads than California does even. Especially in the Highlands Ranch/Lone Tree area. One over every lane and one on the far right and left poles. Very interesting!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SidS1045 on December 18, 2012, 08:56:58 AM
Does anyone know for sure what tends to cause this?  Last time I drove through the light, it was still flickering like that, and I should probably report it.

I'd bet it's a failing power supply.  The ones they use for LED traffic signals are very cheap and tend to generate a lot of radio noise, particularly in the AM band.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on December 18, 2012, 02:10:27 PM
You can add Colorado and Wisconsin to that list also. And that photo certainly does make the case.

In Colorado, it's somewhat sporadic outside of Denver Metro & Fort Collins/Loveland. Newer lights (I'd say since the early 90s) in Colorado Springs seem to have them on the far right poles, and, from what I've seen, Pueblo and Grand Junction are starting to add them to their newest lights. In rural areas, it seems to be hit-or-miss, with the poles getting them on most of the newer ones.

Denver and Aurora seem to be religious in that they add pole-mounted lights on both the right and left (with left-turn signals on the left-pole ones where appropriate), and have done so for quite some time (30 years? in Aurora, much longer in Denver).

About 95% of the traffic lights in Grand Junction have side/pole-mounted lights at said intersections.

And Denver has been doing it for decade because many secondary-road intersections still only have a single 4-way overhead light in the intersection (and ugly ones at that  :eyebrow:).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on December 18, 2012, 02:24:15 PM
You can add Colorado and Wisconsin to that list also. And that photo certainly does make the case.

In Colorado, it's somewhat sporadic outside of Denver Metro & Fort Collins/Loveland. Newer lights (I'd say since the early 90s) in Colorado Springs seem to have them on the far right poles, and, from what I've seen, Pueblo and Grand Junction are starting to add them to their newest lights. In rural areas, it seems to be hit-or-miss, with the poles getting them on most of the newer ones.

Denver and Aurora seem to be religious in that they add pole-mounted lights on both the right and left (with left-turn signals on the left-pole ones where appropriate), and have done so for quite some time (30 years? in Aurora, much longer in Denver).
The standard city of Pueblo design, similar to CDOT, has had side and mast arm lights for long before I've lived here (10 years). Many of the signal installations, from the condition of their paint, I would estimate to be over 20 years old. About the only signals that don't have the pole-mounted light are the rare spanwire lights, which are mostly still found at pedestrian crossings.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on December 18, 2012, 07:15:02 PM
Hey I was wondering about the sided mounted signals in Philadelphia.  I know we just talked about Colorado, but the talk of side mounted signal heads made me think of an interesting situation along Ben Franklin Parkway.

I was in Philadelphia last June and noticed that along the Ben Franklin Parkway that ALL signals on this particular roadway are side mounted where some of the crossroads do have the standard overhead signals.

I was reading about the Parkway's history how it was designed different from the Philadelphia street grid as all streets are either N-S or E-W where the Ben Franklin Parkway runs NW - SE.  It is also in a straight line from the City Hall to the Philadelphia Museum of Art and offers great views at both ends of the two gorgeous buildings.

I am to assume that having the signal heads on the side has to do with the views of the buildings at each end?  Although, having normal signal head assemblies will not block the view of the Art Museum's stairs that grace the NW end of the road.  Also, the City Hall tower is very tall to be seen above all the signals as well.  Most signal heads are even new, from what I have seen, which would warrant it to be of latest standards, so it must be for a specific reason.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 18, 2012, 07:27:06 PM
I wouldn't be surprised - this is the city which features the curse of Billy Penn!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Billy_Penn
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on December 18, 2012, 08:13:11 PM
The side-mounted signals aren't just common to the Ben Franklin Parkway, they're everywhere in North Philadelphia around Temple's campus with the exceptions of Ridge, Girard and Broad.  Most of the streets are really narrow so having overhead mounted lights are overkill. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on December 18, 2012, 11:33:14 PM
The side-mounted signals aren't just common to the Ben Franklin Parkway, they're everywhere in North Philadelphia around Temple's campus with the exceptions of Ridge, Girard and Broad.  Most of the streets are really narrow so having overhead mounted lights are overkill. 
Ben Franklin Parkway is one of the widest streets in Philly other than Roosevelt Boulevard.  So width is not an issue here.  Also, at BFP and Arch Street, Arch has mast arms while BFP has side mounted all newer signals.

I know about some streets where the wider main drag has mast arms and the side street has side mounted especially along Broad Street.  Some parts of NJ and even a few places in Florida have them that way.   California is big on them at three way intersections where the low mounted signals can be directly in front of a motorist on the terminating street.  Also, San Francisco is  mostly side mounted and is rare for the typical California mast arm to be seen anywhere in that city.

Growing up in New Jersey I was always fascinated with  the side mounted signals and sort of miss them as they are extremely rare here in Florida.  Wisconsin, I am saddened to see, the side mounted along with the one overhead trombone mounted horizontal heads are being replaced with standard vertical and mono tube mast arms.  As much as I like all types of signals, I thought that was the Dairy State's signature having the horizontal overheads with side mounted at all there signalized intersections.

After reading about the Ben Franklin Parkway in Wikipedia, I kind of get the feel that it is done on purpose for effect.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2012, 09:34:16 AM
I wouldn't be surprised - this is the city which features the curse of Billy Penn!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Billy_Penn
I don't think I've heard about that curse since the Phillies won in '08!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2012, 10:10:06 AM
Here's an oddity near me...two county roads in Woodbury, NJ: Red Bank Ave at Evergreen Ave. 

http://goo.gl/maps/A1Myd

There's a separate right turn area here, with it's own horizontial traffic light; the only signal head in the entire county that's horizontial that I am aware of. 

And the question is...why? When the light is red, it's simply a red ball (not a right red arrow). And there's no 'No Turn On Red' sign here.  So there's really no reason whatsoever for the additional traffic light.  On the opposite side of the roadway, the same right turn setup exists without the additional light. It simply has a 'Yield' sign, which is the much more prudent option for a right turn channel as this one.

The intersection is otherwise a standard 4 way intersection with a traffic light that simply has 2 phases - no advanced left turn arrows; no one-sided phases. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on December 19, 2012, 02:49:31 PM
Here's an oddity near me...two county roads in Woodbury, NJ: Red Bank Ave at Evergreen Ave. 

http://goo.gl/maps/A1Myd

There's a separate right turn area here, with it's own horizontial traffic light; the only signal head in the entire county that's horizontial that I am aware of. 

And the question is...why? When the light is red, it's simply a red ball (not a right red arrow). And there's no 'No Turn On Red' sign here.  So there's really no reason whatsoever for the additional traffic light.  On the opposite side of the roadway, the same right turn setup exists without the additional light. It simply has a 'Yield' sign, which is the much more prudent option for a right turn channel as this one.

The intersection is otherwise a standard 4 way intersection with a traffic light that simply has 2 phases - no advanced left turn arrows; no one-sided phases. 

New Jersey is known for mixing and matching.  Probably it had a standard vertical signal assembly there, but it either failed inspection or got struck by a car or something.  The only parts that were available was a trombone mast arm, and it does the job.  True, being that right turns on red are allowed, it should have a yield sign and no signals.  That is an oddity.

I have seen the reverse, in Plainfield, NJ along West Front Street where three signal heads were horizontally mounted and the fourth one was vertical on a truss arm.  Plainfield back in the 80's had all horizontal traffic lights within its city limits just like Newark used to have as well.  I am not aware if Plainfield still uses horizontal mounts exclusively anymore, as Newark is switching to vertical as that city always liked the horizontal trombone assmemblies and I thought would never go vertical.  Anyway, being Plainfield liked at the time to have its way, it had to be that a typical New Jersey vertical signal was only available for imediate replacement for whatever reason it had to remove the original pole.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on December 19, 2012, 03:49:45 PM
I was in Philadelphia last June and noticed that along the Ben Franklin Parkway that ALL signals on this particular roadway are side mounted where some of the crossroads do have the standard overhead signals.

I was reading about the Parkway's history how it was designed different from the Philadelphia street grid as all streets are either N-S or E-W where the Ben Franklin Parkway runs NW - SE.  It is also in a straight line from the City Hall to the Philadelphia Museum of Art and offers great views at both ends of the two gorgeous buildings.

I am to assume that having the signal heads on the side has to do with the views of the buildings at each end?  Although, having normal signal head assemblies will not block the view of the Art Museum's stairs that grace the NW end of the road.  Also, the City Hall tower is very tall to be seen above all the signals as well.  Most signal heads are even new, from what I have seen, which would warrant it to be of latest standards, so it must be for a specific reason.
The side-mounted signals along the BFP, despite its width were likely chosen for aesthetic reasons.   IIRC, the Parkway's recent upgrades were a joint effort between the Philadelphia Streets Department and the Center City District; the latter group's responsible for the retro-styled street lamps that grace along a fair amount of major streets in Center City.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: theline on December 19, 2012, 09:36:46 PM
Here's an oddity near me...two county roads in Woodbury, NJ: Red Bank Ave at Evergreen Ave. 

http://goo.gl/maps/A1Myd

There's a separate right turn area here, with it's own horizontial traffic light; the only signal head in the entire county that's horizontial that I am aware of. 

And the question is...why? When the light is red, it's simply a red ball (not a right red arrow). And there's no 'No Turn On Red' sign here.  So there's really no reason whatsoever for the additional traffic light.  On the opposite side of the roadway, the same right turn setup exists without the additional light. It simply has a 'Yield' sign, which is the much more prudent option for a right turn channel as this one.

The intersection is otherwise a standard 4 way intersection with a traffic light that simply has 2 phases - no advanced left turn arrows; no one-sided phases. 

New Jersey is known for mixing and matching.  Probably it had a standard vertical signal assembly there, but it either failed inspection or got struck by a car or something.  The only parts that were available was a trombone mast arm, and it does the job.  True, being that right turns on red are allowed, it should have a yield sign and no signals.  That is an oddity.

I have seen the reverse, in Plainfield, NJ along West Front Street where three signal heads were horizontally mounted and the fourth one was vertical on a truss arm.  Plainfield back in the 80's had all horizontal traffic lights within its city limits just like Newark used to have as well.  I am not aware if Plainfield still uses horizontal mounts exclusively anymore, as Newark is switching to vertical as that city always liked the horizontal trombone assmemblies and I thought would never go vertical.  Anyway, being Plainfield liked at the time to have its way, it had to be that a typical New Jersey vertical signal was only available for imediate replacement for whatever reason it had to remove the original pole.

I presume the light is there because of the crosswalk. If a pedestrian has pushed the button, we want to make sure drivers stop for him. A yield sign might not do the job. I've seen similar configurations elsewhere. That doesn't explain why it's horizontal, but roadman's reasoning about that is as good as any.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Takumi on December 21, 2012, 03:00:10 PM
I think left turns must yield here. (Prime candidate for a FYA?)
(http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s600x600/71612_10200121517781941_521382495_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on December 22, 2012, 02:01:37 PM
I just conducted my own study of driving across the area I live in.  I drove John Young Parkway Northbound from the Hunters Creek area to near Lockhart (OBT and JYP) and passed through 36 signalized intersections.  20 of the signals were green with the other 16 of the red ones, 2 of them were 2 signal waits and one was a three light wait.

The time was Saturday from 1 PM to 2 PM.  I do not know if this is good traveling or not in an urban area just before Christmas.  Just to show you how hectic to drive the Orlando area on a major thorofare.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mark68 on December 23, 2012, 11:48:08 PM
There are some really old side-mounted signals in downtown Seattle, mostly around the Pioneer Square area. I'm guessing from the 40s?

I've also seen them in downtown Decatur, AL.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mark68 on December 23, 2012, 11:54:46 PM
You can add Colorado and Wisconsin to that list also. And that photo certainly does make the case.

In Colorado, it's somewhat sporadic outside of Denver Metro & Fort Collins/Loveland. Newer lights (I'd say since the early 90s) in Colorado Springs seem to have them on the far right poles, and, from what I've seen, Pueblo and Grand Junction are starting to add them to their newest lights. In rural areas, it seems to be hit-or-miss, with the poles getting them on most of the newer ones.

Denver and Aurora seem to be religious in that they add pole-mounted lights on both the right and left (with left-turn signals on the left-pole ones where appropriate), and have done so for quite some time (30 years? in Aurora, much longer in Denver).

About 95% of the traffic lights in Grand Junction have side/pole-mounted lights at said intersections.

And Denver has been doing it for decade because many secondary-road intersections still only have a single 4-way overhead light in the intersection (and ugly ones at that  :eyebrow:).

Those used to be a lot more prevalent on all streets, but I hardly see them on major streets now, except for the ones along Stapleton Rd (the I-70 frontage roads) at Dahlia, Holly, & Monaco. And on the SPUI on Evans over Santa Fe.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: tradephoric on December 24, 2012, 12:40:22 PM
I just conducted my own study of driving across the area I live in.  I drove John Young Parkway Northbound from the Hunters Creek area to near Lockhart (OBT and JYP) and passed through 36 signalized intersections.  20 of the signals were green with the other 16 of the red ones, 2 of them were 2 signal waits and one was a three light wait.

The time was Saturday from 1 PM to 2 PM.  I do not know if this is good traveling or not in an urban area just before Christmas.  Just to show you how hectic to drive the Orlando area on a major thorofare.

Drove down Dixie/Telegraph in Metro Detroit on Sunday afternoon...  twenty miles passing thru 42 traffic signals and came to basically one hard stop (first signal after turning onto Telegraph) and a few soft stops.

The signals along the boulevard section of Telegraph are running 80 second cycles so if you do happened to get stopped you only have a 40 second wait (since they are all 2-phased signals and Telegraph gets at least 50% of the split).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: WichitaRoads on January 10, 2013, 12:51:23 PM
Heck, who needs two?

Here is GMSV during road construction; through traffic has only a signal head, which is solid green full-time.
Wichita, KS:

There's another in Wichita, much older, at K-15 (Southeast Blvd) and Wassal - http://goo.gl/maps/8zzRF

ICTRds
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: WichitaRoads on January 10, 2013, 12:54:45 PM
Just last night, I saw a red light that was flickering quickly—not just pulsing in strength, but on-off-on-off-on-off, about as fast as you can say 'on-off-on-off-on-off'.  Kinda funny lookin'.
(Douglas & Woodlawn here in Wichita)

I live a few blocks from this... it was still doing it until about a week or so ago...

ICTRds
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mapman1071 on January 13, 2013, 12:45:17 PM
Friend of mine posted this on FB yesterday...
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/561907_10151113898152996_752771498_n.jpg)

Any idea where this is at?

Looks Like a Toronto Installation
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Road Hog on January 15, 2013, 01:21:18 PM
Texas is the only place I've noticed this. But I've seen traffic lights with what amounts to a 40-watt bulb mounted on the side that go on and off in tandem with the red lights.

What is the purpose of this? Are they supposed to enhance the visual of the red? Or are they for alerting cross traffic a green is forthcoming? Or is it a pedestrian deal?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 01:31:18 PM
Texas is the only place I've noticed this. But I've seen traffic lights with what amounts to a 40-watt bulb mounted on the side that go on and off in tandem with the red lights.

What is the purpose of this? Are they supposed to enhance the visual of the red? Or are they for alerting cross traffic a green is forthcoming? Or is it a pedestrian deal?

they exist in either Florida or Alabama as well.  (can't remember which.)  Alex calls them "rat lights" and says their purpose is to let a police officer know when a light is red, so that he can catch violators without having a direct view of the red light itself.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on January 15, 2013, 01:37:06 PM
Texas is the only place I've noticed this. But I've seen traffic lights with what amounts to a 40-watt bulb mounted on the side that go on and off in tandem with the red lights.

What is the purpose of this? Are they supposed to enhance the visual of the red? Or are they for alerting cross traffic a green is forthcoming? Or is it a pedestrian deal?

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/techsum/fhwasa09005/
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on January 15, 2013, 02:32:13 PM
Texas is the only place I've noticed this. But I've seen traffic lights with what amounts to a 40-watt bulb mounted on the side that go on and off in tandem with the red lights.

What is the purpose of this? Are they supposed to enhance the visual of the red? Or are they for alerting cross traffic a green is forthcoming? Or is it a pedestrian deal?

they exist in either Florida or Alabama as well.  (can't remember which.)  Alex calls them "rat lights" and says their purpose is to let a police officer know when a light is red, so that he can catch violators without having a direct view of the red light itself.

They're for idiots who claim to be cops, IMHO.  Any fool, IMHO, can figure out when the light is red for a particular direction at a signal without these lights.  Somehow, around here, they figure out which direction is red without any silly "rat lights".
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 02:56:23 PM

They're for idiots who claim to be cops, IMHO.  Any fool, IMHO, can figure out when the light is red for a particular direction at a signal without these lights.  Somehow, around here, they figure out which direction is red without any silly "rat lights".

generally speaking, I cannot look at an intersection and tell you exactly which lights are red.

specifically, I cannot tell you which light is green, and happens to have no traffic.

but, then again, signal phasings get really tricky around here.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on January 15, 2013, 02:57:50 PM
Any fool, IMHO, can figure out when the light is red for a particular direction at a signal without these lights.
There's a definite legal difference between an educated guess and a near certainty.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on January 15, 2013, 03:02:05 PM
Any fool, IMHO, can figure out when the light is red for a particular direction at a signal without these lights.
There's a definite legal difference between an educated guess and a near certainty.

Um, at most intersections (4-way), if one street is green, the other street must obviously be red.  I'd say that's pretty damn certain.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on January 15, 2013, 03:09:08 PM
Any fool, IMHO, can figure out when the light is red for a particular direction at a signal without these lights.
There's a definite legal difference between an educated guess and a near certainty.

Um, at most intersections (4-way), if one street is green, the other street must obviously be red.  I'd say that's pretty damn certain.

Unless the light's malfunctioning. The rat light is directly connected to the red and thus has much less (if any) reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on January 15, 2013, 03:11:54 PM
Any fool, IMHO, can figure out when the light is red for a particular direction at a signal without these lights.
There's a definite legal difference between an educated guess and a near certainty.

Um, at most intersections (4-way), if one street is green, the other street must obviously be red.  I'd say that's pretty damn certain.

Unless the light's malfunctioning. The rat light is directly connected to the red and thus has much less (if any) reasonable doubt.

If the signal is malfunctioning, you've got bigger problems than the need for a so-called "rat light".
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 03:13:48 PM

Um, at most intersections (4-way), if one street is green, the other street must obviously be red.  I'd say that's pretty damn certain.

what if the police officer is sitting at a branch which is red?  then how does he know which of the other branches is green?  assume a non-intuitive sequence between the various turning and straight phases.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Kacie Jane on January 15, 2013, 10:10:53 PM
Any fool, IMHO, can figure out when the light is red for a particular direction at a signal without these lights.
There's a definite legal difference between an educated guess and a near certainty.

Um, at most intersections (4-way), if one street is green, the other street must obviously be red.  I'd say that's pretty damn certain.

Keep in mind that most red light runners don't blow through a light that's been red for a while.  They run it just as it's turning red, possibly before cross traffic gets their green.  So in order to ticket them, the cop needs to be able to tell exactly when the light turned red.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on January 16, 2013, 11:12:17 AM
Which begs the question:  If cross traffic hasn't even received a green light yet, then why ticket the offender at all?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 16, 2013, 11:25:07 AM
Which begs the question:  If cross traffic hasn't even received a green light yet, then why ticket the offender at all?

if it were made legal to enter an intersection when no one has green, then people would enter intersections in such situations, figuring they could get away with it.  and when they couldn't (because the opposing traffic had just, indeed, received green), the result is not a ticket, but a collision.

it's best to keep the "can I get away with it?" decision point several seconds before the danger point, which is how it is now.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Scott5114 on February 03, 2013, 01:13:12 AM
Additionally, it can get kind of difficult to figure out a timing sequence when you have lots of things like left and right turn arrows, pedestrian phases, signal actuation, etc. going on.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Michael on March 02, 2013, 06:41:09 PM
I just stumbled on this modern 12-8-8 signal for the Fairport Lift Bridge over the Erie Canal in Fairport, NY:
(http://www.historicbridges.org/newyork/fairportmain/fairportmain01.jpg)
Credit: HistoricBridges.org (http://www.historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/photos.php?bridgebrowser=newyork/fairportmain/&gallerynum=1&gallerysize=1)

I didn't think 12-8-8's were made anymore, plus this one looks like it had LEDs in it.  Click the image to enlarge it, and look at the green ball on the right side.  It looks like there's some LEDs that aren't working.

As for the bridge itself, it's really neat.  It crosses the canal at an angle, and the road deck is on an incline.  Here's (http://www.historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=newyork/fairportmain/) the HistoricBridges.org page for the bridge.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NYhwyfan on March 03, 2013, 09:16:53 AM
I just stumbled on this modern 12-8-8 signal for the Fairport Lift Bridge over the Erie Canal in Fairport, NY:
(http://www.historicbridges.org/newyork/fairportmain/fairportmain01.jpg)
Credit: HistoricBridges.org (http://www.historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/photos.php?bridgebrowser=newyork/fairportmain/&gallerynum=1&gallerysize=1)

I didn't think 12-8-8's were made anymore, plus this one looks like it had LEDs in it.  Click the image to enlarge it, and look at the green ball on the right side.  It looks like there's some LEDs that aren't working.

As for the bridge itself, it's really neat.  It crosses the canal at an angle, and the road deck is on an incline.  Here's (http://www.historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=newyork/fairportmain/) the HistoricBridges.org page for the bridge.

A few of the lift bridge signals for the Erie Canal between Lockport and Albion have 12-8-8 signals, some older. Most have seem to been replaced with newer 12-12-12. 

Here's a new 12-8-8 in Albion, NY http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.24861,-78.193688&spn=0.004165,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.248694,-78.19368&panoid=3qosjcTSABawsteFWZPMGQ&cbp=12,355.87,,0,-1.6

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 04, 2013, 08:53:29 AM
Which begs the question:  If cross traffic hasn't even received a green light yet, then why ticket the offender at all?

So you're OK with motorists crossing into an intersection just after a light turns red, along with motorists entering an intersection just before the light turns green.  Interesting.  Experiment with that for a while and let us know how it goes.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on March 04, 2013, 06:12:15 PM
Yeah, what jeffandnicole said. And yes, let us know how it works out for you..........
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on March 05, 2013, 07:10:24 PM
Other than the obviously dangerous (and not suggested by me) starting before your light turns green, what would be the conflicting traffic movement?  Lots of people don't stop before turning right when their light has just turned red, before cross traffic gets their green, and it "works out" perfectly well.  Unless you mean getting a ticket, which is precisely what brought it up in the first place.  I do it with some frequency, and it "works out" just great, thank you for asking.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on March 06, 2013, 10:24:45 AM
I didn't think 12-8-8's were made anymore
While I was in Salem, OR a couple years ago; I saw some newer 12-8-8s around.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on March 06, 2013, 07:40:09 PM
I never understood the use of the 12-8-8 configuration. If the location needed a 12-inch signal, then just use 12-inch for the whole signal head. Why go half-way?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: dfnva on March 07, 2013, 08:35:35 AM
 I didn't think 12-8-8's were made anymore, plus this one looks like it had LEDs in it.  Click the image to enlarge it, and look at the green ball on the right side.  It looks like there's some LEDs that aren't working.[/quote]

VDOT put up new 12-8-8's maybe 7 years ago at two interesections in Woodbridge, VA.... the intersections of US-1 with Featherstone Rd and with Woodside Dr. Oddly, the ones at Woodside Dr were replaced with new mast arms a couple years later. The ones at Featherstone remain. The 12-8-8's face traffic on Featherstone Rd. Ironically, the signals there prior to the replacement (on the same span wire) were full size 12-inch signal (old Peek / Crouse-Hinds signals from the 70s/80s).

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Woodbridge,+VA&hl=en&ll=38.636886,-77.26927&spn=0.011481,0.022724&sll=38.744659,-77.487094&sspn=0.091712,0.181789&oq=woodb&hnear=Woodbridge,+Prince+William,+Virginia&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.636772,-77.26937&panoid=Jzmm8p1Y8BbHIaYTq55Jqw&cbp=12,13.26,,0,6.37 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Woodbridge,+VA&hl=en&ll=38.636886,-77.26927&spn=0.011481,0.022724&sll=38.744659,-77.487094&sspn=0.091712,0.181789&oq=woodb&hnear=Woodbridge,+Prince+William,+Virginia&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.636772,-77.26937&panoid=Jzmm8p1Y8BbHIaYTq55Jqw&cbp=12,13.26,,0,6.37)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: myosh_tino on March 07, 2013, 01:09:13 PM
While I haven't seen any new 12-8-8 signals installed in the S.F. Bay Area lately, some cities are retrofitting their older 12-8-8 signals with LED lights.  All new installations I've seen are either 12-12-12 or 8-8-8 signal heads.  FWIW, California used to use 8-8-12 for left-turn signals but that practice was discontinued when we switched to an all-arrow signals.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on March 07, 2013, 01:48:08 PM
I never understood the use of the 12-8-8 configuration. If the location needed a 12-inch signal, then just use 12-inch for the whole signal head. Why go half-way?
Guess on my part, but the 12-8-8 setup likely predates most if not all-12 setups. 

Back then, the reasoning for red signal head having the larger head was due to it was considered more important for motorists to see a red signal from a greater distance than a green or yellow signal.

It's worth noting that some communities went w/a 12-12-8 setup.  Peabody, MA being one of them and still has a few signals that feature this setup to this day.  The rationale for the larger yellow (along with the red) was likely for more distant viewing.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ian on March 07, 2013, 02:43:47 PM
From what I've seen, 12-8-8 signals are still being installed in Ontario.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NYhwyfan on March 11, 2013, 07:11:10 PM
http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.0125,-78.879615&spn=0.004181,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.012404,-78.879637&panoid=AuYWs39Jl5DCPENtJ8m-dg&cbp=12,2.67,,0,2.15

Fairly new (w/in last 5 years) using 12-8-8 for the primary signals and 8-8-8 for secondaries
Tonawanda, NY

http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.021914,-78.877974&spn=0.003961,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.02201,-78.877937&panoid=Q_Ja6l1VyzM7L7JJV_D0nA&cbp=12,19.44,,0,-30.43

Older 12-8-8 after crossing over the Erie Canal in North Tonawanda, NY

http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.032455,-78.876461&spn=0.00396,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.032597,-78.876462&panoid=A9EgOPUK2wcCHAQC1KO2-w&cbp=12,173.53,,0,-5.21 North Tonawanda, NY
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on March 13, 2013, 12:28:36 AM
Here is an intersection in Lorain County/N. Ridgeville, OH with an "antique" 12-8-8-8! 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=google+maps+elyria+oh&ll=41.38312,-82.058086&spn=0.000258,0.153637&hnear=Elyria,+Lorain,+Ohio&gl=us&t=m&z=13&layer=c&cbll=41.383113,-82.058345&panoid=_s1-XmEYd-QvDMm-Lt_5nw&cbp=12,250.2,,0,8.56
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on March 13, 2013, 02:32:26 AM
^8 inch arrows to boot!  Great find
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on March 13, 2013, 10:12:59 PM
^8 inch arrows to boot!  Great find

Lorain County in general is a haven for old traffic lights and roadways (Especially Northern Lorain County: Amherst/Lorain/Elyria).  It's a poorer county in general and it's hard for the county and the local municipalities to upgrade and/or replace their 40-50 year old signals -- good for us geeks, though!!!

In fact, if you look at that google maps photo, you'll notice that there is only one signal for thru traffic in each direction, so if a light burns out, it can instantly screw up the traffic going in the direction of the signal.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 14, 2013, 12:45:42 PM
Lorain County in general is a haven for old traffic lights and roadways (Especially Northern Lorain County: Amherst/Lorain/Elyria).  It's a poorer county in general and it's hard for the county and the local municipalities to upgrade and/or replace their 40-50 year old signals -- good for us geeks, though!!!


Cincy is the same way.  lots of old signals there, as well as old signs.  a poster here named jjakucyk has made some great discoveries in that area: cutouts, state-named shields, and fancy art-deco traffic lights that date back to the 30s.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on March 15, 2013, 10:31:59 PM
I would like to know how NYC in Rockaway Beach, NY is allowed to operate amber less signals and only have two colors: red and green.  Both together are used to warn motorists of the change when the green time is up.  I have a photo of the red and green both on at the same time back in 03 along the beach where they are still used unless it was modified since then.  Plus, how does the signal work in flash mode?  It must only be a four way stop flashing red on all signals, or does like Boston does and flashes the green at some intersections on the dominate roadway instead of the yellow.

Sadly, they're long gone.

A handful of survivors remained in service on Shore Front Pkwy. until 2006 or so. Three-section (red, amber, and green) traffic signals now control the entire length. I vaguely remember those two-section traffic signals from the Rockaways; however, I remember the survivors from mainly Ozone Park in Queens. Quite a handful were still in service on mainly one segment of Liberty Avenue (under the el) in the early to mid 2000s. The last survivor was removed on that segment of Liberty Avenue in 2007, which was not quite long ago.

What's interesting to mention, too, is that some of these were equipped with L.E.D. module inserts in the early 2000s. Most of the old traffic signals were untouched, while newly installed (then) two-section traffic signals from Eagle Mark 4 were installed with them. It was rather interesting to see these.


With regards to flash mode, it is likely (in my opinion) that they were simply dark in that particular mode of operation. I think someone might have mentioned that to me at one time or another.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NYhwyfan on March 16, 2013, 01:33:50 PM
Here is an intersection in Lorain County/N. Ridgeville, OH with an "antique" 12-8-8-8! 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=google+maps+elyria+oh&ll=41.38312,-82.058086&spn=0.000258,0.153637&hnear=Elyria,+Lorain,+Ohio&gl=us&t=m&z=13&layer=c&cbll=41.383113,-82.058345&panoid=_s1-XmEYd-QvDMm-Lt_5nw&cbp=12,250.2,,0,8.56

Nice find. Sign next to primary also says "opposong traffic moves on your light" - never seen that

"http://maps.google.com/maps?q=google+maps+elyria+oh&ll=41.382991,-82.058773&spn=0.068134,0.154324&hnear=Elyria,+Lorain,+Ohio&gl=us&t=m&layer=c&cbll=41.383038,-82.058592&panoid=GlI6wF3SeWufQ29KuuZRvw&cbp=12,161.9,,0,-21.37&z=13
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on March 16, 2013, 01:48:39 PM
That's be
Here is an intersection in Lorain County/N. Ridgeville, OH with an "antique" 12-8-8-8! 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=google+maps+elyria+oh&ll=41.38312,-82.058086&spn=0.000258,0.153637&hnear=Elyria,+Lorain,+Ohio&gl=us&t=m&z=13&layer=c&cbll=41.383113,-82.058345&panoid=_s1-XmEYd-QvDMm-Lt_5nw&cbp=12,250.2,,0,8.56

Nice find. Sign next to primary also says "opposong traffic moves on your light" - never seen that

"http://maps.google.com/maps?q=google+maps+elyria+oh&ll=41.382991,-82.058773&spn=0.068134,0.154324&hnear=Elyria,+Lorain,+Ohio&gl=us&t=m&layer=c&cbll=41.383038,-82.058592&panoid=GlI6wF3SeWufQ29KuuZRvw&cbp=12,161.9,,0,-21.37&z=13

That's because there are a few intersections in N. Ridgeville where the side roads at the intersection do not line up across from each other so some of those intesections will have separate green signals. 

Glad to see that they finally tore down the huge mostly-abandoned shopping center that sat empty for most of it's 50+ year history.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NYhwyfan on March 17, 2013, 01:07:05 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=google+maps+elyria+oh&ll=41.377775,-82.076068&spn=0.016262,0.038581&hnear=Elyria,+Lorain,+Ohio&gl=us&t=m&layer=c&cbll=41.377817,-82.075967&panoid=QYMMeeTS1iQyolhFJ_9Eaw&cbp=12,253.48,,0,-6.31&z=15

Intersection down the road from the above
12-8-12 left turn signal along with 12-8-8 thru signals
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on March 21, 2013, 09:34:38 AM
Here is something unusual that I discovered while cruising through GSV.  Three mast arms on one signal pole.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Newark,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.733584,-74.164249&spn=0.003016,0.005686&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.213306,11.645508&oq=newark&t=h&hnear=Newark,+Essex,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.733656,-74.164303&panoid=zRW_mSRAu17U6ATj0l5kPQ&cbp=12,129.44,,0,0

You just do not see something like this everyday.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: US71 on March 24, 2013, 10:11:42 PM
From what I've seen, 12-8-8 signals are still being installed in Ontario.

Baton Rouge has a few on Bus 61/190
http://goo.gl/maps/rUCWc

I got some photos, but they didn't come out well :(
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on March 25, 2013, 01:40:26 AM
A span-wire set-up in New York City is uncommon, and only a handful are in existence. Below, are three signalized from the borough of Staten Island in the city. Each one uses a span-wire set-up.

Richmond Avenue and Arthur Kill Road. Mainly 12" Eagle Alusig traffic signals here. Note that the use of a doghouse (far left) is here. There's another one in use, but it cannot be viewed in this picture. A doghouse set-up is a signal configuration that is uncommon as well in the city of New York, and only a handful are in useful service. Picture from Bing Maps.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/Spanwire_zps2e3bfb9a.png)

Second set-up. At Drumgoole Road West and Richmond Avenue. Made up of 12-8-8 Eagle Alusig and Automatic Signal/L.F.E. traffic signals. Picture from Bing Maps.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/Spanwire2_zps2071e003.png)

Drumgoole Road W. and Arthur Kill Road. Made up of mainly 12-8-8 Eagle Alusig traffic signals here as well. Picture from Bing Maps.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/Spanwire1_zps3df7859b.png)

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: US71 on March 25, 2013, 12:20:50 PM
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8236/8590004178_3bee7a8a34_c_d.jpg)

I found this is Meadville, MS a couple weeks ago, but is only in Flash mode. Another one, a few blocks down, is still in full service.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on March 25, 2013, 09:38:27 PM
A span-wire set-up in New York City is uncommon

Quote
Below, are three signalized from the borough of Staten Island
Are there any in the ACTUAL city? Like, the boroughs that matter?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on March 25, 2013, 11:25:25 PM
Are there any in the ACTUAL city? Like, the boroughs that matter?

When I mention New York City, I generally refer to all of the five boroughs that make up the city. So, Staten Island does matter to me.

With regards to Manhattan, to my knowledge, the set-up does not exist there. On Staten Island, there are a total of four that I am aware of. I do not have a picture of the fourth one at the moment. Aside from that borough, there are a handful (I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head) that exist in Queens. They're at John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on March 26, 2013, 03:16:47 AM
I could have sworn that I saw a spanwire installation in Brooklyn.  Not sure where in Brooklyn it was, but it looked to be an old installation.  This was probably 10 years ago or so when I saw it.  It may have since been replaced.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on March 26, 2013, 03:53:22 AM
I could have sworn that I saw a spanwire installation in Brooklyn.  Not sure where in Brooklyn it was, but it looked to be an old installation.  This was probably 10 years ago or so when I saw it.  It may have since been replaced.

Aside from what I mentioned in my previous comment, I am sure there are some others scattered throughout the five boroughs of the city.

What I forgot to mention, too, is that there a couple that exist on one segment of Jamaica Avenue (under the el) in Queens.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on March 26, 2013, 06:34:34 PM
Are there any in the ACTUAL city? Like, the boroughs that matter?

When I mention New York City, I generally refer to all of the five boroughs that make up the city. So, Staten Island does matter to me.

With regards to Manhattan, to my knowledge, the set-up does not exist there. On Staten Island, there are a total of four that I am aware of. I do not have a picture of the fourth one at the moment. Aside from that borough, there are a handful (I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head) that exist in Queens. They're at John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport.
JFK is under Port Authority jurisdiction, so they make their own rules.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on March 26, 2013, 06:43:58 PM
JFK is under Port Authority jurisdiction, so they make their own rules.

Even so, if I recall correctly, J.F.K. falls within the borough of Queens, since it is not located outside of New York City.

I understand your point, though, which you are correct. Although the P.A. operates them, I would consider them part of New York City in my humble opinion.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on April 12, 2013, 09:40:05 AM
Question about what the MUTCD considers to be an 'overhead assembly?'  I was noticing that in NYC there are places where signal heads are side mounted on a pole, but at the same height that the mast arm would be attached thus making it the same distance from the ground as those on arms or span wires.

Places like Fifth Avenue in Midtown, you will see two high mounted signal heads (or did see) on the corners to replace some of the old bracket type mast arms that graced that particular street for years.  I was wondering if the MUTCD allows for that being it is overhead, but at the same time it is not overhead?

Then also how is NYC allowed to have only one signal head per intersection on Park Avenue between 46th and 56th Streets, as these signals were erected in modern times after the MUTCD required a minimum of two straight through assemblies?  I was reading in Wikipedia, that the underground Metro North Tunnel prevents standard signals to be allowed, hence the tall mast pole in the median that supports the four way signal heads.  That I do not believe, as the tunnel continues beyond 56th Street where normal (or at least for NYC) installations occur, even if it were true would the FHWA make an acception?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on April 12, 2013, 05:15:34 PM
Question about what the MUTCD considers to be an 'overhead assembly?'  I was noticing that in NYC there are places where signal heads are side mounted on a pole, but at the same height that the mast arm would be attached thus making it the same distance from the ground as those on arms or span wires.

Places like Fifth Avenue in Midtown, you will see two high mounted signal heads (or did see) on the corners to replace some of the old bracket type mast arms that graced that particular street for years.  I was wondering if the MUTCD allows for that being it is overhead, but at the same time it is not overhead?

That kind of set-up is common to see throughout the five boroughs (not only in Manhattan), mind you. If you were the first motorist at a signalized intersection that uses this set-up, chances are you would not see the suspended traffic signal above you (that depends on where it is placed). Instead of straining your neck to view it, you'd rely on that traffic signal ahead of you. Improves visibility, really. My knowledge about New York City and its relation to the M.U.T.C.D. is limited, but I would assume it is appropriate to use (if necessary).

Also, truck traffic in New York City could be hectic at times, so the likely reason that most are highly elevated is that the city doesn't want them to be clipped by large vehicles that make turns at corners. Back in the old days, when two-section (red and green) traffic signals were the norm throughout New York City, many that were attached to pedestals had short visors attached to them, and they were generally pretty close to corners at intersections. The one side that faced the curb generally had only one pair. This prevented them from being clipped. Early three-section traffic signals in the city used them as well, but they are no longer in use nowadays.


Then also how is NYC allowed to have only one signal head per intersection on Park Avenue between 46th and 56th Streets, as these signals were erected in modern times after the MUTCD required a minimum of two straight through assemblies?  I was reading in Wikipedia, that the underground Metro North Tunnel prevents standard signals to be allowed, hence the tall mast pole in the median that supports the four way signal heads.  That I do not believe, as the tunnel continues beyond 56th Street where normal (or at least for NYC) installations occur, even if it were true would the FHWA make an acception?


Actually, the city fought with the train system for many years, since the city's original intention was to standardize them on that particular segment. The fear was that the mast-arm/guy wire set-up would interfere with the tunnels below ground, since I recall this set-up is placed fairly deep below street level. It was not until in recent years, though, that the city and Metro North finally came to an agreement. With that said, the intersections were standardized, and the original traffic signals are long gone. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on April 13, 2013, 12:22:56 PM
Actually, I think the mounted high side signals are a real help and come to think of it, I now remember seeing them in Dallas, TX.  I hope the MUTCD does consider them to be the same as those over the intersection.

New Jersey  even has a few places that use them for Left Turn Signals as well as supplementary signals attached where the mast arm extends in many places. 

I do not see though why deep tunnels would create a problem above for mast arms, especially when the rest of Park Avenue has them over the same tunnels?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on April 13, 2013, 04:59:30 PM
I don't believe the MUTCD considers a pole-mounted signal head as overhead, even if placed at the same height as an overhead signal. The key is overhead signals are in front of the driver (typically centered over the lane the signal controls).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on April 13, 2013, 09:57:04 PM
I always liked this pedestrian signal from the Brazilian company Peterco. New York City installed it in the late 1980s. It was similar to the 16" Winko-Matic VI 2L AG pedestrian signal that was in use at the time, but that had a different louver.

An interesting characteristic about this one in particular is that each signal indication appeared quite bright in the middle, in which the incandescent light bulb was located. This was normally noticeable at night.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/128125757_zps56431b67.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/128125757_zps56431b67.jpg.html)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/128125758_zps03b3df7c.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/128125758_zps03b3df7c.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 14, 2013, 11:31:45 AM
There are 12-8-8's along Va. 120 (Glebe Road) in Arlington County, Va.  12-8-8's were once pretty common in Northern Virginia, but most of them are now gone.  The intersection of Va. 120 (South Glebe Road) at West Glebe Road (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=south+glebe+road+%26+west+glebe+road,+arlington+county,+va&hl=en&sll=38.851941,-77.084198&sspn=0.037365,0.077162&t=h&hnear=S+Glebe+Rd+%26+W+Glebe+Rd,+Arlington,+Virginia+22206&z=16) (which runs south of South Glebe Road into the City of Alexandria) and Four Mile Run Drive has had 12-8-8's for a long time, but they  are almost done, as new mastarms with all-12's have been installed but not yet hooked-up.

Southbound Va. 120 (the Pizza Hut in the distance is in Alexandria):
(http://www.toward.com/CPZ/DSC01783Web.jpg)

Southbound or eastbound Four Mile Run Drive:
(http://www.toward.com/CPZ/DSC01787Web.jpg)

Westbound West Glebe Road:
(http://www.toward.com/CPZ/DSC01791Web.jpg)

Northbound Va. 120:
(http://www.toward.com/CPZ/DSC01793Web.jpg)

EDIT: Added hyperlink and made a few corrections.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 14, 2013, 11:37:05 AM
But on Va. 120 (North Glebe Road) at Carlin Springs Road (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=north+glebe+road+%26+north+carlin+springs+road,+arlington+county,+va&hl=en&sll=38.844128,-77.077212&sspn=0.009342,0.01929&t=h&hnear=N+Glebe+Rd+%26+N+Carlin+Springs+Rd,+Arlington,+Virginia+22203&z=16) these 12-8-8's will apparently be there for a while yet:

Northbound Va. 120:
(http://www.toward.com/cpz/DSC01799Web.jpg)

Eastbound Carlin Springs Road:
(http://www.toward.com/cpz/DSC01781Web.jpg)

EDIT: Added hyperlink.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mdcastle on April 14, 2013, 01:55:08 PM
(http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv358/Mdcastleman/IMG_2284.jpg) (http://s699.photobucket.com/user/Mdcastleman/media/IMG_2284.jpg.html)(http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv358/Mdcastleman/IMG_2282.jpg) (http://s699.photobucket.com/user/Mdcastleman/media/IMG_2282.jpg.html)
Two different Eagleluxes in Minneapolis, long fin and short fins.

(http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv358/Mdcastleman/IMG_1038.jpg) (http://s699.photobucket.com/user/Mdcastleman/media/IMG_1038.jpg.html)
(Repost) Deactivated installation on old Route 6 in Wilton, IA. There are 4 way setups on kittycorner stretches of the intersection. The heads (Eagle "Durasigs) were made no earlier than the early 1970s, and these look to be newer, so they were replaced well after I-80 was built.

 (http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv358/Mdcastleman/IMG_1898.jpg) (http://s699.photobucket.com/user/Mdcastleman/media/IMG_1898.jpg.html)
Old GE 4-way in Cleveland, TN. GE sold their traffic signal business to Econolite in the 1950s
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on April 14, 2013, 03:30:07 PM
Some 12-8-12s in Lorain County, OH (Elyria):

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=elyria+oh&hl=en&ll=41.378771,-82.117111&spn=0.001107,0.00327&sll=41.4423,-82.18532&sspn=0.004456,0.013078&hnear=Elyria,+Lorain,+Ohio&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.378579,-82.117119&panoid=Ah4D8kW3owjdWwGLpAV6DA&cbp=12,169.31,,0,-3.99

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=elyria+oh&hl=en&ll=41.367626,-82.101721&spn=0.001107,0.00327&sll=41.4423,-82.18532&sspn=0.004456,0.013078&hnear=Elyria,+Lorain,+Ohio&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.367626,-82.101721&panoid=QAjFaLUoZCunErF6jGmlAg&cbp=12,77.67,,0,-7.38

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=elyria+oh&hl=en&ll=41.374848,-82.086148&spn=0.001107,0.00327&sll=41.4423,-82.18532&sspn=0.004456,0.013078&hnear=Elyria,+Lorain,+Ohio&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.37492,-82.08588&panoid=EzYR2Ix05sgxraKwq-icNQ&cbp=12,246.48,,0,-18.98

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=elyria+oh&hl=en&ll=41.377497,-82.077012&spn=0.001107,0.00327&sll=41.4423,-82.18532&sspn=0.004456,0.013078&hnear=Elyria,+Lorain,+Ohio&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.377568,-82.076778&panoid=WWafyvbOo6Yuyu1uf88iaw&cbp=12,86.6,,0,-6.5
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on April 14, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
A Ruleta suspended from a classic "wheelie" set-up. Brooklyn, New York. 1963. Courtesy of Brooklyn Historical Archives.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/V197441969_zps01f3390e.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/V197441969_zps01f3390e.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on April 16, 2013, 11:56:11 PM
My 16" Winko-Matic model VI 2L AG pedestrian signal. To keep up with the New York City motif, I decided to repaint it. Its original color was dark hunter green, and it saw service somewhere in New York state. The color that I used for this pedestrian signal was Caterpillar Yellow, and it is the closest to the original shade of yellow that was used in New York City. The city was introduced to the VI 2L AG in the early 1980s. I remember it well (before the L.E.D. conversion).


(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/644684_559814114049400_335995231_n_zpscf7d8ed4.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/644684_559814114049400_335995231_n_zpscf7d8ed4.jpg.html)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/3654_559813977382747_81413081_n_zpsa0eeef65.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/3654_559813977382747_81413081_n_zpsa0eeef65.jpg.html)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/12372_559814117382733_1277997788_n_zps1600d92c.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/12372_559814117382733_1277997788_n_zps1600d92c.jpg.html)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/12507_559814140716064_1474213553_n_zps47a190ba.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/12507_559814140716064_1474213553_n_zps47a190ba.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Billy F 1988 on April 17, 2013, 01:11:43 AM
Holy crap that thing's huge! Most pedestrian signals aren't this big in Missoula! They're big up close, but nothing like this hunker. What are the approximate dimensions of this? It certainly looks like half the size of a 64" big screen LCD TV.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on April 17, 2013, 01:33:43 AM
Holy crap that thing's huge! Most pedestrian signals aren't this big in Missoula! They're big up close, but nothing like this hunker. What are the approximate dimensions of this? It certainly looks like half the size of a 64" big screen LCD TV.

It is actually a 16" pedestrian signal. 16" by 16". It is not too large. Yes, it appears small from a driver's point of view; however, it appears rather big in appearance up-close, of course.

New York City has been using 16" pedestrian signals for years, and there are several signal equipment companies that manufacture them. Winko-Matic used to manufacture neon pedestrian signals, and at least two models were in use in the city. One of them (first generation) was rather bulky, not to mention heavy. It was like a monster. Below, is an example. From 1955.

 (http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/Corbis-U1280825INP_zpse22e2e39.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/Corbis-U1280825INP_zpse22e2e39.jpg.html)

I sometimes wonder how people handled them when they installed these pedestrian signals.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on April 18, 2013, 04:39:00 AM
But on Va. 120 (North Glebe Road) at Carlin Springs Road (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=north+glebe+road+%26+north+carlin+springs+road,+arlington+county,+va&hl=en&sll=38.844128,-77.077212&sspn=0.009342,0.01929&t=h&hnear=N+Glebe+Rd+%26+N+Carlin+Springs+Rd,+Arlington,+Virginia+22203&z=16) these 12-8-8's will apparently be there for a while yet:

Northbound Va. 120:
(http://www.toward.com/cpz/DSC01799Web.jpg)

Eastbound Carlin Springs Road:
(http://www.toward.com/cpz/DSC01781Web.jpg)

EDIT: Added hyperlink.

Those streetlights look very Chinese.  I have never seen any LED streetlights like those on the west coast.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 18, 2013, 08:33:02 PM
Those streetlights look very Chinese.  I have never seen any LED streetlights like those on the west coast.

They are LEDs.  I've seen them in Arlington County, Va. and at least one place in the District of Columbia (on northbound D.C. 295 north of Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on April 22, 2013, 10:06:27 AM
Are U turns exempt from waiting for the left turn signals at such intersections in many areas?  Lately, I see many motorists making u turns without waiting for the green arrows to appear in the area I live in Florida.

One such motorist gave me a scare, when I seen his vehicle make a u turn the same way I was heading when I made a RTOR at a local intersection.  I caught an object out of my side view, which was his car just feet away from mine.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 22, 2013, 10:27:10 AM
Are U turns exempt from waiting for the left turn signals at such intersections in many areas?  Lately, I see many motorists making u turns without waiting for the green arrows to appear in the area I live in Florida.

rules are the same as for left turns.  if there isn't a red arrow, then it is a permissive turn and he may make it as long as he yields to oncoming traffic.

Quote
One such motorist gave me a scare, when I seen his vehicle make a u turn the same way I was heading when I made a RTOR at a local intersection.  I caught an object out of my side view, which was his car just feet away from mine.

in that situation, unless you had a green right arrow, he had right of way.  he has to yield to oncoming traffic, but not traffic which has a red light.  traffic at the red light has to yield to all traffic before making a right turn.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Compulov on April 22, 2013, 12:12:52 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/bdbLY (http://goo.gl/maps/bdbLY)

I'm posting this here because I've always found this particular signal to be neat. The mast that it's on doesn't reach the center of the intersection (even if you don't factor in the offset double-yellow, of course) and it just looks old(er?). I wonder if maybe 413 was narrower at one point, and they widened the road, but reused the same mast. The side mounted lights look like they were added much later on, too. There's lots of old (probably 70s or older vintage) masts in and around Levittown (especially on US-13), though I think they're going away now that they're going to be doing construction on 13.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on April 23, 2013, 02:00:27 PM
Are U turns exempt from waiting for the left turn signals at such intersections in many areas?  Lately, I see many motorists making u turns without waiting for the green arrows to appear in the area I live in Florida.

rules are the same as for left turns.  if there isn't a red arrow, then it is a permissive turn and he may make it as long as he yields to oncoming traffic.

Quote
One such motorist gave me a scare, when I seen his vehicle make a u turn the same way I was heading when I made a RTOR at a local intersection.  I caught an object out of my side view, which was his car just feet away from mine.

in that situation, unless you had a green right arrow, he had right of way.  he has to yield to oncoming traffic, but not traffic which has a red light.  traffic at the red light has to yield to all traffic before making a right turn.
If the rules are the same for u turns as left turns then he would be in the wrong.  Who when making a RTOR, expects someone to be making a u turn.  Usually you look left.

Plus, he broke the law and not I.  RTOR is legal over running a red light which is 100 percent illegal! I know that u turns are required to yield to right turns when a green arrow takes place, but that is when the light is green or permissive.  Even if a person in my situation got cited for an accident, still the other driver can also be cited for failing to obey a traffic control device.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 23, 2013, 02:13:42 PM
Who when making a RTOR, expects someone to be making a u turn.
people who know how to drive.

Quote
Usually you look left.
and straight.  oncoming traffic making a left turn may have the protected arrow.  and right, because u-turning traffic may have the right of way - permissive or protected.

and behind you because generally you look at your surroundings

I don't want to share the road with unobservant kinds that think "who expects traffic from a less than common direction?" and blow off the idea wholesale?

Quote
RTOR is legal over running a red light which is 100 percent illegal!
you mean to say someone ran a red to make the U-turn?  I thought "without waiting for the green arrows to appear" meant that their direction of travel had a green ball.

I doubt anyone's starting to run red lights systematically. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on April 23, 2013, 02:19:22 PM
Me mum often complains about people making U-turns on red. I guess it's a common thing in this area. (And frankly, compared to some things people do, it's not a very dangerous maneuver.)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Compulov on April 23, 2013, 03:26:48 PM
and straight.  oncoming traffic making a left turn may have the protected arrow.  and right, because u-turning traffic may have the right of way - permissive or protected.

I've been noticing a number of intersections with protected lefts that are either full-time no turn on red or have one of those light up part time no turn on red signs. I'm assuming that's to avoid the situation entirely.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 23, 2013, 04:50:30 PM
Me mum often complains about people making U-turns on red. I guess it's a common thing in this area. (And frankly, compared to some things people do, it's not a very dangerous maneuver.)

if you can go from the innermost lane to the innermost lane, without actually intersecting the path of traffic perpendicular to you (most likely you're on a bicycle in this situation), then go for it. 

otherwise, it's fairly dangerous still, and I wouldn't recommend it.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 23, 2013, 04:51:44 PM
I've been noticing a number of intersections with protected lefts that are either full-time no turn on red or have one of those light up part time no turn on red signs. I'm assuming that's to avoid the situation entirely.

here I thought that the protected left, with a red arrow when there isn't a green arrow, are because generally there isn't enough visibility to be able to make a permitted left.

as for the "no turn" light-up signs, I've seen those mainly when there is a rail line, or for a completely different use, when there is heavy pedestrian traffic walking parallel to the green ball.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on April 23, 2013, 05:07:15 PM
as for the "no turn" light-up signs, I've seen those mainly when there is a rail line, or for a completely different use, when there is heavy pedestrian traffic walking parallel to the green ball.
Unfortunately they're also used for hours-long turn restrictions in DC. So you could sit there expecting it to change.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 1995hoo on April 23, 2013, 05:25:54 PM
as for the "no turn" light-up signs, I've seen those mainly when there is a rail line, or for a completely different use, when there is heavy pedestrian traffic walking parallel to the green ball.
Unfortunately they're also used for hours-long turn restrictions in DC. So you could sit there expecting it to change.

DC put some of those up in part because of tourists relying blindly on sat-navs who'd sit there all day waiting to turn left. The light-up signs are a big improvement over the older stupid metal signs with small print listing the restricted times (invariably positioned on the far corner where it was hard to see/read).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on April 23, 2013, 05:27:59 PM
DC put some of those up in part because of tourists relying blindly on sat-navs who'd sit there all day waiting to turn left.
So they'll do it anyway if they're familiar with the ones that turn off after a few minutes.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Compulov on April 23, 2013, 05:54:22 PM
as for the "no turn" light-up signs, I've seen those mainly when there is a rail line, or for a completely different use, when there is heavy pedestrian traffic walking parallel to the green ball.

There are several of them on the Newtown Bypass. There's one in particular at the Lindenhurst Road intersection which I can't figure out. It's only ever active when the light is red. So, if you can't make a right turn whenever the light is red, then why bother having the light up sign? The intersection already has a green right arrow, so if you can safely make a right whenever you have a green ball or a green arrow, the NTOR being lit up is redundant. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just put a fixed NTOR sign there? One possibility I haven't considered is whether they don't light it up after a certain hour. I very rarely drive up that way really late or really early.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on April 23, 2013, 06:08:30 PM
I've been noticing a number of intersections with protected lefts that are either full-time no turn on red or have one of those light up part time no turn on red signs. I'm assuming that's to avoid the situation entirely.

They seriously have to put up signs to tell people not to turn left on a red light?  Ay ay ay...
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on April 23, 2013, 06:16:16 PM
I've been noticing a number of intersections with protected lefts that are either full-time no turn on red or have one of those light up part time no turn on red signs. I'm assuming that's to avoid the situation entirely.

They seriously have to put up signs to tell people not to turn left on a red light?  Ay ay ay...
No, I think he's refering to no right turn from the side street.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on April 23, 2013, 06:17:29 PM
I've been noticing a number of intersections with protected lefts that are either full-time no turn on red or have one of those light up part time no turn on red signs. I'm assuming that's to avoid the situation entirely.

They seriously have to put up signs to tell people not to turn left on a red light?  Ay ay ay...
No, I think he's refering to no right turn from the side street.

OK, thanks, that makes a lot more sense now.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on April 23, 2013, 06:51:21 PM
I've been noticing a number of intersections with protected lefts that are either full-time no turn on red or have one of those light up part time no turn on red signs. I'm assuming that's to avoid the situation entirely.

They seriously have to put up signs to tell people not to turn left on a red light?  Ay ay ay...
No, I think he's refering to no right turn from the side street.

OK, thanks, that makes a lot more sense now.
Glad to help, and I sincerely hope that's where he was going with his point. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Compulov on April 23, 2013, 07:46:22 PM
Glad to help, and I sincerely hope that's where he was going with his point. 

It was... I was referring to no (right) turn on red during opposing traffic's protected left.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on April 23, 2013, 09:07:28 PM
Opposing traffic or cross traffic?
See, I'm confused again...
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on April 23, 2013, 10:02:56 PM
Opposing traffic or cross traffic?
See, I'm confused again...

Opposing traffic, since there is a protected left turn movement.

Here in New Jersey, I am aware of a couple of signalized intersections in my county that have this movement. Additionally, a motorist on the main drag is allowed to make a right turn on red. Although if the protected left turn movement is activated, then a large sign on the opposing side of the main drag would show "NO TURN ON RED." Once the movement terminates, the message on the sign terminates as well.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on April 25, 2013, 01:21:09 AM
Classic two-section (red and green) "Mercury signal" at the corner of 5th Avenue and E. 10th Street. Manhattan, New York. 1963. Photograph taken by Kay Simmon Blumberg.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/kay-simmons-blumberg-lampost-and-traffic-light-fifth-avenue-and-tenth-street-photographs-silver-print-zoom_zps5022aa91.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/kay-simmons-blumberg-lampost-and-traffic-light-fifth-avenue-and-tenth-street-photographs-silver-print-zoom_zps5022aa91.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: BamaZeus on April 25, 2013, 10:58:23 AM
Any idea who the little statue on top is supposed to represent?  Given the downtown location, I wouldn't think it's Columbus.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on April 25, 2013, 11:57:15 AM
Any idea who the little statue on top is supposed to represent?  Given the downtown location, I wouldn't think it's Columbus.

Statuette of the god Mercury. Thus, the common nickname "Mercury signal."
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: BamaZeus on April 26, 2013, 11:37:39 AM
Ahhhh, good deal.  I didn't know if Mercury was just the name of the manufacturing company or not, or if all those signals had equivalent statues on them.  It's a little before my time.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on April 26, 2013, 07:49:56 PM
Ahhhh, good deal.  I didn't know if Mercury was just the name of the manufacturing company or not, or if all those signals had equivalent statues on them.  It's a little before my time.

I was not alive to see them as well, but this particular traffic signal was designed by a gentleman by the name of Joseph H. Freelander. He also designed the original traffic control towers that were once on one segment of 5th Avenue from the early 1920s to late 1920s. Like the traffic control towers that Freelander designed, this new set-up was made of bronze as well. It was what actually replaced the traffic control tower in Manhattan, and, from what's known, approximately 104 were installed on one portion of 5th Avenue (from Washington Square to near Central Park). They existed from 1931 to 1964, and, after 1964, most were trashed by New York City's then traffic commissioner Henry Barnes, but some pieces were preserved.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on May 02, 2013, 02:45:20 PM
New type of assembly in Orlando, FL with FOUR signal heads due to the left turn flashing yellow signal head.  Usually you may find some four headed (and even five) with standard left turn signals, but with protected left turns it is rare for now.

This will, no doubt, be the norm for signals to come.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8701681117/in/photostream/
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on May 02, 2013, 03:04:30 PM
Who when making a RTOR, expects someone to be making a u turn.
people who know how to drive.

Quote
Usually you look left.
and straight.  oncoming traffic making a left turn may have the protected arrow.  and right, because u-turning traffic may have the right of way - permissive or protected.

and behind you because generally you look at your surroundings

I don't want to share the road with unobservant kinds that think "who expects traffic from a less than common direction?" and blow off the idea wholesale?

Quote
RTOR is legal over running a red light which is 100 percent illegal!
you mean to say someone ran a red to make the U-turn?  I thought "without waiting for the green arrows to appear" meant that their direction of travel had a green ball.

I doubt anyone's starting to run red lights systematically. 
I am not saying that I do not expect cars from other directions to also cross the path of a RTOR, as I usually look three ways mostly.  I was pointing out at that moment I did not expect it.  In fact that was the first time it happened to me.

Also, running a red arrow is the same as running a red light.  Even if there is a green ball, the red arrow takes precedence over it.  Yeah, its one of those things, but technically he is in position for a ticket still.  Even if I was ruled for the cause of an accident (by the way over 33 years and none  for me except for two that the other drivers were at fault) that does not mean he is exempt from the illegal turn.

Even if you run a STOP sign and hit another car.  You will be cited for the offense of ignoring a traffic control device even if the accident is ruled caused by the guy you hit.  If he runs into you behind the front doors of your car, then in many cases the law considers the other driver at fault even though he had the ROW because that shows that he most definitely had time to stop or swerve out of the way.  Now if I ran the sign and hit the other vehicle in his front, the accident would be my fault and I would be cited myself for two occurences.

I am always careful when someone jumps a side road either a red light, stop sign, etc. as if I hit him in the back , I will be ruled at fault because evidence shows  that I had time to stop.  If you strike another vehicle in the front then, of course, you do not have time to stop.

There are ways indeed you could cause an accident to happen and be free of blame in some instances legally though how it sounds.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Central Avenue on May 02, 2013, 04:16:54 PM
The Morse Road corridor in Columbus has some intersections where U-turns are permitted during the protected left phase. During Morse's protected left, the side streets get blank-out NO TURN ON RED signs.

I'm guessing this is because the engineers assume Columbus drivers won't be familiar with the "right turns on red yield to U-turns" rule, since U-turns are prohibited citywide except where posted otherwise.

Also, roadman65, there's been a slight miscommunication. In your initial post you didn't mention that the U-turner had a red arrow, so Jake assumed the intersection had a protected-permissive left turn. That's where the "green ball" confusion came from.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on May 02, 2013, 10:39:49 PM
Two-section traffic signal cluster from the Marbelite company on a Ruleta pedestal at E. 49th Street and Park Avenue. May, 1971. Manhattan, New York. This is a nice close-up, and I like the perspective as well.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/ParkAvenue1971_zps514d030d.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/ParkAvenue1971_zps514d030d.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: realjd on May 03, 2013, 10:19:01 AM
Opposing traffic or cross traffic?
See, I'm confused again...

Opposing traffic, since there is a protected left turn movement.

Here in New Jersey, I am aware of a couple of signalized intersections in my county that have this movement. Additionally, a motorist on the main drag is allowed to make a right turn on red. Although if the protected left turn movement is activated, then a large sign on the opposing side of the main drag would show "NO TURN ON RED." Once the movement terminates, the message on the sign terminates as well.

So the sign actually lights up the words "NO TURN ON RED"? Around here they use light up no right turn signs with red LEDs for the circle with the slash and white LEDs for the right arrow. I'll try to find a picture.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on May 03, 2013, 05:22:23 PM
What about bike signals?  :bigass:

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/5083598331_c7ab1dbc54.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on May 03, 2013, 10:02:45 PM
Opposing traffic or cross traffic?
See, I'm confused again...

Opposing traffic, since there is a protected left turn movement.

Here in New Jersey, I am aware of a couple of signalized intersections in my county that have this movement. Additionally, a motorist on the main drag is allowed to make a right turn on red. Although if the protected left turn movement is activated, then a large sign on the opposing side of the main drag would show "NO TURN ON RED." Once the movement terminates, the message on the sign terminates as well.

So the sign actually lights up the words "NO TURN ON RED"? Around here they use light up no right turn signs with red LEDs for the circle with the slash and white LEDs for the right arrow. I'll try to find a picture.

Pretty much so, but I do see the other display that you mentioned in your comment as well. Both are in use at various locations in N.J.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Billy F 1988 on May 03, 2013, 10:52:20 PM
What about bike signals?  :bigass:

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/5083598331_c7ab1dbc54.jpg)

Those could prove useful in MT. More likely in places like Billings, Helena or Great Falls where there is more cycle traffic in those neighborhoods.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on May 04, 2013, 08:02:56 PM
Don't know what the law is in Washington State, but in New York, right-on-red-arrow is prohibited by law, though a sign is sometimes also displayed.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 04, 2013, 08:18:56 PM
Right on red arrow is legal here.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on May 04, 2013, 08:31:50 PM
V-e-r-y   i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g...................
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on May 04, 2013, 10:15:51 PM
Furthermore, that image is in Portland, OR.  I believe it's also legal in Oregon unless otherwise specified.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on May 05, 2013, 12:02:41 PM
Don't know what the law is in Washington State, but in New York, right-on-red-arrow is prohibited by law, though a sign is sometimes also displayed.

What I find interesting about some protected turn signals in New York state is that some are composed of four individual sections, and the fourth section (top) is a red ball that is unlit in normal operation. It only flashes when the signalized intersection is in flash mode. This set-up is commonly used for a protected left turn signal; however, such a set-up is used for a right turn signal as well.

I am aware of a couple (protected left turn signals) that exist in Suffern.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on May 06, 2013, 07:06:14 AM
Don't know what the law is in Washington State, but in New York, right-on-red-arrow is prohibited by law, though a sign is sometimes also displayed.

Right on red arrow is legal in Illinois.  It takes a "No Turn On Red" sign to prohibit the movement.  Ditto for left on red arrow.  It takes a "Left Turn on Green Arrow" or "Left Turn Signal" sign to prohibit the movement.

The particular photo seems to have the "No Turn On Red" signage due to the existence of the bicycle lane with its own signals.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: codyg1985 on May 06, 2013, 08:13:33 AM
What about bike signals?  :bigass:

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/5083598331_c7ab1dbc54.jpg)

Isn't that a double negative when the NO TURN ON RED sign lights up?  :bigass:

It seems like the light up sign is redundant with the permanent NO TURN ON RED sign to the left of the right turn signal.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on May 06, 2013, 12:30:30 PM
What about bike signals?  :bigass:

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/5083598331_c7ab1dbc54.jpg)

Isn't that a double negative when the NO TURN ON RED sign lights up?  :bigass:

It seems like the light up sign is redundant with the permanent NO TURN ON RED sign to the left of the right turn signal.

If I pulled up to this intersection, I would see the permanent NTOR sign and assume that for both turn lanes -- regardless of what the light up says or doesn't say. 

If I were the municipality, I would change the permanent sign to read:

NO TURN ON RED
EXCEPT CURB LANE

which I have seen some municipalities use before.

When you throw in the dedicated bicycle lights, now you have a fustercluck of where/when can one turn right on red, and installing too many specific right turn/no turn on red signs will just cause even more confusion. 

The simplest thing I could think could work is a NTOR/ECL in place of the permanent sign, and replacing the 3-segment right turn signal & light up sign with a 4-segment flashing yellow arrow.  The FYA would only be activated when the bicyclists have their green phase.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on May 06, 2013, 03:36:36 PM
If I were on a bicycle, I would still turn right on red.  :ninja:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on May 06, 2013, 04:46:02 PM
But if you're on a bike on the sidewalk can you turn right on don't walk? :bigass:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on May 06, 2013, 05:43:11 PM
The variable no turn on red is for the right lane.

If the light is off, then it would be like this:  http://goo.gl/maps/PC7zu


I bike a lot in Seattle, and honestly, the bike infrastructure is at its birth.  It's illegal to bike on the sidewalk, but you can walk your bike.  I often dismount my bike in an intersection and use the crosswalk.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Michael on May 19, 2013, 03:08:13 PM
I found this (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.041177,-76.171933&spn=0.001347,0.00284&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.041089,-76.171967&panoid=YrNlxZ55qrFXI3yTZQJlYw&cbp=12,246.24,,0,3.91) interesting signal setup in Syracuse last night.  I'm posting this because of the right-turn ramp having signal faces even though there's no conflicting movements.  Note the pole mounted signal face on the pole in the middle of the image, and another on the right side.  Since it's difficult to see the signals from above with Google's aerial imagery, here's (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=r564z98nk2s3&lvl=19.44&dir=345.96&sty=o&form=LMLTCC) a link to Bing's Birds-Eye view.  I was wondering if other people around here had any thoughts.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on May 19, 2013, 03:21:32 PM
I found this (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.041177,-76.171933&spn=0.001347,0.00284&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.041089,-76.171967&panoid=YrNlxZ55qrFXI3yTZQJlYw&cbp=12,246.24,,0,3.91) interesting signal setup in Syracuse last night.  I'm posting this because of the right-turn ramp having signal faces even though there's no conflicting movements.  Note the pole mounted signal face on the pole in the middle of the image, and another on the right side.  Since it's difficult to see the signals from above with Google's aerial imagery, here's (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=r564z98nk2s3&lvl=19.44&dir=345.96&sty=o&form=LMLTCC) a link to Bing's Birds-Eye view.  I was wondering if other people around here had any thoughts.


If you take a closer look at that ramp set-up, there is a crosswalk present. With the crosswalk present is a pair of pedestrian signals as well. Seems to me that the pedestrian signals there are not actuated, so they're probably pre-timed.

I have seen similar signalized ramps in the past; however, the pedestrian signals present are actuated. With that said, the traffic signals rest on green unless a pedestrian pushes a nearby button to activate the "WALK" cycle.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on May 20, 2013, 12:39:26 PM
That made me think of this one, for some reason.  It's a backward-facing stoplight on a one-way street.  Any idea what it's there for (there's already a ped signal)?

http://goo.gl/maps/NBkbz (http://goo.gl/maps/NBkbz)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 1995hoo on May 20, 2013, 12:48:40 PM
That made me think of this one, for some reason.  It's a backward-facing stoplight on a one-way street.  Any idea what it's there for (there's already a ped signal)?

http://goo.gl/maps/NBkbz (http://goo.gl/maps/NBkbz)

Could it have a been a two-way street at some time in the past? I remember back in 1995 when Bill Clinton ordered the Secret Service to close Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House in the days after the Oklahoma City bombing, H Street NW (which had been a two-way street) was changed to one-way eastbound, but the old westbound traffic lights remained in place for quite a few years afterwards (maybe in the hope that someday the road would be reopened?). Someone unfamiliar with the history would have been mystified by the lights facing the wrong way.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: deathtopumpkins on May 20, 2013, 01:38:08 PM
I don't think that's the answer, based on the fact that there's only the one signal head stuck in the middle. I think it may be for the benefit of people trying to back out of those diagonal parking spaces, so they know when oncoming traffic has a green or not to help them find an opportunity to back out.
It may also be for something like street sweeping or snow plowing, where the sweeper/plow goes up the street the wrong way. There are a fair number of places around here that are plowed the wrong-way, usually with a caution sign at the beginning of the street.

Places do tend to leave up signage if changing a road to one-way though. Long before I even moved up here the town of Ipswich changed several streets to one-way, but left every single sign up for the opposite direction (stop signs, railroad crossing signs and gates, speed limit signs, etc.), and didn't even do that good of a job blacking out the old centerline.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on May 20, 2013, 02:16:48 PM
That made me think of this one, for some reason.  It's a backward-facing stoplight on a one-way street.  Any idea what it's there for (there's already a ped signal)?

http://goo.gl/maps/NBkbz (http://goo.gl/maps/NBkbz)

It may serve as an auxiliary signal for emergency vehicles, such as police vehicles, for example.

In various locations of Long Island, N.Y., one could find an individual traffic signal face a curb at an intersection. For the most part, it typically serves a pedestrian signal. Below, is an example of one from there.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Long+Island,+NY&hl=en&ll=40.724942,-73.722618&spn=0.002395,0.00567&sll=41.863137,-88.112347&sspn=0.009412,0.022681&oq=long+island&hnear=Long+Island&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.724908,-73.722735&panoid=oatUjwB7viELFQR8wgM2BA&cbp=12,77.96,,0,1.46
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on May 20, 2013, 03:13:02 PM
The one I linked to was like that back in the early 2000s, and the street had been one-way for a while (at least) before that.  Similar intersections in the area (such as here (http://goo.gl/maps/C5i35) and here (http://goo.gl/maps/3kyyE)) don't have that extra signal.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on May 20, 2013, 04:43:29 PM
It seems to me that it remains red 24/7, while the other traffic signals operate normally, since I traveled a couple of clicks on Google Map and observed the traffic pattern that was present.

That particular traffic signal must have a special function. Perhaps for emergency vehicles and pre-emption.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: sp_redelectric on May 20, 2013, 05:32:59 PM
I found this (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.041177,-76.171933&spn=0.001347,0.00284&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.041089,-76.171967&panoid=YrNlxZ55qrFXI3yTZQJlYw&cbp=12,246.24,,0,3.91) interesting signal setup in Syracuse last night.  I'm posting this because of the right-turn ramp having signal faces even though there's no conflicting movements.  Note the pole mounted signal face on the pole in the middle of the image, and another on the right side.  Since it's difficult to see the signals from above with Google's aerial imagery, here's (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=r564z98nk2s3&lvl=19.44&dir=345.96&sty=o&form=LMLTCC) a link to Bing's Birds-Eye view.  I was wondering if other people around here had any thoughts.

If I go down the block a little ways, there's a brick garage building that looks like it could have been a fire station at one time.  It looks like it's a private business now...  In Salem, OR there is a traffic signal facing the wrong direction on a one-way street for the main station; however the fire station also has a dedicated lane in front of it so fire trucks can turn west on what would otherwise be a one-way eastbound street without conflicting with traffic.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Central Avenue on June 03, 2013, 08:14:37 AM
I haven't managed to get a picture yet, since it's usually dark when I drive through, but...

Alum Creek Drive at Groveport Road in Obetz has a bizarre temporary setup for its left turn signals. Both directions are a protected-only left turn, but rather than use a three-section signal with red, yellow, and green arrows, they've used a 5-section doghouse with a tarp covering the yellow and green balls, alongside a "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" sign.

It still functions as if it's a normal three-section signal, but it's very sloppy looking.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: codyg1985 on June 03, 2013, 08:26:17 AM
I haven't managed to get a picture yet, since it's usually dark when I drive through, but...

Alum Creek Drive at Groveport Road in Obetz has a bizarre temporary setup for its left turn signals. Both directions are a protected-only left turn, but rather than use a three-section signal with red, yellow, and green arrows, they've used a 5-section doghouse with a tarp covering the yellow and green balls, alongside a "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" sign.

It still functions as if it's a normal three-section signal, but it's very sloppy looking.

Maybe the final signal will use those doghouse signal heads somewhere at that intersection and they didn't want to bother ordering any additional signal heads that won't be used on the project? That is odd, though.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: BamaZeus on June 03, 2013, 11:37:49 AM
A friend pointed out to me this old color video from 1939 NYC.  The video itself is great, perhaps minus the music which seems a little too "modern" to be in this video.  But, it has several great "finds" in it that could really go into several threads.

At :31 and :40 there are examples of the old-fashioned one-way sign.   Beginning at 1:04, several shots of the classic green and yellow city buses are included.

And, the kicker at 1:54 is a perfectly working 2-lamp traffic light in full color :)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on June 03, 2013, 02:28:57 PM
A friend pointed out to me this old color video from 1939 NYC.  The video itself is great, perhaps minus the music which seems a little too "modern" to be in this video.  But, it has several great "finds" in it that could really go into several threads.

At :31 and :40 there are examples of the old-fashioned one-way sign.   Beginning at 1:04, several shots of the classic green and yellow city buses are included.

And, the kicker at 1:54 is a perfectly working 2-lamp traffic light in full color :)

You didn't embed or link to any video.   :hmmm:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on June 03, 2013, 04:25:47 PM
A friend pointed out to me this old color video from 1939 NYC.  The video itself is great, perhaps minus the music which seems a little too "modern" to be in this video.  But, it has several great "finds" in it that could really go into several threads.

At :31 and :40 there are examples of the old-fashioned one-way sign.   Beginning at 1:04, several shots of the classic green and yellow city buses are included.

And, the kicker at 1:54 is a perfectly working 2-lamp traffic light in full color :)

You didn't embed or link to any video.   :hmmm:

This is the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WgqRN40TXrE

Definitely a lot of vintage New York City signage in the video, such as the porcelain "humpback" street sign and "ONE WAY" arrow sign.

The two-section, "Mercury traffic signal" is definitely a classic, and the statuette of the god Mercury on top of it is a nice addition.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: BamaZeus on June 04, 2013, 11:38:43 AM
A friend pointed out to me this old color video from 1939 NYC.  The video itself is great, perhaps minus the music which seems a little too "modern" to be in this video.  But, it has several great "finds" in it that could really go into several threads.

At :31 and :40 there are examples of the old-fashioned one-way sign.   Beginning at 1:04, several shots of the classic green and yellow city buses are included.

And, the kicker at 1:54 is a perfectly working 2-lamp traffic light in full color :)

You didn't embed or link to any video.   :hmmm:

Derp.  Silly me.  I think I got busy at work all of a sudden, then went back to the post an hour later and forgot to paste the link.   That is the correct video posted above.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on June 27, 2013, 10:14:28 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Elizabeth,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.665202,-74.214776&spn=0.002929,0.005284&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=eliza&t=h&hnear=Elizabeth,+Union,+New+Jersey&layer=c&cbll=40.665341,-74.214779&panoid=QsYHZjigOwJiWkvczmH1ig&cbp=12,81.56,,1,-7.5&z=18

Here is one that is common practice in New Jersey where in one direction the signal head is side mounted while in the other it is overhead.  Growing up in New Jersey as a kid I found this fascinating, but at the same time always wondered why this is done.  To me, having the side mounted signal head attached to the mast arm along with its counterpart would be more beneficial to the motorist.  I am guessing it has to do with the fact there are already two overhead signal heads already on two other mast arms behind the view of the link, but at least this one is mounted high.  I have seen many NJ intersections with signals have a  mostly have a low mounted head on the same pole where an overhead assembly exists for the opposite direction. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: codyg1985 on June 27, 2013, 10:15:59 AM
I love side-mounted signals that augment the overhead signals. It really helps when you are behind a 18 wheeler and it is hard to see the overhead signals.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on June 27, 2013, 10:43:59 AM
I love side-mounted signals that augment the overhead signals. It really helps when you are behind a 18 wheeler and it is hard to see the overhead signals.
I wish Florida would use them, as very few states do have them.  I was wondering if that is the reason why NJDOT does this.  It did cross my mind that may be the reason, but not sure.  I hate it when behind even a small truck at two or three car lengths, when it blocks your view of the signal and once the truck in front of me ran the stoplight and had to screech to a stop to avoid running the light.  Now with cameras waiting for you to slip, I think seeing the signal heads well in advance are a must!  That is one thing about the feds that I cannot figure out and that is why signal heads are not mandatory to be spaced out for safety considering CA, NJ, IL, and few other states have had side mounted heads for years showing them that they work well for the good of the motoring public.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on July 11, 2013, 11:36:43 AM
Heck, who needs two?

Here is GMSV during road construction; through traffic has only a signal head, which is solid green full-time.
Wichita, KS:
(http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/i410/kphoger/signal.png)

Latest street view here (https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.681294,-97.244301&spn=0.001756,0.001725&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.681496,-97.244377&panoid=EQzlxWH-Y8212stWf0durQ&cbp=12,9.48,,0,-4.06), which shows the solid green ball for the through movement.

This website (http://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com/lturns.htm), which was shared in the "Is this interchange classified as a SPUI" suggests that this stoplight setup is prohibited my MUTCD (ref: Row 6 "Free-flow T Interection" and notes).  Is that right?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: realjd on July 11, 2013, 12:41:59 PM
This website (http://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com/lturns.htm), which was shared in the "Is this interchange classified as a SPUI" suggests that this stoplight setup is prohibited my MUTCD (ref: Row 6 "Free-flow T Interection" and notes).  Is that right?

They do things like that regularly here in Florida at T intersections. I have no clue if it was recently banned. I hope not.

http://goo.gl/maps/cVu3C
http://goo.gl/maps/lpTBz

If you really want to talk about unusual signal uses, check out this intersection from Fort Myers that has a separate pair of signal heads for each lane:

http://goo.gl/maps/90TYk

EDIT: Fixed link for Fort Myers signal. The old link pointed in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: US71 on July 11, 2013, 12:47:45 PM
Van Buren, AR
http://goo.gl/maps/wKEWd
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kphoger on July 11, 2013, 12:54:41 PM
This website (http://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com/lturns.htm), which was shared in the "Is this interchange classified as a SPUI" suggests that this stoplight setup is prohibited my MUTCD (ref: Row 6 "Free-flow T Interection" and notes).  Is that right?

They do things like that regularly here in Florida at T intersections. I have no clue if it was recently banned. I hope not.

http://goo.gl/maps/cVu3C
http://goo.gl/maps/lpTBz

No, those are different.  They use arrows rather than green balls.  I think that's where the difference lies.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: realjd on July 11, 2013, 02:13:22 PM
This website (http://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com/lturns.htm), which was shared in the "Is this interchange classified as a SPUI" suggests that this stoplight setup is prohibited my MUTCD (ref: Row 6 "Free-flow T Interection" and notes).  Is that right?

They do things like that regularly here in Florida at T intersections. I have no clue if it was recently banned. I hope not.

http://goo.gl/maps/cVu3C
http://goo.gl/maps/lpTBz

No, those are different.  They use arrows rather than green balls.  I think that's where the difference lies.

I just checked the MUTCD. The only approved signal head for a thru movement that never conflicts is a signal segment green arrow. Good call.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 1995hoo on July 12, 2013, 10:51:40 AM
....

If you really want to talk about unusual signal uses, check out this intersection from Fort Myers that has a separate pair of signal heads for each lane:

http://goo.gl/maps/90TYk

EDIT: Fixed link for Fort Myers signal. The old link pointed in the wrong direction.

We pass through that one frequently when we visit our relatives down there (we usually stay at the beach and they live off Briarcliff Road). I've never been able to understand why that light was set up that way, especially given that the one on the right seems to operate on a different cycle from the others. Do you have any idea why it's like that? Even on our very first visit I quickly got in the habit of making sure to move left as I approach that light.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 1995hoo on July 12, 2013, 11:42:39 AM
BTW, speaking about the green arrow lights for the thru lanes that never get a red, we have this slightly odd one on Commerce Street in Springfield, Virginia. What makes it odd is the doghouse signal for the left-turn lane onto the ramp to I-495. In theory, the doghouse should be unnecessary because there should never be a red light for the thru lane there—either the green left-turn arrow is on when someone trips the signal or it's not on—so the signal ought to be a dedicated signal for the left-turn lane. But because they wanted a permissive green, they used the doghouse style. This seems like a spot where a flashing yellow arrow would be a better solution.

http://goo.gl/maps/hhoOG
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on July 12, 2013, 05:53:50 PM
^^  In Wisconsin, the common practice is to still use a 3-section RYG signal head for the through lanes, even though the red indication will never be used and the yellow used only if it ever goes into flash mode.  So it stays on as a solid green circular ball for most/all the time.  For the lest turn-movement it is either a a 3-section arrow for left on green arrow only movement or a 5-section tower if it is a permitted/protected movement, again with the red and yellow being as previously said.  Not sure if they changed that part to a FYA for any new/reconstructed instillations.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: realjd on July 12, 2013, 10:41:59 PM
....

If you really want to talk about unusual signal uses, check out this intersection from Fort Myers that has a separate pair of signal heads for each lane:

http://goo.gl/maps/90TYk

EDIT: Fixed link for Fort Myers signal. The old link pointed in the wrong direction.

We pass through that one frequently when we visit our relatives down there (we usually stay at the beach and they live off Briarcliff Road). I've never been able to understand why that light was set up that way, especially given that the one on the right seems to operate on a different cycle from the others. Do you have any idea why it's like that? Even on our very first visit I quickly got in the habit of making sure to move left as I approach that light.

The signal is set up that way to help with the merge on the bridge approach. Traffic gets absolutely horrendous during the tourist season.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: dfnva on July 14, 2013, 05:08:08 PM
BTW, speaking about the green arrow lights for the thru lanes that never get a red, we have this slightly odd one on Commerce Street in Springfield, Virginia. What makes it odd is the doghouse signal for the left-turn lane onto the ramp to I-495. In theory, the doghouse should be unnecessary because there should never be a red light for the thru lane there—either the green left-turn arrow is on when someone trips the signal or it's not on—so the signal ought to be a dedicated signal for the left-turn lane. But because they wanted a permissive green, they used the doghouse style. This seems like a spot where a flashing yellow arrow would be a better solution.

http://goo.gl/maps/hhoOG

Here is a similar situation just to the north in Annandale, VA -- http://goo.gl/maps/PGTjh -- a 4-light tower instead of a doghouse for protective/permissive. Not sure what the top light is in either the 4-light or 2-light signal. Presumably, both would be green all the time since traffic on Maple Place can only turn right on Annandale Rd.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on July 14, 2013, 05:15:46 PM
sure what the top light is in either the 4-light or 2-light signal. Presumably, both would be green all the time since traffic on Maple Place can only turn right on Annandale Rd.

It appears to be a yellow signal for if/when the signals go into flash mode.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: xcellntbuy on July 15, 2013, 05:09:10 AM
Below is a link to an article on the front page of the July 15, 2013 edition of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on the latest standards to provide hurricane-resistance to span-wire traffic signals that still predominate in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, as well as other parts of Florida.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-traffic-signals-retrofit-hurricanes-20130709,0,6351131.story
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: dfnva on July 15, 2013, 08:43:24 PM
Below is a link to an article on the front page of the July 15, 2013 edition of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on the latest standards to provide hurricane-resistance to span-wire traffic signals that still predominate in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, as well as other parts of Florida.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-traffic-signals-retrofit-hurricanes-20130709,0,6351131.story

Very interesting. I do find it interesting that a wind and hurricane-prone state like Florida (as well as others in the Southeast) still install span-wire signals while here in Virginia, most new installations are mast arms, which, over the past 20 years, have replaced a great majority of older span wire installations.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: realjd on July 16, 2013, 02:33:06 PM
Below is a link to an article on the front page of the July 15, 2013 edition of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on the latest standards to provide hurricane-resistance to span-wire traffic signals that still predominate in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, as well as other parts of Florida.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-traffic-signals-retrofit-hurricanes-20130709,0,6351131.story

Here's a link to a copy of the article that isn't behind a paywall: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/fl-traffic-signals-retrofit-hurricanes-20130709,0,6417825.story
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on July 20, 2013, 03:50:21 AM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/9120682662/in/photostream/
This signal looks a little strange with the heads mounted in different positions on the mast arm.  Obviously the contractor was in a hurry and does not care about looks!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on July 26, 2013, 09:25:22 PM
This two-section (red and green) pedestrian signal from the Ruleta company still remains in existence in the city of New York. It is in Central Park, and it is likely the last of its kind there. I visited it in person last week.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/SDC15886_zpsf3518e42.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/SDC15886_zpsf3518e42.jpg.html)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/SDC15885_zps1ddb9925.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/SDC15885_zps1ddb9925.jpg.html)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/SDC15884_zpsff655f54.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/SDC15884_zpsff655f54.jpg.html)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/SDC15892_zps3933a274.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/SDC15892_zps3933a274.jpg.html)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/SDC15891_zpscca91d1f.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/SDC15891_zpscca91d1f.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: brickbuilder711 on July 31, 2013, 04:03:23 AM
Below is a link to an article on the front page of the July 15, 2013 edition of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on the latest standards to provide hurricane-resistance to span-wire traffic signals that still predominate in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, as well as other parts of Florida.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-traffic-signals-retrofit-hurricanes-20130709,0,6351131.story

Here's a link to a copy of the article that isn't behind a paywall: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/fl-traffic-signals-retrofit-hurricanes-20130709,0,6417825.story

Interesting find. Meanwhile along 8th street and Crandon Blvd in Miami according to Street View looks like Miami-Dade has already done this retrofit to those intersections.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: froggie on August 01, 2013, 02:42:37 AM
Jumping in a bit late here...regarding overhead and side-mounted signals, I come from a state that does both extensively (Minnesota).  Really helps with visibility and agree that it should be emulated more across the country.

Regarding span-wire signals, it's not just Florida....the southeastern states as a general rule use span-wire signals as a standard...Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina....all states that fall in the "hurricane belt" as well.  Though Mississippi has *SLOWLY* started to come around to mast-arm signals, at least along the Gulf Coast and in a few cities (namely Hattiesburg....Meridian has long had mast-arm signals).  Presumably, span-wire is cheaper to install.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on September 29, 2013, 07:44:11 PM
I was wondering, is there any other state that uses this setup for left turn signals

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=33.71364,-78.899787&spn=0.000967,0.001206&t=h&z=20&vpsrc=6&cbll=33.713758,-78.89984&panoid=zK0BGuW0GZPWsPopsapRDQ&cbp=12,78.3,,2,-5&ei=XbhIUs-hJ9L_xQGV6YG4Cg&pw=2

South Carolina uses them extensively, and I've heard/seen them used in parts of Maryland and Texas. Any other place where they are used?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kj3400 on September 30, 2013, 03:47:45 AM
I was wondering, is there any other state that uses this setup for left turn signals

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=33.71364,-78.899787&spn=0.000967,0.001206&t=h&z=20&vpsrc=6&cbll=33.713758,-78.89984&panoid=zK0BGuW0GZPWsPopsapRDQ&cbp=12,78.3,,2,-5&ei=XbhIUs-hJ9L_xQGV6YG4Cg&pw=2

South Carolina uses them extensively, and I've heard/seen them used in parts of Maryland and Texas. Any other place where they are used?

Maryland's is more like http://goo.gl/maps/Z4y2P
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: US71 on September 30, 2013, 09:33:51 AM
I was wondering, is there any other state that uses this setup for left turn signals

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=33.71364,-78.899787&spn=0.000967,0.001206&t=h&z=20&vpsrc=6&cbll=33.713758,-78.89984&panoid=zK0BGuW0GZPWsPopsapRDQ&cbp=12,78.3,,2,-5&ei=XbhIUs-hJ9L_xQGV6YG4Cg&pw=2

South Carolina uses them extensively, and I've heard/seen them used in parts of Maryland and Texas. Any other place where they are used?

I've seen that once or twice in Louisiana along US 80.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mapman1071 on September 30, 2013, 02:22:50 PM
This two-section (red and green) pedestrian signal from the Ruleta company still remains in existence in the city of New York. It is in Central Park, and it is likely the last of its kind there. I visited it in person last week.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/SDC15886_zpsf3518e42.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/SDC15886_zpsf3518e42.jpg.html)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/SDC15885_zps1ddb9925.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/SDC15885_zps1ddb9925.jpg.html)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/SDC15884_zpsff655f54.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/SDC15884_zpsff655f54.jpg.html)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/SDC15892_zps3933a274.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/SDC15892_zps3933a274.jpg.html)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/SDC15891_zpscca91d1f.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/SDC15891_zpscca91d1f.jpg.html)

You can also find these signals under the El along Liberty Avenue In Ozone Park East of Rockaway Blvd and at Liberty Avenue & 133rd Street.
Also along Shore Front Parkway In The Rockaway's (They may or may not be standing due to Sandy damage.)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on September 30, 2013, 10:29:59 PM
You can also find these signals under the El along Liberty Avenue In Ozone Park East of Rockaway Blvd and at Liberty Avenue & 133rd Street.
Also along Shore Front Parkway In The Rockaway's (They may or may not be standing due to Sandy damage.)
Shore Front Pkwy. signals were gone years ago.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: getemngo on October 01, 2013, 09:56:42 PM
Today I came across this at the end of an exit ramp and took a crappy cell phone photo (eastbound I-96 at exit 38, to be specific).

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-0WEL6QEd3ic/Ukt4tRm6xDI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/6blgmfGzVtM/s800/traffic%2520light%25202.jpg)

There are indeed 4 lanes: a left turn lane, a left/thru lane, and two right turn lanes. It's a split phase signal 24 hours a day, so everything you see gets a green at the same time, then opposing traffic has a green. I'm pretty sure the sign on the right lights up with "NO TURN ON RED" when opposing traffic has a green - those pop up in Michigan from time to time.

So there's one signal for each lane, and all the turn movements are covered. I understand what they were trying for, but many things about it look incredibly... off.


Are any of these, or anything else, MUTCD violations?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on October 01, 2013, 10:56:38 PM
^^ The way you describe the intersection, the doghouse signal should be a 4-section signal instead - R-Y-G-GA.  No need for a redundant yellow arrow on a split phase. 

The part I am not clear on is whether the far left signal satisfies the 2-primary-signal requirement with the adjacent signal.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alex4897 on October 02, 2013, 10:13:16 PM
How not to use a doghouse signal, by DelDOT.
DE 1 south offramp to DE 299.  I believe they meant to use an upside down T signal here, which'd be practically useless also considering nearly nobody is going to get off then get back on the freeway. (barring some disaster within the interchange or something)

https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.454728,-75.676924&spn=0.000954,0.002064&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=39.454728,-75.676924&panoid=zWqarsSk-RxUjuW-LEezdQ&cbp=12,163.82,,0,1.46 (https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.454728,-75.676924&spn=0.000954,0.002064&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=39.454728,-75.676924&panoid=zWqarsSk-RxUjuW-LEezdQ&cbp=12,163.82,,0,1.46)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on October 06, 2013, 03:29:13 AM
You can also find these signals under the El along Liberty Avenue In Ozone Park East of Rockaway Blvd and at Liberty Avenue & 133rd Street.
Also along Shore Front Parkway In The Rockaway's (They may or may not be standing due to Sandy damage.)


The last handful of survivors that were in existence in certain areas of Queens, such as Richmond Hill and the Rockaways, retired from useful service in the late 2000s. Around 2007 or so. What replaced them were mainly 8" three-section traffic signals from General Traffic Equipment, and the ones in the Far Rockaways didn't survive tropical storm Sandy.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NYhwyfan on October 07, 2013, 04:26:14 PM
^^ The way you describe the intersection, the doghouse signal should be a 4-section signal instead - R-Y-G-GA.  No need for a redundant yellow arrow on a split phase. 

The part I am not clear on is whether the far left signal satisfies the 2-primary-signal requirement with the adjacent signal.

I agree that a four-section would have been sufficient, however maybe their reasoning was concern for signal height
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on October 07, 2013, 05:10:48 PM
^^ The way you describe the intersection, the doghouse signal should be a 4-section signal instead - R-Y-G-GA.  No need for a redundant yellow arrow on a split phase. 

The part I am not clear on is whether the far left signal satisfies the 2-primary-signal requirement with the adjacent signal.

I agree that a four-section would have been sufficient, however maybe their reasoning was concern for signal height
If clearance was a concern, a permissible signal arrangement can be an "inverted T" with a red on top, yellow in the middle, and the bottom row having 2 signal heads, a green left arrow and a green ball, with the bottom row being centered with the center of the red and yellow balls.

legal arrangements: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/fig4d_11_longdesc.htm
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on December 30, 2013, 10:38:19 PM
Falling signal! https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Jersey+City,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.716657,-74.151099&spn=0.001268,0.00191&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.494959,15.644531&oq=jers&t=h&hnear=Jersey+City,+Hudson,+New+Jersey&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.716657,-74.151099&panoid=L5b_Dw2Gxfq6sgEIonm5AA&cbp=12,289.12,,0,0
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 1 on December 30, 2013, 10:47:15 PM
Falling signal! https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Jersey+City,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.716657,-74.151099&spn=0.001268,0.00191&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.494959,15.644531&oq=jers&t=h&hnear=Jersey+City,+Hudson,+New+Jersey&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.716657,-74.151099&panoid=L5b_Dw2Gxfq6sgEIonm5AA&cbp=12,289.12,,0,0

Image date: August 2012.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on December 31, 2013, 09:16:04 AM
Falling signal! https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Jersey+City,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.716657,-74.151099&spn=0.001268,0.00191&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.494959,15.644531&oq=jers&t=h&hnear=Jersey+City,+Hudson,+New+Jersey&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.716657,-74.151099&panoid=L5b_Dw2Gxfq6sgEIonm5AA&cbp=12,289.12,,0,0

That and one of the telephone poles across the street looks to be in a precarious position.

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on December 31, 2013, 11:36:55 AM
Signal head isn't falling as much as it's rotated downward. Looks like an Astro-Brac wasn't tightened enough on the mastarm.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mr. Matté on December 31, 2013, 12:14:58 PM
Falling signal! https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Jersey+City,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.716657,-74.151099&spn=0.001268,0.00191&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.494959,15.644531&oq=jers&t=h&hnear=Jersey+City,+Hudson,+New+Jersey&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.716657,-74.151099&panoid=L5b_Dw2Gxfq6sgEIonm5AA&cbp=12,289.12,,0,0
Image date: August 2012.

I'll bite, what does that date have to do with this signal? If you're referring to one of the hurricanes, Irene was August 2011 and Sandy was October 2012.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 1 on December 31, 2013, 12:23:52 PM
Falling signal! https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Jersey+City,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.716657,-74.151099&spn=0.001268,0.00191&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.494959,15.644531&oq=jers&t=h&hnear=Jersey+City,+Hudson,+New+Jersey&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.716657,-74.151099&panoid=L5b_Dw2Gxfq6sgEIonm5AA&cbp=12,289.12,,0,0
Image date: August 2012.

I'll bite, what does that date have to do with this signal? If you're referring to one of the hurricanes, Irene was August 2011 and Sandy was October 2012.

I meant it's not current. It has probably been fixed by now.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on December 31, 2013, 01:15:09 PM
No shit, Sherlock?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: DaBigE on December 31, 2013, 02:29:18 PM
No shit, Sherlock?

Dig deeper, Watson.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on December 31, 2013, 03:22:35 PM
One of the last Mercury signals in service on 5th Av. in Manhattan. Circa 1968. To the left in the photograph shows merely one portion of the well-known 5th Av. Donald Deskey twin-lamp fixture with the attachment for a three-section traffic signal, in which would be installed sooner or later at this time.

 (http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/tumblr_mhglifyPQs1qzqju7o1_1280_zpscff84f53.jpg) (http://s1013.photobucket.com/user/Steven197981/media/tumblr_mhglifyPQs1qzqju7o1_1280_zpscff84f53.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on January 01, 2014, 11:42:52 PM
I'm sure a similar setup has popped up in this thread already:

http://goo.gl/4R5xvL

I don't live in CO Springs, but my grandparents do and when I visit them, all visible lights have greens/arrows at once (split phase right?). I'm not sure why 2 doghouses are necessary. Maybe just a 3-head arrow setup? If lets say both directions had greens at once, would this lead to a 2-left turn-yield to oncoming vehicles setup, which I believe to be against MUTCD regulations? I honestly have no idea, I just thought it was an odd setup of lights the few times we went through it.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on January 04, 2014, 02:49:53 PM
I'm sure a similar setup has popped up in this thread already:

http://goo.gl/4R5xvL

I don't live in CO Springs, but my grandparents do and when I visit them, all visible lights have greens/arrows at once (split phase right?). I'm not sure why 2 doghouses are necessary. Maybe just a 3-head arrow setup? If lets say both directions had greens at once, would this lead to a 2-left turn-yield to oncoming vehicles setup, which I believe to be against MUTCD regulations? I honestly have no idea, I just thought it was an odd setup of lights the few times we went through it.

Yes, you're describing a split phase operation.

These two turn lanes are not option lanes, so the doghouses are completely unnecessary.

Two left turn lanes with permitted lefts (yield to oncoming vehicles) isn't unheard of, and isn't against the MUTCD to my knowledge. However, it's not really a recommended practice and is usually avoided.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on January 04, 2014, 05:26:11 PM

Two left turn lanes with permitted lefts (yield to oncoming vehicles) isn't unheard of, and isn't against the MUTCD to my knowledge. However, it's not really a recommended practice and is usually avoided.
There are at least two in my area. The first of these is a FYA: http://goo.gl/maps/f0RYI

Since there is a T-intersection and thus no protected left turn by opposing traffic, nor is the signal ever operated in protected left-only mode, the FYAs are unnecessary. There were previously doghouse signal heads for each turn lane. This is on a busy enough road that the two-lane, permissive left turn makes me uneasy.

The second of these was converted from a protected-only to a FRA. http://goo.gl/maps/yok27
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mdcastle on January 04, 2014, 05:59:52 PM
Those are starting to show up on new installations in Minnesota too, Broadway at I-35 in Forest Lake being one example.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Revive 755 on January 04, 2014, 06:23:39 PM
Two left turn lanes with permitted lefts (yield to oncoming vehicles) isn't unheard of, and isn't against the MUTCD to my knowledge. However, it's not really a recommended practice and is usually avoided.

There was a thread listing locations for those a while back. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9240.0)

I'm beginning to wonder if having permissive double lefts is always problematic (particularly at T-intersections or one-way streets), or if automatically going to protected-only phasing for double lefts is overkill and there should be a bit more study before making the decision.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on January 06, 2014, 02:51:54 AM
From the lists I've read, it appears that Colorado likes the permissive double left. Interesting. I'd imagine if you suggested that here in Washington you would be promptly laughed at and then told to bugger off, citing insanity. Seriously, they just rebuilt a section of roadway near my house, upgraded from two to five, 12-foot lanes, outside lanes 14 feet with a flush median in the center. As usual for old Pierce County, the two new lights installed were one-lane protected-only lefts. The Pierce County site indicated that turn lights are only used when the VPH (vehicle per hour) rate is over something like 240. I drive this road every single day and there is no way in hell it's near 240 turning vehicles. And that number is only to suggest when a turn light should be considered, not necessarily a protected-only light.

Nearby however, the county replaced a signal with an FYA. Weird they did not install a guide indicating what to do on a flashing yellow arrow. Best of luck to the populace I guess.

(http://i.imgur.com/8lX0RLS.png)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on January 06, 2014, 12:13:17 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=los+angeles&ll=34.152226,-118.465903&spn=0.000002,0.00066&hnear=Los+Angeles,+Los+Angeles+County,+California&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.152226,-118.466159&panoid=HcDTs1rN8boNcGXL4BhwsQ&cbp=12,7.46,,2,-5.33

While fiddling around with GSV, I found this interesting traffic light in Los Angeles near Sepulveda and Ventura, the 5 section tower on the mast arm has the red arrow pointing right, but the green arrow pointing left. I understand why this signal is how it is, but I haven't seen anything like it.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alps on January 06, 2014, 06:48:10 PM
From the lists I've read, it appears that Colorado likes the permissive double left. Interesting. I'd imagine if you suggested that here in Washington you would be promptly laughed at and then told to bugger off, citing insanity. Seriously, they just rebuilt a section of roadway near my house, upgraded from two to five, 12-foot lanes, outside lanes 14 feet with a flush median in the center. As usual for old Pierce County, the two new lights installed were one-lane protected-only lefts. The Pierce County site indicated that turn lights are only used when the VPH (vehicle per hour) rate is over something like 240. I drive this road every single day and there is no way in hell it's near 240 turning vehicles. And that number is only to suggest when a turn light should be considered, not necessarily a protected-only light.
240 vehicles is one every 15 seconds. It only seems like a lot until you stand out there and realize that's only 4 cars during a 60 second cycle.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on January 20, 2014, 06:21:04 AM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=los+angeles&ll=34.152226,-118.465903&spn=0.000002,0.00066&hnear=Los+Angeles,+Los+Angeles+County,+California&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.152226,-118.466159&panoid=HcDTs1rN8boNcGXL4BhwsQ&cbp=12,7.46,,2,-5.33

While fiddling around with GSV, I found this interesting traffic light in Los Angeles near Sepulveda and Ventura, the 5 section tower on the mast arm has the red arrow pointing right, but the green arrow pointing left. I understand why this signal is how it is, but I haven't seen anything like it.

The right red arrow seems superfluous.  The no turn on red sign is very clearly posted.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on January 20, 2014, 07:33:26 AM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=los+angeles&ll=34.152226,-118.465903&spn=0.000002,0.00066&hnear=Los+Angeles,+Los+Angeles+County,+California&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.152226,-118.466159&panoid=HcDTs1rN8boNcGXL4BhwsQ&cbp=12,7.46,,2,-5.33

While fiddling around with GSV, I found this interesting traffic light in Los Angeles near Sepulveda and Ventura, the 5 section tower on the mast arm has the red arrow pointing right, but the green arrow pointing left. I understand why this signal is how it is, but I haven't seen anything like it.

The right red arrow seems superfluous.  The no turn on red sign is very clearly posted.
Not necessarily.  That depends on how California defines red arrows (if they do at all, some states have no definition of what a red arrow means).  In some states, a red arrow is no different than a red ball; where turns are permittied against a red arrow.  In other states, a red arrow means you are not permittied to turn.  I don't know offhand where California stands in regards to red arrows (and no, I'm not going to bother looking it up).  For the record, I personally feel that a red arrow should mean that one isn't permitted to turn.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: myosh_tino on January 20, 2014, 11:52:09 AM
Not necessarily.  That depends on how California defines red arrows (if they do at all, some states have no definition of what a red arrow means).
They do.  A red arrow means you're not permitted to turn until you get a green light or green arrow.

Before the advent of the red arrows, California used signals with red and yellow balls and a green arrow supplemented with a "LEFT OR U-TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" sign posted below the signal.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Indyroads on January 20, 2014, 04:47:16 PM
Not necessarily.  That depends on how California defines red arrows (if they do at all, some states have no definition of what a red arrow means).
They do.  A red arrow means you're not permitted to turn until you get a green light or green arrow.

Before the advent of the red arrows, California used signals with red and yellow balls and a green arrow supplemented with a "LEFT OR U-TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" sign posted below the signal.

Also before the advent of the red and yellow arrows on California roads Caltrans and City /County DOT's  used programmable signals (like the 3M programmable signals or louvers to prevent the wrong lane from seeing the signal face

quoting ~S
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on January 20, 2014, 05:32:04 PM
Here is an installation from back near my former residence in Ramona CA, it was installed around 1999 and I always thought, in this approach to be overkill.  Straight ahead is a private residential driveway, you only have 2 lanes, one going only right, one going only left.  The signal on the far left of the mast arm is just to indicate that you have full permitted left turning.

This is Warnock Road approaching San Vincente, 2/3 of the volume goes right after using the Dye/Warnock combination to bypass Ramona to get to the large San Diego Country Estates subdivision, about 4 miles to the right.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=ramona+ca&ll=33.014832,-116.866896&spn=0.00093,0.001321&hnear=Ramona,+San+Diego+County,+California&gl=us&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=33.014832,-116.866777&panoid=ji52PUWIszevfdSALrd03Q&cbp=12,112.53,,0,0
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: FreewayDan on January 20, 2014, 10:21:33 PM
Not necessarily.  That depends on how California defines red arrows (if they do at all, some states have no definition of what a red arrow means).
They do.  A red arrow means you're not permitted to turn until you get a green light or green arrow.

Before the advent of the red arrows, California used signals with red and yellow balls and a green arrow supplemented with a "LEFT OR U-TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" sign posted below the signal.

Also before the advent of the red and yellow arrows on California roads Caltrans and City /County DOT's  used programmable signals (like the 3M programmable signals or louvers to prevent the wrong lane from seeing the signal face

quoting ~S

An example of left turn signals in West Covina, CA that use a 3M programmable signal at the end of the mast and a 8-8-12 louver signal at the corner:
http://goo.gl/maps/GnDfB

However, there's an intersection in Bay Point, CA, that uses a McCain programmable signal at the end of the mast and a louver signal at the corner (no red arrows there):
http://goo.gl/maps/Xj2ft
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on January 21, 2014, 04:53:47 PM
This is a new signal installation in Puyallup, Wash. Don't know exactly why there is a signal facing the wrong way. I wonder if it's permanent or some sort of transit signal. You would think if it was permanent they would make sure it doesn't block the street blade.

Also, Puyallup's first FYAs (they always used doghouses). FYI, the road is being widened to 5 lanes from 4: http://goo.gl/szgBfp.

They just built a massive warehouse due west of the signal. Puyallup and neighbouring Fife seem to be doing lots of work in preperation for the WA SR 167 extension: http://goo.gl/gxU6Cn

(http://i.imgur.com/8lcZfFI.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NE2 on January 21, 2014, 04:56:00 PM
Puyallup and neighbouring Fife seem to be doing lots of work in preperation for the WA SR 167 extension: http://goo.gl/gxU6Cn
I'm confused. Why would you use the Goog as a URL shortener? It makes me think it's a link to Google Maps.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on January 21, 2014, 05:23:32 PM
^^ A signal like that is used where approaching traffic may not be able to see the main signals at design speed.  They are most common where there is a horizontal curve at or near the intersection.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on January 21, 2014, 05:42:14 PM
Puyallup and neighbouring Fife seem to be doing lots of work in preperation for the WA SR 167 extension: http://goo.gl/gxU6Cn
I'm confused. Why would you use the Goog as a URL shortener? It makes me think it's a link to Google Maps.

I use Goo.gl because, as long as I'm logged in to my Google Account, I can keep track of my shortened links. That way in case they break (which I believe they do), I can repair it rather easily.

^^ A signal like that is used where approaching traffic may not be able to see the main signals at design speed.  They are most common where there is a horizontal curve at or near the intersection.

 :pan: I think you know my city better than me.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on January 21, 2014, 06:31:16 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=los+angeles&ll=34.00362,-118.239155&spn=0.00206,0.002411&hnear=Los+Angeles,+Los+Angeles+County,+California&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=34.003716,-118.239163&panoid=MZ21LrAfDBwO_U7K9UBepA&cbp=12,13.15,,3,-5.19

Here's another one of California's Red Ball - Red Arrow traffic lights. This one is on Alameda Street in Los Angeles. There are about three altogether on Alameda between 41st and 55th Streets.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Joe The Dragon on January 26, 2014, 07:46:22 PM
very odd why not build that as a dual one way pair?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on January 26, 2014, 10:53:11 PM
Not necessarily.  That depends on how California defines red arrows (if they do at all, some states have no definition of what a red arrow means).
They do.  A red arrow means you're not permitted to turn until you get a green light or green arrow.

Before the advent of the red arrows, California used signals with red and yellow balls and a green arrow supplemented with a "LEFT OR U-TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" sign posted below the signal.

As stated, the red right arrow indicates no right turn while the arrow is lit.  The no turn on red sign also indicates no turn on red.  Yet I'm still perplexed as to why both are signed.  It would be simpler to have a standard red-yellow-green with a no turn on red sign, why create a new light that is weird and would confuse most drivers and is probably not compliant with the MUTCD outside of California.

Is this a new standard in California?  I grew up in California, and while I was living there, (up until 12 years ago) I never saw a traffic signal like this.  The only thing that may make sense is to have a light that prohibits a right turn on red for part of the red through cycle*, but allows it for the other part of the red cycle.
Yet, I don't believe that the signal on Sepulveda is timed that way. 


* Imagine the following scenario (traffic signal timing) [Ignoring yellow light and all red phases]

1) N-S street has a green light.  E-W street has a red light.
2) N-S street has a red light.  E-W street has a red light.  E-W street shows a green arrow to allow left turns from E-W to N-S.  In California, you'd typically see a corresponding green right turn arrow from N-S to E-W provided that there is a right turn only lane and provided No U-turns are allowed on the E-W.  Let's assume that U-turns are allowed here.
3) E-W street has a green light.

Now let's say that we would like to permit a right turn from N-S to E-W during phase 2 (since the only possible conflict is with U-turns) but disallow the right turn during phase 3.  The only way I've seen currently that provides for this set-up are electronic "No turn on red signs" that light up during phase 3, but not during phase 2.  Perhaps this new signal has the red right arrow only lit up during phase 3, but not during phase 2, thereby allowing for a right turn during phase 2 but not during phase 3.  This would brilliantly solve the problem to allow the right turn during part of the phase, without having to wire a special sign, because the message of being allowed to turn is conveyed in the signal itself.

[Yet that can't be the case here because the No turn on red sign would still prohibit the turn during phase 2.]

If we had a similar light sequence, but U-turns were prohibited, the standard way of allowing for the right turn in phase 2, but prohibiting it in phase 3, would be to have a green right arrow during phase 2 only and a very clear "No turn on red sign."

For the light at Alameda and Vernon, part of the problem is having two parallel roads (Big Alameda and little Alameda) so close together.  I don't know the sequencing here, but perhaps they allow Big Alameda to go straight and right, while Little Alameda has a red, allow both Alamedas to go straight and disallow all turns, and then allow LIttle Alameda to go straight and right while Big Alameda had a red.  The red arrow might indicate when the right turn can't be made and may be lit during part of the green phase as well.

If anyone frequents these corners, please let us know the timing and let us know if our theories are off-base.

 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on January 26, 2014, 11:30:13 PM
very odd why not build that as a dual one way pair?

In California, through many streets that follow railroad corridors, you'd see the railroad being placed in the median and a dual one way pair as you suggest.  (See Exposition Blvd near USC, for example).

In other corridors, you have a street that is up against a railroad on one side only.  See Valley Blvd in the City of Industry as an example of that.  In that case, you'd have minor streets that are south of the railroad end at Valley and minor streets north of the railroad end at a cul de sac.

In other corridors, you may have a situation similar to Valley Blvd, but instead of ending at cul-de-sacs, the streets to the north end at a minor street that is parallel to the railroad.  This minor street is typically not as wide as the major street and often is not continuous for more than a few blocks.  This minor street often has the same name as the big street on the other side of the railroad, because there are no addresses along the rail ROW.  The even numbers are south of the railroad on the main street and the odd numbers are north of the railroad on the minor street.  In many cases, they are nicknamed "Big San Fernando" or "Little San Fernando" to distinguish the streets.  You can see this along San Fernando Road in Sun Valley.  This is also the case along this stretch of Alameda.  There is an active railway that was recently undergrounded along this stretch (Alameda Corridor Project, express freight railway to the Harbor), but the street layout is similar to the way it was when the railroad was at grade.  Since little Alameda is much narrower than big Alameda, this is not a good place for a one-way pair, keep the majority of the traffic on big Alameda.

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on February 03, 2014, 10:30:59 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampstead+nc&ll=34.310459,-77.778116&spn=0.001026,0.001206&hnear=Hampstead,+Pender,+North+Carolina&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=34.310595,-77.777956&panoid=cW8iRCzh44I53XLu8Eazfg&cbp=12,170,,3,-5.26

Here is an interesting find in Wilmington, NC, a flashing yellow arrow signal with the arrow pointing up instead of the typical left. There are a couple more signals like this north of where US 17 bypasses Wilmington. I'm curious if those signals have the red arrow or the red ball.

Also, it is interesting to note that there are pole-mounted signals, which I have never seen in North Carolina.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on February 04, 2014, 10:04:45 AM
I noticed that just a block up, there is another odd-looking FYA intersection.  Would this be an "inverted" jug handle??

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampstead+nc&ll=34.312007,-77.776152&spn=0.00138,0.00327&hnear=Hampstead,+Pender,+North+Carolina&t=h&z=19
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 10:23:04 AM
I noticed that just a block up, there is another odd-looking FYA intersection.  Would this be an "inverted" jug handle??

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampstead+nc&ll=34.312007,-77.776152&spn=0.00138,0.00327&hnear=Hampstead,+Pender,+North+Carolina&t=h&z=19

More like a Michigan Left with extra room for large vehicles to turn.  https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.922838,-86.147967&spn=0.001133,0.002642&t=h&z=19
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2014, 11:00:11 AM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampstead+nc&ll=34.310459,-77.778116&spn=0.001026,0.001206&hnear=Hampstead,+Pender,+North+Carolina&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=34.310595,-77.777956&panoid=cW8iRCzh44I53XLu8Eazfg&cbp=12,170,,3,-5.26

Here is an interesting find in Wilmington, NC, a flashing yellow arrow signal with the arrow pointing up instead of the typical left. There are a couple more signals like this north of where US 17 bypasses Wilmington. I'm curious if those signals have the red arrow or the red ball.

Also, it is interesting to note that there are pole-mounted signals, which I have never seen in North Carolina.

When zoomed out, based on the position of the turn lane and traffic light, I see why the arrow is straight up. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on February 11, 2014, 05:23:59 PM
Here is an interesting traffic light setup in Darlington, SC

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=darlington+sc&ll=34.303721,-79.872031&spn=0.000513,0.000603&hnear=Darlington,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.303721,-79.872031&panoid=Re-w7RuhCj2yifYxzoRA-w&cbp=12,74.71,,2,-5.03
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on February 12, 2014, 09:52:44 AM
Here is an interesting traffic light setup in Darlington, SC

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=darlington+sc&ll=34.303721,-79.872031&spn=0.000513,0.000603&hnear=Darlington,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.303721,-79.872031&panoid=Re-w7RuhCj2yifYxzoRA-w&cbp=12,74.71,,2,-5.03

What's up with the double reds on each signal?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alex4897 on February 12, 2014, 03:25:09 PM
Here is an interesting traffic light setup in Darlington, SC

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=darlington+sc&ll=34.303721,-79.872031&spn=0.000513,0.000603&hnear=Darlington,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.303721,-79.872031&panoid=Re-w7RuhCj2yifYxzoRA-w&cbp=12,74.71,,2,-5.03

What's up with the double reds on each signal?

Emphasis?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on February 12, 2014, 04:32:48 PM
Here is an interesting traffic light setup in Darlington, SC

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=darlington+sc&ll=34.303721,-79.872031&spn=0.000513,0.000603&hnear=Darlington,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.303721,-79.872031&panoid=Re-w7RuhCj2yifYxzoRA-w&cbp=12,74.71,,2,-5.03

What's up with the double reds on each signal?

Emphasis?

Damn near same setup in Old Town, Tacoma, WA on Ruston Way @ McCarver:

Hard to tell because it's those ridiculous angled-signals but it has a double red setup. If emphasis is the issue, not quite sure why the emphasis. If you click the image it takes you to the street view, where you can see it's perpendicular to a level crossing (BNSF railway). Maybe that's the reason?

(http://i.imgur.com/sgw3yju.png) (http://goo.gl/Q3NO8S)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on February 12, 2014, 04:35:31 PM
Here is an interesting traffic light setup in Darlington, SC

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=darlington+sc&ll=34.303721,-79.872031&spn=0.000513,0.000603&hnear=Darlington,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.303721,-79.872031&panoid=Re-w7RuhCj2yifYxzoRA-w&cbp=12,74.71,,2,-5.03

What's up with the double reds on each signal?

Emphasis?

Well, in South Carolina, the state uses double-red left turn signals for all single-lane protected left turns. It looks like both lanes don't proceed at the same time at this intersection. A similar situation occurs at the light immediately next to this intersection, although those lights are 3-sections
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on February 13, 2014, 06:13:46 PM
Here is another interesting find in San Francisco at the intersection of Market Street and Eureka.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=1740+Cesar+Chavez+St,+San+Francisco,+San+Francisco+County,+California+94124&hl=en&ll=37.7618,-122.438359&spn=0.000491,0.000603&geocode=FR8GQAIdL2q0-A&hnear=1740+Cesar+Chavez+St,+San+Francisco,+San+Francisco+County,+California+94124&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=37.761711,-122.43835&panoid=EHv8GQdILZJlCZmTsobWGA&cbp=12,325.02,,3,-1.11
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on February 20, 2014, 07:29:33 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ontario,+CA/@34.06861,-117.593237,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBe2JHavR_GPTV5ZoHCZfeg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x80c334dbeadd627b:0x703e35af9583190  An interesting signal assembly on Archibald Avenue at the I-10 SPUI in Ontario, CA.  I thought I would share this as for CA this is a rarity to not have the typical Caltrans mast arms, but I guess because this is a Single Point Urban Interchange to be able to mount the signal heads they had to do something completely different.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on February 20, 2014, 10:44:20 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ontario,+CA/@34.06861,-117.593237,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBe2JHavR_GPTV5ZoHCZfeg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x80c334dbeadd627b:0x703e35af9583190  An interesting signal assembly on Archibald Avenue at the I-10 SPUI in Ontario, CA.  I thought I would share this as for CA this is a rarity to not have the typical Caltrans mast arms, but I guess because this is a Single Point Urban Interchange to be able to mount the signal heads they had to do something completely different.

I find that interchange most interesting because of the massive distance between the 10 East to Archibald South exit slip lane and the SPUI interchange. Seems like a second set of stop lines might be in order for traffic going south on Archibald, like when the 215 North meets Eucalyptus near March: http://goo.gl/IRrKcL
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 21, 2014, 08:50:28 AM
http://goo.gl/maps/D8Gao

Here's a more interesting California traffic light assembly for a SPUI.  Also, the sign gantries leading up to the intersection are through Warren Trusses on Taylor St.  Conventional Caltrans sign bridges are Pratt trusses.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on February 23, 2014, 03:01:27 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ontario,+CA/@34.06861,-117.593237,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBe2JHavR_GPTV5ZoHCZfeg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x80c334dbeadd627b:0x703e35af9583190  An interesting signal assembly on Archibald Avenue at the I-10 SPUI in Ontario, CA.  I thought I would share this as for CA this is a rarity to not have the typical Caltrans mast arms, but I guess because this is a Single Point Urban Interchange to be able to mount the signal heads they had to do something completely different.

I find that interchange most interesting because of the massive distance between the 10 East to Archibald South exit slip lane and the SPUI interchange. Seems like a second set of stop lines might be in order for traffic going south on Archibald, like when the 215 North meets Eucalyptus near March: http://goo.gl/IRrKcL

What I really like about this interchange is at the southbound Archibald onramp to the 10 west, there is a traffic signal with pedestrian crossing lights.  Too many times on ramps like these, drivers speed up and it is very dangerous to cross at the crosswalk.  It shows that Caltrans took pedestrian safety into account.

Are there many pedestrians crossing here?  Not really relevant, because usually there's safety in numbers and the more dangerous crosswalks are for those who cross where peds are unexpected, even if legal.

I'd like to see this at the Harbor Blvd on-ramps to I-5 near Disneyland.  There are a lot of pedestrians who walk from Disneyland to the cheaper hotels north of Ball.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on March 04, 2014, 11:06:42 PM
Liberty Av. and 126th St. as it was in the early 2000s. Queens, New York.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/530582_485507554813390_1465355565_n_zpsb55b7c6b.jpg)

At that time, many two-section (red and green) traffic signals were still in useful service in some parts of solely Queens, such as the Rockaways, Richmond Hill, and Ozone Park. I remember these well.

In the 2000s, as time progressed, two-section traffic signals continued to dwindle, and the last survivors in the borough were finally removed from service sometime in 2007. Both on Shore Front Pkwy. in the Rockaways and Liberty Avenue (at 114th St. as I recall) under the el segment.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on March 06, 2014, 12:29:11 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.737936,-95.460748,3a,75y,180h,93.69t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sTJSpYqT1JRmHLx6S222Alw!2e0 Has anyone seen signal backplates like these before?

I must admit that they are quite weird.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on March 06, 2014, 02:31:03 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.737936,-95.460748,3a,75y,180h,93.69t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sTJSpYqT1JRmHLx6S222Alw!2e0 Has anyone seen signal backplates like these before?

I must admit that they are quite weird.

I think they look pretty cool! Definitely not standard (not to my limited knowledge) but still pretty awesome.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on March 06, 2014, 03:36:55 PM
The backplates on the actual signals is okay...It's the backplates on the crosswalk signals that are fugly.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ian on March 06, 2014, 06:24:28 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.737936,-95.460748,3a,75y,180h,93.69t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sTJSpYqT1JRmHLx6S222Alw!2e0 Has anyone seen signal backplates like these before?

I must admit that they are quite weird.

They're kinda shaped like bananas.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on March 06, 2014, 07:26:15 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.737936,-95.460748,3a,75y,180h,93.69t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sTJSpYqT1JRmHLx6S222Alw!2e0 Has anyone seen signal backplates like these before?

I must admit that they are quite weird.

They're trying too hard with those streetlights.  If you look closely, you can see it's just a shell with a standard cobrahead.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 07, 2014, 05:27:05 PM
Liberty Av. and 126th St. as it was in the early 2000s. Queens, New York.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/530582_485507554813390_1465355565_n_zpsb55b7c6b.jpg)

At that time, many two-section (red and green) traffic signals were still in useful service in some parts of solely Queens, such as the Rockaways, Richmond Hill, and Ozone Park. I remember these well.

In the 2000s, as time progressed, two-section traffic signals continued to dwindle, and the last survivors in the borough were finally removed from service sometime in 2007. Both on Shore Front Pkwy. in the Rockaways and Liberty Avenue (at 114th St. as I recall) under the el segment.
Wow.  Those old 2-light signals lasted a long, long time.  My first encounter with 2-signal lights in New York was along the roadway that weaved under and outside of the condemned West Side Highway in 1978 before all of it was finally demolished.  West Street in those days was quite a ride.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on April 08, 2014, 06:14:01 PM
New traffic lights in Myrtle Beach, SC, at the intersection of 29th Ave N. @ Grissom Pkwy

The City of Myrtle Beach has been swapping out their older traffic lights with these new black traffic signals. Although, the black backplates are uncommon. The intersection of Grissom Pkwy and Pine Island Rd have been replaced with these signals too.

(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj153/PColumbus611/Image040820141652581_zpsd13ac070.jpg)

(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj153/PColumbus611/7c21431b-96f1-44ce-b79a-18f2837f26a1_zpsf4f197a5.jpg)

(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj153/PColumbus611/e930c8fb-04c4-473f-8c60-308b27c5ff63_zpsb28b51c6.jpg)

Here is the GSV of an intersection with the older traffic lights.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=myrtle+beach&ie=UTF-8&ei=wXNEU6itLMTLsAS41oAI&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: BamaZeus on April 13, 2014, 07:49:39 PM
SIAP, but this photo of Times Square in 1943 came across my Twitter feed just now (Historical Pics), featuring a color snapshot of a 2-color signal, and a classic One Way sign

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlIxPmrIQAE4ZBJ.jpg)

Invalid Tweet ID/photo/1




Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on April 13, 2014, 08:09:21 PM
Here is the GSV of an intersection with the older traffic lights.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=myrtle+beach&ie=UTF-8&ei=wXNEU6itLMTLsAS41oAI&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg

Columbus, you need to remove your search query before you copy/paste the link; when that link is clicked, it just takes a person to the map of Myrtle Beach. It doesn't even load GSV.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on April 15, 2014, 08:56:47 PM
Sorry, thought I did.

Here is a fixed GSV

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.711074,-78.882085&spn=0.000514,0.000603&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=33.711035,-78.88204&panoid=KF5a4ZWq_KJPUUBtQW0pEw&cbp=12,347.97,,0,-26.68
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on April 22, 2014, 01:56:02 AM
Rather strange setup near at I-75 & FL 326 near Ocala:

(http://i.imgur.com/ExsWGkA.png)

A right turn that is controlled by both an arrow and a yield sign...what?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on April 23, 2014, 01:03:46 AM
^ Permanent yield or stop control should not be used at signalized approaches. I believe that is a new standard added in the most recent MUTCD.

In this case, the correct action would likely be to remove the yield sign/line and also change the red arrows to circular reds to allow RTOR.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: amroad17 on April 23, 2014, 07:49:32 PM
There are some "different" looking traffic signals on OH 4 Bypass around Hamilton, OH.  I had not been on that stretch of highway for over six years when it was mostly a two-lane road.  On Easter Sunday, I traveled the stretch between the OH 129 freeway and OH 4 in Fairfield.  I was in for a surprise.  The road now is a four- to six-lane highway.  At the traffic light intersections, the lights were on what could be equated to a long sign bridge spanning the highway in a SW quadrant to a NE quadrant. It was a rather impressive sight to see.  Unfortunately, I did not take any photos.  These intersections also had "Michigan Lefts" north and south of each intersection--mainly for the side roads as you could make a left turn from OH 4 Bypass.

If one of our members is around that area sometime in the near future, could you take and post photos of these traffic lights?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: DaBigE on April 23, 2014, 09:41:48 PM
Rather strange setup near at I-75 & FL 326 near Ocala:

(http://i.imgur.com/ExsWGkA.png)

A right turn that is controlled by both an arrow and a yield sign...what?

There's a similar situation to that in Beaver Dam, WI (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=43.485855,-88.810151&spn=0.000016,0.013937&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.485938,-88.810102&panoid=I7RrgaH-mE23nYNA_8-P5A&cbp=12,217.37,,0,9.56). Been like that for years...
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on April 23, 2014, 10:49:02 PM
There are some "different" looking traffic signals on OH 4 Bypass around Hamilton, OH.  I had not been on that stretch of highway for over six years when it was mostly a two-lane road.  On Easter Sunday, I traveled the stretch between the OH 129 freeway and OH 4 in Fairfield.  I was in for a surprise.  The road now is a four- to six-lane highway.  At the traffic light intersections, the lights were on what could be equated to a long sign bridge spanning the highway in a SW quadrant to a NE quadrant. It was a rather impressive sight to see.  Unfortunately, I did not take any photos.  These intersections also had "Michigan Lefts" north and south of each intersection--mainly for the side roads as you could make a left turn from OH 4 Bypass.

If one of our members is around that area sometime in the near future, could you take and post photos of these traffic lights?
Similar to Dubuque IA: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.491845,-90.665015,3a,75y,341.26h,89.09t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJ_TxPdaOvFdzCj2HmW4V9A!2e0
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: amroad17 on April 24, 2014, 12:40:56 PM
Yes.  Also, looking at streetview, one cannot directly cross the intersections from the side roads.  You have to make a right turn, then a U-turn left, then another right to continue straight on the road you were on.  North of the OH 129 freeway, OH 4 Bypass is divided until north of Princeton Road, then becomes a two-lane road until its end at OH 4.  The Princeton Road intersection is traditional--not like the ones south of the OH 129 freeway.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on April 24, 2014, 01:32:28 PM
^ Permanent yield or stop control should not be used at signalized approaches. I believe that is a new standard added in the most recent MUTCD.

In this case, the correct action would likely be to remove the yield sign/line and also change the red arrows to circular reds to allow RTOR.

Why would changing the arrow to a ball make any difference in RTOR?  In this state (Illinois), they mean the same thing, and a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required.  Either the yield sign and yield line should be removed (a la Illinois), or the signal heads should be removed (a la Indiana and Missouri).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on April 24, 2014, 05:00:52 PM
^ Permanent yield or stop control should not be used at signalized approaches. I believe that is a new standard added in the most recent MUTCD.

In this case, the correct action would likely be to remove the yield sign/line and also change the red arrows to circular reds to allow RTOR.

Why would changing the arrow to a ball make any difference in RTOR?  In this state (Illinois), they mean the same thing, and a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required.  Either the yield sign and yield line should be removed (a la Illinois), or the signal heads should be removed (a la Indiana and Missouri).
In Florida a red arrow and red ball also mean the same thing.  So, a decision has to be made...either remove the signals or remove the yield sign and line.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on April 24, 2014, 10:11:19 PM
Different laws in different states. In New York State, red-ball permits right-on-red unless prohibited by sign. On red-arrow, right-on-red is always prohibited. New York City does not permit any right-on-red except where permitted by sign. And so it goes.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on April 26, 2014, 02:21:01 PM
^ Permanent yield or stop control should not be used at signalized approaches. I believe that is a new standard added in the most recent MUTCD.

In this case, the correct action would likely be to remove the yield sign/line and also change the red arrows to circular reds to allow RTOR.

Why would changing the arrow to a ball make any difference in RTOR?  In this state (Illinois), they mean the same thing, and a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required.  Either the yield sign and yield line should be removed (a la Illinois), or the signal heads should be removed (a la Indiana and Missouri).

From a purely signal design standpoint (not looking at various state laws), the red arrow indicates a turn prohibition. If right turn on red is to be allowed, the better signal design decision is to use a circular red.

I've not understood why states don't make a distinction as far as this is concerned. Allowing RTOR with a red arrow seems counter intuitive to me...and I can't think of a reason why you'd use an RT arrow signal and allow RTOR if the turn wasn't protected for some reason.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: myosh_tino on April 26, 2014, 02:47:17 PM
Why would changing the arrow to a ball make any difference in RTOR?  In this state (Illinois), they mean the same thing, and a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required.

In Florida a red arrow and red ball also mean the same thing.  So, a decision has to be made...either remove the signals or remove the yield sign and line.

If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

I'm thinking there needs to be some kind of consistency about the meaning of red arrows.  For example, if I'm visiting Florida and I see a red right arrow, I'm not turning until I see a green signal of some sort potentially pissing off a local which could lead to a road rage incident.

Before the advent of red arrows, left turn signals in California typically were comprised of a red ball, yellow ball and a green arrow but these signals were also accompanied by a sign that read "LEFT (OR U-TURN) ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" to indicate that a left turn on a red ball is not allowed.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on April 26, 2014, 02:54:31 PM
Why would changing the arrow to a ball make any difference in RTOR?  In this state (Illinois), they mean the same thing, and a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required.

In Florida a red arrow and red ball also mean the same thing.  So, a decision has to be made...either remove the signals or remove the yield sign and line.

If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

I'm thinking there needs to be some kind of consistency about the meaning of red arrows.  For example, if I'm visiting Florida and I see a red right arrow, I'm not turning until I see a green signal of some sort potentially pissing off a local which could lead to a road rage incident.

Before the advent of red arrows, left turn signals in California typically were comprised of a red ball, yellow ball and a green arrow but these signals were also accompanied by a sign that read "LEFT (OR U-TURN) ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" to indicate that a left turn on a red ball is not allowed.
I know what you mean and I agree completely with you.  I was just pointing out that there is no distinction between the two in Florida.
If I were the one spelling out the specifications for that signal installation, I'd have used a red ball, not a red arrow.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: realjd on April 27, 2014, 12:18:20 AM
If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

Many states use a red ball for left turns. How is allowing right turns on a red arrow and prohibiting left turns on a left arrow any more or less confusing than allowing RTOR on a red ball but prohibiting left turns on a red ball? People figure it out.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on April 27, 2014, 12:51:51 AM
If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

Many states use a red ball for left turns. How is allowing right turns on a red arrow and prohibiting left turns on a left arrow any more or less confusing than allowing RTOR on a red ball but prohibiting left turns on a red ball? People figure it out.

Well, I guess Washington/Oregon/British Columbia's approach of allowing left turn turn on red onto a one way street and right on red ball/arrow the least confusing and therefore most logical setup. In Washington, this left turn on red setup even includes freeway ramps. The least amount of prohibition, it would seem, the better. Of course, pure understanding of such loose laws is the elephant in the room for these states.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on April 27, 2014, 02:55:13 AM
Honestly, you just have to understand the theory.  You should be able to turn against red (after a full stop) if you don't have to cross a lane of opposing traffic (whether that's on your road or the perpendicular road).  Basically, you can turn against red if you're hugging the curb.

Ergo, both streets must be one way
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 27, 2014, 09:55:06 AM

Honestly, you just have to understand the theory.  You should be able to turn against red (after a full stop) if you don't have to cross a lane of opposing traffic (whether that's on your road or the perpendicular road).  Basically, you can turn against red if you're hugging the curb.

Ergo, both streets must be one way

Most states allow it on one-way to one-way:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_turn_on_red#Left_turn_on_red

What surprises me is that some allow it from two-way streets.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mr_Northside on April 27, 2014, 01:07:23 PM
If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

Many states use a red ball for left turns. How is allowing right turns on a red arrow and prohibiting left turns on a left arrow any more or less confusing than allowing RTOR on a red ball but prohibiting left turns on a red ball? People figure it out.

As pointed out above, in the vast majority of situations, in most states, if it's not one-way to one-way, a left turn on a solid red anything is prohibited.  Whether it is an arrow or "ball" is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Kacie Jane on April 27, 2014, 01:14:26 PM
If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

Many states use a red ball for left turns. How is allowing right turns on a red arrow and prohibiting left turns on a left arrow any more or less confusing than allowing RTOR on a red ball but prohibiting left turns on a red ball? People figure it out.

As pointed out above, in the vast majority of situations, in most states, if it's not one-way to one-way, a left turn on a solid red anything is prohibited.  Whether it is an arrow or "ball" is irrelevant.

Exactly. And in many states, a right turn on red anything after stopping is permitted. Whether it is an arrow or a ball is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on April 27, 2014, 02:28:44 PM
If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

Many states use a red ball for left turns. How is allowing right turns on a red arrow and prohibiting left turns on a left arrow any more or less confusing than allowing RTOR on a red ball but prohibiting left turns on a red ball? People figure it out.

As pointed out above, in the vast majority of situations, in most states, if it's not one-way to one-way, a left turn on a solid red anything is prohibited.  Whether it is an arrow or "ball" is irrelevant.

Exactly. And in many states, a right turn on red anything after stopping is permitted. Whether it is an arrow or a ball is irrelevant.

AND a left turn from a two way to a one way on red arrow or red ball is also allowed (in some states).

I think we are going in circles?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on April 27, 2014, 02:56:13 PM
I have always treated Right Red Arrow signals simply as RTOR permitted, unless there is an accompanying sign which states either NO TURN ON RED or RIGHT TURN SIGNAL.  I have never seen a YIELD sign at a signaled intersection.


I do have one intersection in our town where most traffic turns left from a OWS to a OWS.  Problem is, since this scenario is such a rarity in Western Colorado, the city does not put a helpful sign saying that you either CAN or CAN'T turn left on red (it is legal in CO).   So each time I come up to said intersection behind someone, I never know if I will have to wait for the green light or if the person(s) ahead of me will do a LTOR. 

These are probably the same morons who will come to a complete stop in a right turn lane, even if the light is displaying a green turn arrow (and there are more of them than you think out here)! :no:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on April 29, 2014, 01:52:36 PM
Why would changing the arrow to a ball make any difference in RTOR?  In this state (Illinois), they mean the same thing, and a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required.

In Florida a red arrow and red ball also mean the same thing.  So, a decision has to be made...either remove the signals or remove the yield sign and line.

If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

Technically, yes in Illinois.  The signal must have a sign stating along the lines of "LEFT TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".  Otherwise, there is nothing stopping you from turning left on the red arrow or red ball (which usually have the "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" signs next to them).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2014, 05:55:14 PM
Why would changing the arrow to a ball make any difference in RTOR?  In this state (Illinois), they mean the same thing, and a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required.

In Florida a red arrow and red ball also mean the same thing.  So, a decision has to be made...either remove the signals or remove the yield sign and line.

If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

Technically, yes in Illinois.  The signal must have a sign stating along the lines of "LEFT TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".  Otherwise, there is nothing stopping you from turning left on the red arrow or red ball (which usually have the "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" signs next to them).

But if it's a 2 way road to a 2 way road, it doesn't matter because left turns on red would be illegal anyway.  And I'm not sure how often a red arrow would pop up on a one way to one way road.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on April 30, 2014, 09:34:31 AM
Why would changing the arrow to a ball make any difference in RTOR?  In this state (Illinois), they mean the same thing, and a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required.

In Florida a red arrow and red ball also mean the same thing.  So, a decision has to be made...either remove the signals or remove the yield sign and line.

If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

Technically, yes in Illinois.  The signal must have a sign stating along the lines of "LEFT TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".  Otherwise, there is nothing stopping you from turning left on the red arrow or red ball (which usually have the "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" signs next to them).

But if it's a 2 way road to a 2 way road, it doesn't matter because left turns on red would be illegal anyway.  And I'm not sure how often a red arrow would pop up on a one way to one way road.

Not quite.  It still would require either of the two above-mentioned signs.  Otherwise, it can be treated as a permissive left when the through lanes are green.  That's why every protective-only left signal in the state has that signage.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on April 30, 2014, 04:00:34 PM
Two way-to-two way protected right turn, near Lakewood, Washington. I suppose it works just fine, but A) I don't understand the point, and B) It's only time I've ever encountered such a light in the Seattle area. I would think, if pedestrians are an issue, a right turn FYA might work. I guess they've had a few run-ins with pedestrians and don't trust the cars to yield to them anymore.

As we've already covered in the last 10-20 posts, Washington (along with many other states) does allow right on a red arrow, so you can still go (after a stop) even if it's red.

Google Maps (http://goo.gl/y03H6C)

(http://i.imgur.com/geODcZh.png)

ALSO,

A two lane-left turn FYA in the Seattle area. Like the last signal, pretty much unheard of around these parts.

6th Ave & James (http://goo.gl/Up76lJ)

(http://i.imgur.com/yIEjax6.png)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kj3400 on May 01, 2014, 12:18:57 AM
But if it's a 2 way road to a 2 way road, it doesn't matter because left turns on red would be illegal anyway.  And I'm not sure how often a red arrow would pop up on a one way to one way road.

It does happen:

Pratt St and Light St
(Google for some reason doesn't have a good streetview, so I found this blurry picture)

(http://cdn.s3-media.wbal.com/Media/Archive/a46799b5-2002-47b7-8bf9-ab5166812406/thumb-400.jpg)

A much better one at Lombard and Light Sts:

http://goo.gl/maps/IaaSL
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on May 01, 2014, 02:30:44 AM
I like the double red arrow, is that a new standard for Maryland?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2014, 02:43:19 PM
But if it's a 2 way road to a 2 way road, it doesn't matter because left turns on red would be illegal anyway.  And I'm not sure how often a red arrow would pop up on a one way to one way road.

It does happen:

Pratt St and Light St
(Google for some reason doesn't have a good streetview, so I found this blurry picture)

(http://cdn.s3-media.wbal.com/Media/Archive/a46799b5-2002-47b7-8bf9-ab5166812406/thumb-400.jpg)

A much better one at Lombard and Light Sts:

http://goo.gl/maps/IaaSL

Isn't that an improper use of traffic lights though?  The 2nd lane could be used for left or straight traffic, but yet has conflicting signals (red left turn, green thru).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: TEG24601 on May 01, 2014, 07:10:30 PM
[size=78%]As we've already covered in the last 10-20 posts, Washington (along with many other states) does allow right on a red arrow, so you can still go (after a stop) even if it's red.[/size]


Well, I know that is true for Bicyclists and Motorcyclists when they don't trigger the sensors (aka Dead Red), and true for turning onto a one-way street (traveling left) from a two-way street (including freeway onramps), but is that true from traditional two-way to two-way streets/roads?  And if so, could we find the RCW, I'd like to have it in my information?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kj3400 on May 02, 2014, 12:53:43 AM
I like the double red arrow, is that a new standard for Maryland?

We've had it for a while actually. I don't know when it was introduced though, to be honest.

Isn't that an improper use of traffic lights though?  The 2nd lane could be used for left or straight traffic, but yet has conflicting signals (red left turn, green thru).

The left turn signal is merely to stop traffic from running over pedestrians during their walk phase. I would have to agree with you though, but I suppose this was their only solution.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on May 16, 2014, 01:41:17 PM
I like the double red arrow, is that a new standard for Maryland?

We've had it for a while actually. I don't know when it was introduced though, to be honest.

I believe that the source for this might be some state laws that require two signal faces at every intersection, in case a light bulb burns out.  In California, where there is a protected left turn signal, you'd see a minimum of 2 regular signal faces and 2 left turn signal faces (one on the mast arm and one on the left corner) in one direction.

In other states, they may require 2 faces for the regular signal but only 1 face for the left turn arrow.  So if the left arrow light bulb burns out, you just miss your opportunity to turn.  I believe MD may require 2 faces for the  red turn arrow only.  This can be accomplished by making 2 left turn RYG faces, or as Baltimore does RA,RA,YA,GA.

Isn't that an improper use of traffic lights though?  The 2nd lane could be used for left or straight traffic, but yet has conflicting signals (red left turn, green thru).

The left turn signal is merely to stop traffic from running over pedestrians during their walk phase. I would have to agree with you though, but I suppose this was their only solution.
[/quote]

It's essentially a LPI, but still allowing non-turning traffic the full green time.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on June 22, 2014, 01:39:33 PM
I like the double red arrow, is that a new standard for Maryland?

We've had it for a while actually. I don't know when it was introduced though, to be honest.

I believe that the source for this might be some state laws that require two signal faces at every intersection, in case a light bulb burns out.  In California, where there is a protected left turn signal, you'd see a minimum of 2 regular signal faces and 2 left turn signal faces (one on the mast arm and one on the left corner) in one direction.

In other states, they may require 2 faces for the regular signal but only 1 face for the left turn arrow.  So if the left arrow light bulb burns out, you just miss your opportunity to turn.  I believe MD may require 2 faces for the  red turn arrow only.  This can be accomplished by making 2 left turn RYG faces, or as Baltimore does RA,RA,YA,GA.

Isn't that an improper use of traffic lights though?  The 2nd lane could be used for left or straight traffic, but yet has conflicting signals (red left turn, green thru).

The left turn signal is merely to stop traffic from running over pedestrians during their walk phase. I would have to agree with you though, but I suppose this was their only solution.

It's essentially a LPI, but still allowing non-turning traffic the full green time.
[/quote]


Sorry to quote myself, but I've found some more information on another traffic light that has a similar set up, but the traffic light looks different, the Los Angeles red ball- red arrow light:

See the following GSV:  http://goo.gl/maps/L4ld9

OK, 9th (aka James Wood Blvd) is one-way eastbound and Figueroa is one way northbound.  On the right side of the view of the intersection approaching along 9th street, you see two tradional RYG signals.  On the left side, you have red ball-red left arrow-yellow ball-green ball.

1) While Figueroa has the green, 9th sees red ball and red arrow.
2) When Figueroa has the red, 9th sees a green ball, red arrow, and a WALK signal.
3) A few seconds later, 9th sees a green ball, and a WALK signal.

THere's also a sign at the corner, no left turn on red arrow.

Here is another example of a lead pedestrian interval (LPI), where the thru green time is maximized.  To at least partially protect pedestrian from turning cars, turning cars are prohibited from turning for the first few seconds of green, then a few seconds later, the left turners are allowed to turn, while yielding to pedestrians.  There is no protected left turn, hence no green arrow.

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on June 22, 2014, 02:30:55 PM
On a different matter, one block away from my previous post, you see this:

http://goo.gl/maps/4vuEq

Figueroa is one-way northbound and 8th Street is one-way westbound.  In the picture, you're facing north and you can clearly see that 8th street is one-way to the left.  Yet, on the right side of the signal, below the 8th St sign, is a five aspect signal face. 

Now most of the time when you see a five aspect signal face, the bottom two signals are for green arrow and yellow arrow.  Yet, those cannot be for turning left, as they are on the right side of the street.  And they cannot be for turning right, as 8th Street goes the other way.

The only possiblity that I can think of is that those bottom two indications are somehow related to the bus lane that is in effect during rush hours and provides some type of queue jump for the buses.  But if there's anybody who's familiar with this signal and has some insight, I'd be happy to find out more.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on June 24, 2014, 04:20:26 AM
See the following GSV:  http://goo.gl/maps/L4ld9

OK, 9th (aka James Wood Blvd) is one-way eastbound and Figueroa is one way northbound.  On the right side of the view of the intersection approaching along 9th street, you see two tradional RYG signals.  On the left side, you have red ball-red left arrow-yellow ball-green ball.

1) While Figueroa has the green, 9th sees red ball and red arrow.
2) When Figueroa has the red, 9th sees a green ball, red arrow, and a WALK signal.
3) A few seconds later, 9th sees a green ball, and a WALK signal.

THere's also a sign at the corner, no left turn on red arrow.

Here is another example of a lead pedestrian interval (LPI), where the thru green time is maximized.  To at least partially protect pedestrian from turning cars, turning cars are prohibited from turning for the first few seconds of green, then a few seconds later, the left turners are allowed to turn, while yielding to pedestrians.  There is no protected left turn, hence no green arrow.

Surprisingly, the combination of red arrow and circular green in one face is not one specifically prohibited in the MUTCD... However, I don't think the MUTCD folks would have dreamt of this kind of application. If there weren't a sign, I'd be slightly confused.

The proper design, if constructed today, would be to use a typical 3-section head and have a separate light up/blank out no left turn sign during the LPI.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: wisvishr0 on July 21, 2014, 02:20:46 PM
I wasn't sure where to put this signal, so I'm just dumping it here. On my trip to The Woodlands, Texas (near Houston), I found this signal:

(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g431/wisvishr0/ScreenShot2014-07-21at11529PM.png?t=1405966699)

Instead of using a four-head signal like we use in MD, (here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.057231,-77.161214,3a,18y,273.87h,88.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srZNrC0f5XioFYkpACysVSw!2e0!6m1!1e1), they decided to omit the green arrow and just include the sign, "Protected left on green orb."

Is that even acceptable in MUTCD? The entire town of The Woodlands is privately owned, I believe, so they use their own signs (some of their practices really irk me, like the lack of "4-way" or "All-way" signs under stop signs).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PurdueBill on July 21, 2014, 10:17:30 PM
Yikes.  I wouldn't count on non-roadgeeks to know a "protected left" from a "permitted left" and the configuration shown might even give people a misconception that a green ball means a protected left all the time--a possibly deadly misunderstanding.  What the hell are they doing there?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Revive 755 on July 22, 2014, 09:55:12 PM
Technically, yes in Illinois.  The signal must have a sign stating along the lines of "LEFT TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".  Otherwise, there is nothing stopping you from turning left on the red arrow or red ball (which usually have the "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" signs next to them).

But if it's a 2 way road to a 2 way road, it doesn't matter because left turns on red would be illegal anyway.  And I'm not sure how often a red arrow would pop up on a one way to one way road.

Not quite.  It still would require either of the two above-mentioned signs.  Otherwise, it can be treated as a permissive left when the through lanes are green.  That's why every protective-only left signal in the state has that signage.

I'm not quite seeing that in the Illinois Statutes (Link (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+11+Art.+III&ActID=1815&ChapterID=49&SeqStart=111800000&SeqEnd=113300000))

Quote from: Illinois Codified Statutes
2. Except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 3.5 of this subsection (c), vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if there is no such stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no such crosswalk, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain standing until an indication permitting the movement indicated by such red arrow is shown.

3. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn and local authorities by ordinance or State authorities by rule or regulation prohibit any such turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of this subsection.

See the following GSV:  http://goo.gl/maps/L4ld9

OK, 9th (aka James Wood Blvd) is one-way eastbound and Figueroa is one way northbound.  On the right side of the view of the intersection approaching along 9th street, you see two tradional RYG signals.  On the left side, you have red ball-red left arrow-yellow ball-green ball.

1) While Figueroa has the green, 9th sees red ball and red arrow.
2) When Figueroa has the red, 9th sees a green ball, red arrow, and a WALK signal.
3) A few seconds later, 9th sees a green ball, and a WALK signal.

THere's also a sign at the corner, no left turn on red arrow.

Here is another example of a lead pedestrian interval (LPI), where the thru green time is maximized.  To at least partially protect pedestrian from turning cars, turning cars are prohibited from turning for the first few seconds of green, then a few seconds later, the left turners are allowed to turn, while yielding to pedestrians.  There is no protected left turn, hence no green arrow.

Surprisingly, the combination of red arrow and circular green in one face is not one specifically prohibited in the MUTCD... However, I don't think the MUTCD folks would have dreamt of this kind of application. If there weren't a sign, I'd be slightly confused.

The proper design, if constructed today, would be to use a typical 3-section head and have a separate light up/blank out no left turn sign during the LPI.

I think the design shown in streetview runs afoul of the intent of the 2009 MUTCD's prohibition against having protected only left turns with shared lanes that run at different times than the adjoining through movement (Section 4D.17 Paragraph 06).  The shared lane has a decent risk of a driver going straight rear ending another driving waiting for the red arrow to disappear.

Ideally today, there would only be dedicated left turn lanes and a flashing yellow arrow would be used for the permissive phase.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on July 25, 2014, 02:59:47 PM

See the following GSV:  http://goo.gl/maps/L4ld9

OK, 9th (aka James Wood Blvd) is one-way eastbound and Figueroa is one way northbound.  On the right side of the view of the intersection approaching along 9th street, you see two tradional RYG signals.  On the left side, you have red ball-red left arrow-yellow ball-green ball.

1) While Figueroa has the green, 9th sees red ball and red arrow.
2) When Figueroa has the red, 9th sees a green ball, red arrow, and a WALK signal.
3) A few seconds later, 9th sees a green ball, and a WALK signal.

THere's also a sign at the corner, no left turn on red arrow.

Here is another example of a lead pedestrian interval (LPI), where the thru green time is maximized.  To at least partially protect pedestrian from turning cars, turning cars are prohibited from turning for the first few seconds of green, then a few seconds later, the left turners are allowed to turn, while yielding to pedestrians.  There is no protected left turn, hence no green arrow.

Surprisingly, the combination of red arrow and circular green in one face is not one specifically prohibited in the MUTCD... However, I don't think the MUTCD folks would have dreamt of this kind of application. If there weren't a sign, I'd be slightly confused.

The proper design, if constructed today, would be to use a typical 3-section head and have a separate light up/blank out no left turn sign during the LPI.

I think the design shown in streetview runs afoul of the intent of the 2009 MUTCD's prohibition against having protected only left turns with shared lanes that run at different times than the adjoining through movement (Section 4D.17 Paragraph 06).  The shared lane has a decent risk of a driver going straight rear ending another driving waiting for the red arrow to disappear.

Ideally today, there would only be dedicated left turn lanes and a flashing yellow arrow would be used for the permissive phase.
[/quote]

It might technically violate the MUTCD, but I don't think the problem of rear end crashes would occur in this intersection.  Keep in mind this left turn is near the curb lane of a one-way street in a Downtown.  Almost all drivers should be aware that a turning driver would probably have to yield to pedestrians even if there weren't a red arrow here.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: on_wisconsin on August 05, 2014, 12:59:50 PM
Typical modern Wisconsin signalized intersection (non-divided road):

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/10574230_10152628481058784_3823779026070146336_n_zps4191541d.jpg)
L-T Facebook page

I like the setup almost just as much as the old trombone arms.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on August 05, 2014, 05:12:04 PM
Typical modern Wisconsin signalized intersection (non-divided road):

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/10574230_10152628481058784_3823779026070146336_n_zps4191541d.jpg)
L-T Facebook page

I like the setup almost just as much as the old trombone arms.

Looks like Illinois.  McHenry County, specifically, with the cutaway signal visors.

I'm not so sure Cheeseheads would want to hear that.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on August 05, 2014, 06:14:23 PM
Typical modern Wisconsin signalized intersection (non-divided road):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
L-T Facebook page

I like the setup almost just as much as the old trombone arms.

Looks like Illinois.  McHenry County, specifically, with the cutaway signal visors.

I'm not so sure Cheeseheads would want to hear that.

Illinois or Wisconsin, that storm looks biblical (at least compared to the rather underwhelming storms we have in the NW).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on August 05, 2014, 06:59:53 PM
Typical modern Wisconsin signalized intersection (non-divided road):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
L-T Facebook page

I like the setup almost just as much as the old trombone arms.

Looks like Illinois.  McHenry County, specifically, with the cutaway signal visors.

I'm not so sure Cheeseheads would want to hear that.

Illinois or Wisconsin, that storm looks biblical (at least compared to the rather underwhelming storms we have in the NW).

It's gonna be a good rain storm.  Maybe some lightning as well.  You worry about it if it's greenish in color and the air is so humid you can cut it with a knife.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 6a on August 05, 2014, 08:56:49 PM

Typical modern Wisconsin signalized intersection (non-divided road):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
L-T Facebook page

I like the setup almost just as much as the old trombone arms.

Looks like Illinois.  McHenry County, specifically, with the cutaway signal visors.

I'm not so sure Cheeseheads would want to hear that.

Illinois or Wisconsin, that storm looks biblical (at least compared to the rather underwhelming storms we have in the NW).

It's gonna be a good rain storm.  Maybe some lightning as well.  You worry about it if it's greenish in color and the air is so humid you can cut it with a knife.

And the air gets really still..

Ugh, memories.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on August 05, 2014, 09:42:20 PM

Typical modern Wisconsin signalized intersection (non-divided road):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
L-T Facebook page

I like the setup almost just as much as the old trombone arms.

Looks like Illinois.  McHenry County, specifically, with the cutaway signal visors.

I'm not so sure Cheeseheads would want to hear that.

Illinois or Wisconsin, that storm looks biblical (at least compared to the rather underwhelming storms we have in the NW).

It's gonna be a good rain storm.  Maybe some lightning as well.  You worry about it if it's greenish in color and the air is so humid you can cut it with a knife.

And the air gets really still..

Ugh, memories.

And then this starts up:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: US71 on August 05, 2014, 09:45:01 PM

And then this starts up:

Death from above ;)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 05, 2014, 09:49:39 PM
And then this starts up:
They replaced the controller on it when that city upgraded their siren system recently.
The siren stays at full speed on the first cycle, but then every cycle after that, the siren doesn't reach full speed.
Here's how it sounds now:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on August 05, 2014, 10:33:27 PM
And then this starts up:
They replaced the controller on it when that city upgraded their siren system recently.
The siren stays at full speed on the first cycle, but then every cycle after that, the siren doesn't reach full speed.
Here's how it sounds now:

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! They killed it! Those things did always scare the crap out of me. Closest siren to my house during the couple years I lived in Columbus, OH was a 1000T. Never got used to it.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on August 06, 2014, 12:32:51 PM

And then this starts up:

Death from above ;)

Run for the storm shelter, Auntie Em!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on August 14, 2014, 12:06:51 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Winter+Park,+FL/@28.600644,-81.351072,3a,75y,156.76h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2VNTwxBzwwwiTEHLtLJVeg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e7701bdba629c5:0xc63f82952cf5ee20
Some old signals I found in Winter Park, FL.  Also look at the crosswalk signals as well.  They are old and non MUTCD compliance with the old fashioned WAIT and WALK instead of the hand and person.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on August 14, 2014, 03:42:22 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Winter+Park,+FL/@28.600644,-81.351072,3a,75y,156.76h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2VNTwxBzwwwiTEHLtLJVeg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e7701bdba629c5:0xc63f82952cf5ee20
Some old signals I found in Winter Park, FL.  Also look at the crosswalk signals as well.  They are old and non MUTCD compliance with the old fashioned WAIT and WALK instead of the hand and person.
What great gems!  I hope they live on for a long time.   :nod:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on August 18, 2014, 10:19:18 PM
Shore Front Pkwy. Queens, New York. 2000. From Jeff Saltzman.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/10442551_802273959803413_6742265087513486263_n_zpse70b68b2.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on August 18, 2014, 10:28:29 PM
Unbelievable! Only in NYC in the 21st Century!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on August 18, 2014, 10:34:04 PM
Unbelievable! Only in NYC in the 21st Century!

I remember these well. At the time, Queens was the only borough that still had them in service in some areas, such as Richmond Hill, Ozone Park, and the Rockaways. I always loved to watch them operate.

They continued to dwindle in the 2000s, and the last handful were removed sometime in 2006. I was rather sad, but at least I still have memories of them.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on August 18, 2014, 10:47:19 PM
What is also interesting to mention is that some of these two-section heads were retro-fitted with L.E.D. inserts. Some units were partially converted, while others were completely altered.

Many were modified in the late 1990s, when the D.O.T. first experimented with red L.E.D. inserts in Queens.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on August 20, 2014, 10:37:49 PM
An advertisement regarding the Marbelite type M-P6L. The company's first and only polycarbonate signal. It was designed in the mid 2000s for solely the city of New York. Because of this, the pedestrian signal meets N.Y.C.D.O.T. specifications.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/1512381_690549690975841_1453631354_n_zpsc2ff8d04.jpg)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/1524805_690549694309174_600301619_n_zps194e3f38.jpg)

Title: Traffic signal
Post by: 6a on August 22, 2014, 05:25:21 PM
I've been trying to catch this phase for some time now to no avail...until today! Ackerman Road at Kenny Road, Columbus.

(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/08/22/d45d8ab45b76b46d3e3d7a0146e31a25.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on August 22, 2014, 07:34:48 PM
I've been trying to catch this phase for some time now to no avail...until today! Ackerman Road at Kenny Road, Columbus.

(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/08/22/d45d8ab45b76b46d3e3d7a0146e31a25.jpg)

I remember seeing that and thinking it was broken. Then I saw it again. And again. Horrible.
Title: Traffic signal
Post by: 6a on August 22, 2014, 08:16:21 PM
Yeah, it bugs the shit out of me. This is the full picture to show the entire setup since I'm sure there will be questions.
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/08/22/f1815b61ead5aaf954453edf1abfb02f.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on August 22, 2014, 10:15:33 PM
That was common throughout Pennsylvania for a long period of time.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ian on August 23, 2014, 12:46:07 AM
That was common throughout Pennsylvania for a long period of time.

It's still kind of common. Here's an example in Collingdale, with new signals hooked up to an old controller.

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5068/5870361605_2c291f7200_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kj3400 on August 23, 2014, 02:56:18 PM
One at Edmondson Ave and Franklin St: http://goo.gl/maps/evD40
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on August 23, 2014, 03:17:24 PM
One at Edmondson Ave and Franklin St: http://goo.gl/maps/evD40
That's even worse as the through traffic has a green signal.
Title: Traffic signal
Post by: wisvishr0 on August 23, 2014, 03:26:29 PM
One at Edmondson Ave and Franklin St: http://goo.gl/maps/evD40
That's even worse as the through traffic has a green signal.


iPad

Why is that? Wouldn't you have the green orb on the doghouse signal on as well?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on August 23, 2014, 03:32:01 PM
One at Edmondson Ave and Franklin St: http://goo.gl/maps/evD40
That's even worse as the through traffic has a green signal.


iPad

Why is that? Wouldn't you have the green orb on the doghouse signal on as well?

But the doghouse wouldn't have a red. That's just asking for trouble.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kj3400 on August 23, 2014, 03:35:06 PM
One at Edmondson Ave and Franklin St: http://goo.gl/maps/evD40
That's even worse as the through traffic has a green signal.


iPad

Why is that? Wouldn't you have the green orb on the doghouse signal on as well?

It apparently only turns on when that lane is open to straight ahead traffic. Just before the signal is a light up sign (http://goo.gl/maps/1Pyqy) that changes whether the 2nd from left lane is right turn only or straight only. when the sign is lit to the latter, the doghouse will only show the green (actually a straight ahead arrow). The whole arrangement is weird, as the right turn signals are only red when the pedestrian signal has a walk phase. Fortunately, this signal's days are numbered with the Baltimore Red Line on the way and Baltimore refitting signals in general.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: wisvishr0 on August 23, 2014, 03:38:37 PM



It apparently only turns on when that lane is open to straight ahead traffic. Just before the signal is a light up sign (http://goo.gl/maps/1Pyqy) that changes whether the 2nd from left lane is right turn only or straight only. when the sign is lit to the latter, the doghouse will only show the green (actually a straight ahead arrow). The whole arrangement is weird, as the right turn signals are only red when the pedestrian signal has a walk phase. Fortunately, this signal's days are numbered with the Baltimore Red Line on the way and Baltimore refitting signals in general.

 Oh, that explains it. Ugh, so confusing.


iPad
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on August 23, 2014, 04:20:13 PM
Yeah, it bugs the shit out of me. This is the full picture to show the entire setup since I'm sure there will be questions.
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/08/22/f1815b61ead5aaf954453edf1abfb02f.jpg)

There is another one like it on Wilson Bridge Rd and N. High Street in Worthington, facing westbound traffic.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on August 24, 2014, 07:20:36 AM



It apparently only turns on when that lane is open to straight ahead traffic. Just before the signal is a light up sign (http://goo.gl/maps/1Pyqy) that changes whether the 2nd from left lane is right turn only or straight only. when the sign is lit to the latter, the doghouse will only show the green (actually a straight ahead arrow). The whole arrangement is weird, as the right turn signals are only red when the pedestrian signal has a walk phase. Fortunately, this signal's days are numbered with the Baltimore Red Line on the way and Baltimore refitting signals in general.

 Oh, that explains it. Ugh, so confusing.


iPad


Another terrible thing about this intersection, as seen when the GSV vehicle passed through is that the pedestrian control signals are offset.  The crosswalk between the southeastern corner and the median is "walk" and the crosswalk between the median and the southwestern corner is "don't walk".  So if someone wanted to legally cross between the two corners, they would have to wait at a very narrow median.

I've never liked this approach, because I generally assume that if I see a "walk" signal, that I would have the right of way to cross all the way to the other corner and I wouldn't even think that I should wait at a median as narrow as this.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 24, 2014, 10:56:02 PM



It apparently only turns on when that lane is open to straight ahead traffic. Just before the signal is a light up sign (http://goo.gl/maps/1Pyqy) that changes whether the 2nd from left lane is right turn only or straight only. when the sign is lit to the latter, the doghouse will only show the green (actually a straight ahead arrow). The whole arrangement is weird, as the right turn signals are only red when the pedestrian signal has a walk phase. Fortunately, this signal's days are numbered with the Baltimore Red Line on the way and Baltimore refitting signals in general.

 Oh, that explains it. Ugh, so confusing.


iPad


Another terrible thing about this intersection, as seen when the GSV vehicle passed through is that the pedestrian control signals are offset.  The crosswalk between the southeastern corner and the median is "walk" and the crosswalk between the median and the southwestern corner is "don't walk".  So if someone wanted to legally cross between the two corners, they would have to wait at a very narrow median.

I've never liked this approach, because I generally assume that if I see a "walk" signal, that I would have the right of way to cross all the way to the other corner and I wouldn't even think that I should wait at a median as narrow as this.
They could've caught the signals as they were transitioning from walk to the flashing don't walk.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on August 25, 2014, 01:22:37 AM
Fife, Washington  ///  GSV is from Aug 2012 but the signal is still this way, at least as of 30 minutes ago.

Not quite sure why one right turn lane needs two arrows, but whatever.

(http://i.imgur.com/EeOV6v9.png)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 25, 2014, 06:36:25 AM
Fife, Washington  ///  GSV is from Aug 2012 but the signal is still this way, at least as of 30 minutes ago.

Not quite sure why one right turn lane needs two arrows, but whatever.

(http://i.imgur.com/EeOV6v9.png)

If there was a sole arrow, and that light bulb burned out, one would never know when they have the right of way for the right turn.  It's always good to have 2 traffic lights serving the same purpose in case one has a malfunction of any sorts (including burned out bulbs).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 6a on August 25, 2014, 05:57:37 PM
I guess I just don't get why there is a need for both a ball and an arrow in these cases. Are these not all for turn only lanes? Why wouldn't an arrow along be enough?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on August 25, 2014, 06:10:51 PM
Fife, Washington  ///  GSV is from Aug 2012 but the signal is still this way, at least as of 30 minutes ago.

Not quite sure why one right turn lane needs two arrows, but whatever.

(http://i.imgur.com/EeOV6v9.png)

If there was a sole arrow, and that light bulb burned out, one would never know when they have the right of way for the right turn.  It's always good to have 2 traffic lights serving the same purpose in case one has a malfunction of any sorts (including burned out bulbs).

I completely agree with the concept of emphasis, but this is a right turn. Worst case scenario, the traffic will stop on red, then follow through with the turn. If the arrow burned out, which isn't really a big deal because it would be replaced almost immediately, the turning traffic would just follow the left/straight signal, which would eventually display a green orb above a green left arrow. Wait, there's only one green orb ... these signals are really confusing me. :spin:

I guess I just don't get why there is a need for both a ball and an arrow in these cases. Are these not all for turn only lanes? Why wouldn't an arrow along be enough?

My guess is emphasis for the mainline (i.e. straight-through) traffic that it needs to stop.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: wisvishr0 on August 25, 2014, 07:54:04 PM
Fife, Washington  ///  GSV is from Aug 2012 but the signal is still this way, at least as of 30 minutes ago.

Not quite sure why one right turn lane needs two arrows, but whatever.

(http://i.imgur.com/EeOV6v9.png)

If there was a sole arrow, and that light bulb burned out, one would never know when they have the right of way for the right turn.  It's always good to have 2 traffic lights serving the same purpose in case one has a malfunction of any sorts (including burned out bulbs).

I completely agree with the concept of emphasis, but this is a right turn. Worst case scenario, the traffic will stop on red, then follow through with the turn. If the arrow burned out, which isn't really a big deal because it would be replaced almost immediately, the turning traffic would just follow the left/straight signal, which would eventually display a green orb above a green left arrow. Wait, there's only one green orb ... these signals are really confusing me. :spin:

I guess I just don't get why there is a need for both a ball and an arrow in these cases. Are these not all for turn only lanes? Why wouldn't an arrow along be enough?

My guess is emphasis for the mainline (i.e. straight-through) traffic that it needs to stop.

Yeah, most right turn doghouses don't have any redundancy measures here in Maryland (while left-turn doghouses do).

On a tangent, the redundant left turn "doghouses" actually become "dog towers" in many intersections in Maryland, as they enlarge and emphasize the left-turn indications.

(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g431/wisvishr0/ScreenShot2014-08-25at75206PM.png)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 25, 2014, 07:59:14 PM
Fife, Washington  ///  GSV is from Aug 2012 but the signal is still this way, at least as of 30 minutes ago.

Not quite sure why one right turn lane needs two arrows, but whatever.

(http://i.imgur.com/EeOV6v9.png)

If there was a sole arrow, and that light bulb burned out, one would never know when they have the right of way for the right turn.  It's always good to have 2 traffic lights serving the same purpose in case one has a malfunction of any sorts (including burned out bulbs).

I completely agree with the concept of emphasis, but this is a right turn. Worst case scenario, the traffic will stop on red, then follow through with the turn. If the arrow burned out, which isn't really a big deal because it would be replaced almost immediately, the turning traffic would just follow the left/straight signal, which would eventually display a green orb above a green left arrow. Wait, there's only one green orb ... these signals are really confusing me. :spin:

Don't be so sure about that.  There are people that will refuse to turn right on red no matter what.  And they wouldn't turn on a thru green ball because the right turn signal still stays red.  They will eventually go, I'm sure, after some irritating horn honking.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on August 25, 2014, 08:09:40 PM

On a tangent, the redundant left turn "doghouses" actually become "dog towers" in many intersections in Maryland, as they enlarge and emphasize the left-turn indications.

(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g431/wisvishr0/ScreenShot2014-08-25at75206PM.png)
MD decided that 8" lenses were appropriate for the near-side supplemental signal.  The arrows have to be on 12" lenses per MUTCD.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on August 25, 2014, 08:26:38 PM
Fife, Washington  ///  GSV is from Aug 2012 but the signal is still this way, at least as of 30 minutes ago.

Not quite sure why one right turn lane needs two arrows, but whatever.

If there was a sole arrow, and that light bulb burned out, one would never know when they have the right of way for the right turn.  It's always good to have 2 traffic lights serving the same purpose in case one has a malfunction of any sorts (including burned out bulbs).

I completely agree with the concept of emphasis, but this is a right turn. Worst case scenario, the traffic will stop on red, then follow through with the turn. If the arrow burned out, which isn't really a big deal because it would be replaced almost immediately, the turning traffic would just follow the left/straight signal, which would eventually display a green orb above a green left arrow. Wait, there's only one green orb ... these signals are really confusing me. :spin:

Don't be so sure about that.  There are people that will refuse to turn right on red no matter what.  And they wouldn't turn on a thru green ball because the right turn signal still stays red.  They will eventually go, I'm sure, after some irritating horn honking.

The right turn signals are in line with the far left signal house. If the far left signal house displays a green arrow/green ball, the right two signals are green arrows. IF the arrows are burned out (both of them, god forbid), those two signals will simply be blank. Some of the more law-abiding citizens might opt to stop and then proceed as if following standard power-cut procedures, but most citizens probably won't notice them at all.

I'll go film the intersection later to give you an idea of what we are dealing with. I'll add a new post with a previous quote of yours to make sure you see it. Sound good?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on August 25, 2014, 09:38:53 PM

On a tangent, the redundant left turn "doghouses" actually become "dog towers" in many intersections in Maryland, as they enlarge and emphasize the left-turn indications.

(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g431/wisvishr0/ScreenShot2014-08-25at75206PM.png)
MD decided that 8" lenses were appropriate for the near-side supplemental signal.  The arrows have to be on 12" lenses per MUTCD.

NY Region 10 loves doing the "separate doghouse", except all lenses are 12". Never figured that one out.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on August 25, 2014, 10:31:56 PM
On a tangent, the redundant left turn "doghouses" actually become "dog towers" in many intersections in Maryland, as they enlarge and emphasize the left-turn indications.

Those remind me of the Australian signal housings:

(http://www.hobbiesplus.com.au/signspotters/ledlight8so.jpeg)

Granted, ours don't have the red arrow, but the concept is still fairly comparable.

That reminds me, why don't we use a red arrow that can just "disappear" when not needed (i.e. when there aren't pedestrians present)?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on August 26, 2014, 12:54:49 AM
Until the early 1970s, 1st generation neon pedestrian signals from Winko-Matic were still installed in New York City. They first appeared in the mid 1950s, and incandescent pedestrian signals took their place by the mid 1960s.

What were installed in later years appeared to be N.O.S. and were still dark olive green. Though all would eventually be repainted yellow.
(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/10533717_786728618024614_1375082561183764098_n_zpsa04e97cd.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on August 26, 2014, 02:18:12 PM
An early set-up from downtown Brooklyn in New York. 1950s. The first three-section traffic signals of the time were painted dark olive green, and a plumbizer arm was used to suspend a cluster of traffic signals. It would be in use for a short period of time until the traditional hanger would replace it sometime in the late 1950s.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/downtown32_zps5598c348.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on August 27, 2014, 09:01:50 PM
Fife, Washington  ///  GSV is from Aug 2012 but the signal is still this way, at least as of 30 minutes ago.

Not quite sure why one right turn lane needs two arrows, but whatever.



If there was a sole arrow, and that light bulb burned out, one would never know when they have the right of way for the right turn.  It's always good to have 2 traffic lights serving the same purpose in case one has a malfunction of any sorts (including burned out bulbs).

I completely agree with the concept of emphasis, but this is a right turn. Worst case scenario, the traffic will stop on red, then follow through with the turn. If the arrow burned out, which isn't really a big deal because it would be replaced almost immediately, the turning traffic would just follow the left/straight signal, which would eventually display a green orb above a green left arrow. Wait, there's only one green orb ... these signals are really confusing me. :spin:

Don't be so sure about that.  There are people that will refuse to turn right on red no matter what.  And they wouldn't turn on a thru green ball because the right turn signal still stays red.  They will eventually go, I'm sure, after some irritating horn honking.

You rarely see these in So. California.  Here is an example at the corner of Santa Monica and Wilshire in Beverly Hills:

http://goo.gl/maps/xC1ZJ


I'm not a fan of these types of signals either.  I beleive the MUTCD should be amended to require that on a three aspect signal head, all aspects should control  for the same direction and consequently no two aspects would ever be shown at the same time. 

So we should not see both a red light and a green arrow (left or right) on a three aspect signal turned on at the same time.  This should either be a doghouse, or a five aspect tower signal.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on August 27, 2014, 09:21:49 PM
I actually don't have a problem with the 3-section signal showing a red ball and green arrow simultaneously. I can understand a red ball with a green arrow on a doghouse, why is the 3-section red ball with a green arrow any different?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on August 27, 2014, 09:29:45 PM
I think the confusion is that at least from far away the signal appears to be showing conflicting directions.  In truth, there is no conflict, but it leads to the appearance.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Revive 755 on August 27, 2014, 09:47:46 PM
^ But if the second head is for redundancy, IMHO it should be mounted on the support post for the mast arm, or a signal head should be provided on the near side of the intersection.

Supposedly, the signals at an intersection go into all-red flash if a movement has only one indication and that indication burns out.


You rarely see these in So. California.  Here is an example at the corner of Santa Monica and Wilshire in Beverly Hills:

http://goo.gl/maps/xC1ZJ


I'm not a fan of these types of signals either.  I beleive the MUTCD should be amended to require that on a three aspect signal head, all aspects should control  for the same direction and consequently no two aspects would ever be shown at the same time. 

So we should not see both a red light and a green arrow (left or right) on a three aspect signal turned on at the same time.  This should either be a doghouse, or a five aspect tower signal.

I think they are kind of prohibited already by parts of Section 4D of the MUTCD.  Assuming the green arrow indications are being used properly, the signal head design would fall under MUTCD Section 4D.23.  Paragraph 02, Item A-2 looks applicable:
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD
2.  Steady CIRCULAR RED, steady right-turn YELLOW ARROW, and right-turn GREEN ARROW. Only one of three indications shall be displayed at any given time.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on August 27, 2014, 09:51:23 PM
^ But if the second head is for redundancy, IMHO it should be mounted on the support post for the mast arm, or a signal head should be provided on the near side of the intersection.

Supposedly, the signals at an intersection go into all-red flash if a movement has only one indication and that indication burns out.


You rarely see these in So. California.  Here is an example at the corner of Santa Monica and Wilshire in Beverly Hills:

http://goo.gl/maps/xC1ZJ


I'm not a fan of these types of signals either.  I beleive the MUTCD should be amended to require that on a three aspect signal head, all aspects should control  for the same direction and consequently no two aspects would ever be shown at the same time. 

So we should not see both a red light and a green arrow (left or right) on a three aspect signal turned on at the same time.  This should either be a doghouse, or a five aspect tower signal.

I think they are kind of prohibited already by parts of Section 4D of the MUTCD.  Assuming the green arrow indications are being used properly, the signal head design would fall under MUTCD Section 4D.23.  Paragraph 02, Item A-2 looks applicable:
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD
2.  Steady CIRCULAR RED, steady right-turn YELLOW ARROW, and right-turn GREEN ARROW. Only one of three indications shall be displayed at any given time.

Yes, CIRCLE RED, YELLOW ARROW, GREEN ARROW is the perfect signal at an intersection where the only legal movement is a turn.  And in that case each signal phase would be exclusive and you would not see CIRCLE RED and GREEN ARROW at the same time.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on August 27, 2014, 09:57:19 PM
In the case with the example from California, the red w/ green arrow was for a right turn lane and a shared right/through lane. In that case, like the others, I think showing the red ball with the green arrow is just a matter of trying to stay consistent with other signals facing the same direction. If the 4-section signal (in the California example) had the red ball with a green arrow, and the 3-section had only the green arrow, it would look odd.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on August 27, 2014, 10:14:20 PM
In the case with the example from California, the red w/ green arrow was for a right turn lane and a shared right/through lane. In that case, like the others, I think showing the red ball with the green arrow is just a matter of trying to stay consistent with other signals facing the same direction. If the 4-section signal (in the California example) had the red ball with a green arrow, and the 3-section had only the green arrow, it would look odd.

New York, in a couple places, uses a dedicated turn signal, a doghouse, and a straight arrow in that order at double left turns where one lane has the option of turning or going straight. I-87 Exit 19 in Queensbury (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.329675,-73.685331,3a,75y,266.06h,71.96t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sr8_00tG5gJzgx5O7UDgiog!2e0) is an example. As the doghouse is all arrows, there is never a signal with an ambiguous movement. Differs from the standard approach to such an intersection in that the straight movement can occur without the turning movement.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on August 27, 2014, 10:17:45 PM
In the case with the example from California, the red w/ green arrow was for a right turn lane and a shared right/through lane. In that case, like the others, I think showing the red ball with the green arrow is just a matter of trying to stay consistent with other signals facing the same direction. If the 4-section signal (in the California example) had the red ball with a green arrow, and the 3-section had only the green arrow, it would look odd.

New York, in a couple places, uses a dedicated turn signal, a doghouse, and a straight arrow in that order at double left turns where one lane has the option of turning or going straight. I-87 Exit 19 in Queensbury (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.329675,-73.685331,3a,75y,266.06h,71.96t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sr8_00tG5gJzgx5O7UDgiog!2e0) is an example. As the doghouse is all arrows, there is never a signal with an ambiguous movement. Differs from the standard approach to such an intersection in that the straight movement can occur without the turning movement.

As a driver, that signal would drive me crazy. If you are in the centre lane and the car in front of you decides to turn left, you're basically down to one straight lane, which is an unnecessary obstruction of traffic flow. Should just be two-left yield on green.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on August 27, 2014, 10:28:08 PM
In the case with the example from California, the red w/ green arrow was for a right turn lane and a shared right/through lane. In that case, like the others, I think showing the red ball with the green arrow is just a matter of trying to stay consistent with other signals facing the same direction. If the 4-section signal (in the California example) had the red ball with a green arrow, and the 3-section had only the green arrow, it would look odd.

New York, in a couple places, uses a dedicated turn signal, a doghouse, and a straight arrow in that order at double left turns where one lane has the option of turning or going straight. I-87 Exit 19 in Queensbury (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.329675,-73.685331,3a,75y,266.06h,71.96t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sr8_00tG5gJzgx5O7UDgiog!2e0) is an example. As the doghouse is all arrows, there is never a signal with an ambiguous movement. Differs from the standard approach to such an intersection in that the straight movement can occur without the turning movement.

As a driver, that signal would drive me crazy. If you are in the centre lane and the car in front of you decides to turn left, you're basically down to one straight lane, which is an unnecessary obstruction of traffic flow. Should just be two-left yield on green.

2 left yield on green is unheard of in New York. Typically, there isn't enough straight traffic at this location to require a second lane (it ends immediately beyond the signal), as it runs into a mountain pretty quickly. NY 254 ends at the signal and town maintenance takes over. Only needed for when school buses are going to/from the schools on the right. It used to be a single left and that was a nightmare during tourist season (the entire year). Typically, if the light is green, through traffic keeps to the right and both lanes are used as turn lanes. As the turn movement is by far the heaviest at this intersection (as in its AADT exceeds the AADT of the entire road west of this intersection by quite a bit) and the side road (SB offramp) is a minor movement (typically handled by Exit 20), there usually isn't much of a problem, with sensors keeping the turn movement going unless there is opposing traffic.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Revive 755 on August 27, 2014, 10:52:25 PM
In the case with the example from California, the red w/ green arrow was for a right turn lane and a shared right/through lane. In that case, like the others, I think showing the red ball with the green arrow is just a matter of trying to stay consistent with other signals facing the same direction. If the 4-section signal (in the California example) had the red ball with a green arrow, and the 3-section had only the green arrow, it would look odd.

New York, in a couple places, uses a dedicated turn signal, a doghouse, and a straight arrow in that order at double left turns where one lane has the option of turning or going straight. I-87 Exit 19 in Queensbury (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.329675,-73.685331,3a,75y,266.06h,71.96t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sr8_00tG5gJzgx5O7UDgiog!2e0) is an example. As the doghouse is all arrows, there is never a signal with an ambiguous movement. Differs from the standard approach to such an intersection in that the straight movement can occur without the turning movement.

Both of those run afoul of the MUTCD:

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD Section 4D.17 Paragraph06
A protected only mode left-turn movement that does not begin and terminate at the same time as the adjacent through movement shall not be provided on an approach unless an exclusive left-turn lane exists.

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD Section 4D.19 Paragraph 01
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.

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD Section 4D.21 Paragraph 05
A protected only mode left-turn movement that does not begin and terminate at the same time as the adjacent through movement shall not be provided on an approach unless an exclusive left-turn lane exists.

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD Section 4D.23 Paragraph 01
A shared signal face shall not be used for protected only mode right turns unless the CIRCULAR GREEN and right-turn GREEN ARROW signal indications always begin and terminate together.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on August 27, 2014, 11:28:56 PM
In the case with the example from California, the red w/ green arrow was for a right turn lane and a shared right/through lane. In that case, like the others, I think showing the red ball with the green arrow is just a matter of trying to stay consistent with other signals facing the same direction. If the 4-section signal (in the California example) had the red ball with a green arrow, and the 3-section had only the green arrow, it would look odd.

New York, in a couple places, uses a dedicated turn signal, a doghouse, and a straight arrow in that order at double left turns where one lane has the option of turning or going straight. I-87 Exit 19 in Queensbury (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.329675,-73.685331,3a,75y,266.06h,71.96t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sr8_00tG5gJzgx5O7UDgiog!2e0) is an example. As the doghouse is all arrows, there is never a signal with an ambiguous movement. Differs from the standard approach to such an intersection in that the straight movement can occur without the turning movement.

Both of those run afoul of the MUTCD:

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD Section 4D.17 Paragraph06
A protected only mode left-turn movement that does not begin and terminate at the same time as the adjacent through movement shall not be provided on an approach unless an exclusive left-turn lane exists.

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD Section 4D.19 Paragraph 01
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.

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD Section 4D.21 Paragraph 05
A protected only mode left-turn movement that does not begin and terminate at the same time as the adjacent through movement shall not be provided on an approach unless an exclusive left-turn lane exists.

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD Section 4D.23 Paragraph 01
A shared signal face shall not be used for protected only mode right turns unless the CIRCULAR GREEN and right-turn GREEN ARROW signal indications always begin and terminate together.

When were these regulations put in? I say that because Region 1 does not typically go afoul of the MUTCD. That being said, the New York example should probably have the middle lane equipped with electronic lane use signage. The biggest issue is that there's a significant amount of traffic going from NY 254 to Saratoga or Albany when the second through lane is needed. What I would do is have a second dedicated turn lane at all times except 7-10 AM M-F and 7-11 AM Sundays. At these times, there would be a shared lane that follows the MUTCD. Opposing traffic is light enough to limit red times on NY 254. If the school wasn't right there, I'd toss in a loop ramp or flyover to get the turn movement out of the way, but that's just me.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on August 28, 2014, 02:22:57 AM
New York, in a couple places, uses a dedicated turn signal, a doghouse, and a straight arrow in that order at double left turns where one lane has the option of turning or going straight. I-87 Exit 19 in Queensbury (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.329675,-73.685331,3a,75y,266.06h,71.96t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sr8_00tG5gJzgx5O7UDgiog!2e0) is an example. As the doghouse is all arrows, there is never a signal with an ambiguous movement. Differs from the standard approach to such an intersection in that the straight movement can occur without the turning movement.
This example reminds me of an example 1995hoo shared in DC.  I don't remember if it was earlier in this thread or another one.  IMO, it has bad idea written all over it.  In practice, locals may keep right to go straight.  But I can envision someone not familiar with the intersection wanting to go straight in the left lane, only to encounter someone waiting to turn left; where the left turning vehicle must wait for a green arrow.  The intersection should be restriped for either one through lane or widened to facilitate two dedicated left turn lanes. 

Someone else mentioned allowing a permissive double left turn.  I don't like that setup personally.  I think it makes someone in the left left turn lane more exposed to an accident due to the driver's lack of visibility.  Especially if the vehicle in the right left turn lane pulled past the stop bar a bit.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on August 28, 2014, 02:46:31 AM
Someone else mentioned allowing a permissive double left turn.  I don't like that setup personally.  I think it makes someone in the left left turn lane more exposed to an accident due to the driver's lack of visibility.  Especially if the vehicle in the right left turn lane pulled past the stop bar a bit.

I've spent enough time in Edmonton to know that it works much better than you could ever imagine. And in almost all situations, both lines of traffic were well into the intersection waiting to turn. I can assure you that it feels like driving in another continent entirely.

Here's a picture of one of the intersections...there's not very many dual lefts in Edmonton, but I can count on one hand the number of protected-only signals I've ever seen. They are in fact so rare, the city installs "no left turn on red" signs (the symbolic Canadian version) to keep people from turning anyways:

(http://i.imgur.com/7qwSPpe.png)

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on August 28, 2014, 02:56:33 AM
^ I have to admit that sight lines look reasonable.  However, I'm still not sold on it being safe.  I've seen far too many impatient and stupid drivers out there.  While I'm all for weeding out the inept, I do feel bad for a driver going straight in the opposite direction who had the right of way and was guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Those are the drivers whom I'm looking to protect by making double lefts protected only.  I know one can argue the a left turner doesn't have to turn left during the permissive phase if they feel it's unsafe to do so.  However, if there isn't any protected phase, they may never feel it's safe to turn until after midnight.  I also know that the through vehicles going the opposite way should be in control of their vehicle at all times and be able to slow down to avoid a crash with someone turning left into their path.  However, I am in the group that speed doesn't kill, stupid does.  Unfortunately, we can't fix stupid.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on August 28, 2014, 08:50:37 AM
^ I have to admit that sight lines look reasonable.  However, I'm still not sold on it being safe.  I've seen far too many impatient and stupid drivers out there.  While I'm all for weeding out the inept, I do feel bad for a driver going straight in the opposite direction who had the right of way and was guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Those are the drivers whom I'm looking to protect by making double lefts protected only.  I know one can argue the a left turner doesn't have to turn left during the permissive phase if they feel it's unsafe to do so.  However, if there isn't any protected phase, they may never feel it's safe to turn until after midnight.  I also know that the through vehicles going the opposite way should be in control of their vehicle at all times and be able to slow down to avoid a crash with someone turning left into their path.  However, I am in the group that speed doesn't kill, stupid does.  Unfortunately, we can't fix stupid.

I agree. But then again, how many double lefts are even in Canada? I can't remember any where I've been that weren't at a T intersection.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 28, 2014, 10:19:10 AM
We have several permissive double lefts here in Huntsville. They seem to be rather safe. The only difference is that two people can turn left at once from one direction in the permissive phase instead of just one.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kj3400 on August 28, 2014, 11:15:34 AM
The only one I can think of in Maryland is at Liberty Heights Av. and Northern Pkwy.

http://goo.gl/maps/b928K
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on August 28, 2014, 12:58:13 PM
New York has a very limited amount of permissive double rights, several of which are around Buffalo. There's one in Amherst (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.001386,-78.822004,3a,75y,290.65h,73.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5zfFbiI8ArZbHIvqn-30Cg!2e0). Region 5 also has a double right that allows turns on red (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.885119,-78.754984,3a,75y,112.88h,93.49t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sixLkfDNz99rp4g5Al7h65w!2e0). No signage restricts that movement to the rightmost lane. Tons of accidents here.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on August 29, 2014, 05:00:19 PM
^ I have to admit that sight lines look reasonable.  However, I'm still not sold on it being safe.  I've seen far too many impatient and stupid drivers out there.  While I'm all for weeding out the inept, I do feel bad for a driver going straight in the opposite direction who had the right of way and was guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Those are the drivers whom I'm looking to protect by making double lefts protected only.  I know one can argue the a left turner doesn't have to turn left during the permissive phase if they feel it's unsafe to do so.  However, if there isn't any protected phase, they may never feel it's safe to turn until after midnight.  I also know that the through vehicles going the opposite way should be in control of their vehicle at all times and be able to slow down to avoid a crash with someone turning left into their path.  However, I am in the group that speed doesn't kill, stupid does.  Unfortunately, we can't fix stupid.

I agree. But then again, how many double lefts are even in Canada? I can't remember any where I've been that weren't at a T intersection.

I would hate to have traffic control be a methodology for implementing a Darwin award.  Traffic control needs to be designed with safety as the primary concern, even at the expense of traffic throughput.  And it should be designed from the point of view of the average driver.  If it's too complicated to allow a permissive double left, then it should not be designed that way.

I can't speak for every state, but I know that CA prohibits permissive double lefts because of the issues that signalman addresses.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on September 02, 2014, 09:25:35 AM
I was noticing that in Ontario that instead of using the green arrow for permissive left turns like we do, they flash their green signals to let motorists know of that specific phase.

Is that a Canada thing or is it only provincial within Ontario?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on September 02, 2014, 06:52:48 PM
I was noticing that in Ontario that instead of using the green arrow for permissive left turns like we do, they flash their green signals to let motorists know of that specific phase.

Is that a Canada thing or is it only provincial within Ontario?

The only provinces I have set foot in, British Columbia and Alberta, both use flashing green arrows during the protected phase. Otherwise, the signal is just a green orb (unless the signal is protected-only). The purpose is so Canada can, as a whole, avoid the FYA, the doghouse, and other 5-head signals (from a color-blind perspective, the flashing arrow means go, the solid arrow means perhaps you should slow down and yield. No arrow means straight-up yield).

For the record, I prefer this setup compared to doghouses (less power usage) and FYAs (only two signals are required at a standard intersection versus three for an FYA).



Post 1010!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/62799063/wins_400x400.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on September 03, 2014, 05:23:34 AM
I was noticing that in Ontario that instead of using the green arrow for permissive left turns like we do, they flash their green signals to let motorists know of that specific phase.

Is that a Canada thing or is it only provincial within Ontario?

The only provinces I have set foot in, British Columbia and Alberta, both use flashing green arrows during the protected phase. Otherwise, the signal is just a green orb (unless the signal is protected-only). The purpose is so Canada can, as a whole, avoid the FYA, the doghouse, and other 5-head signals (from a color-blind perspective, the flashing arrow means go, the solid arrow means perhaps you should slow down and yield. No arrow means straight-up yield).

For the record, IIRC, Canada had the flashing circular green before the FYA was mainstream in the U.S. Since Canada is a different country, they aren't under obligation to adopt FYA or any other signal scheme, unless there's some treaty clause somewhere that I've never heard about.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on September 03, 2014, 01:32:41 PM
I was noticing that in Ontario that instead of using the green arrow for permissive left turns like we do, they flash their green signals to let motorists know of that specific phase.

Is that a Canada thing or is it only provincial within Ontario?

The only provinces I have set foot in, British Columbia and Alberta, both use flashing green arrows during the protected phase. Otherwise, the signal is just a green orb (unless the signal is protected-only). The purpose is so Canada can, as a whole, avoid the FYA, the doghouse, and other 5-head signals (from a color-blind perspective, the flashing arrow means go, the solid arrow means perhaps you should slow down and yield. No arrow means straight-up yield).

For the record, IIRC, Canada had the flashing circular green before the FYA was mainstream in the U.S. Since Canada is a different country, they aren't under obligation to adopt FYA or any other signal scheme, unless there's some treaty clause somewhere that I've never heard about.

I would imagine that the only reason our traffic signals are even remotely similar, is probably due to the NAFTA (or its predecessor, the FTA). Before the 80s, IIRC, Canadian and American traffic control systems had greater variation than there is now. Not a lot, but more.

But back to the topic, I can't think of any reason that Canada would need to adopt the FYA. It seems that their version, just a solid green orb after the flashing arrow phase, works perfectly well. Now with that said, I am not a signal expert, so I'm not sure if the yellow trap still exists in this situation or not. And if it did, whether or not it would need to be addressed at all.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on September 03, 2014, 04:46:13 PM
I would imagine that the only reason our traffic signals are even remotely similar, is probably due to the NAFTA (or its predecessor, the FTA). Before the 80s, IIRC, Canadian and American traffic control systems had greater variation than there is now. Not a lot, but more.

Nope.  It's due to mere proximity, not NAFTA.  Prior to NAFTA, they were sill very similar.  Even the FMVSS and CMVSS are very similar regarding automobiles (and that dates back to the 1960s).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on September 03, 2014, 04:58:51 PM
I would imagine that the only reason our traffic signals are even remotely similar, is probably due to the NAFTA (or its predecessor, the FTA). Before the 80s, IIRC, Canadian and American traffic control systems had greater variation than there is now. Not a lot, but more.

Nope.  It's due to mere proximity, not NAFTA.  Prior to NAFTA, they were sill very similar.  Even the FMVSS and CMVSS are very similar regarding automobiles (and that dates back to the 1960s).

Perhaps not precisely NAFTA, but the concept of free-flow between our two countries has lead to ideas being shared between the two countries. Of course, that's due to proximity as you mentioned.

Also, I remind you that, until the 70s, Canada used a white center line with a yellow shoulder. Certainly by the 70s, America was well into yellow center lines. That's a huge difference, IMO.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on September 03, 2014, 06:02:32 PM
I would imagine that the only reason our traffic signals are even remotely similar, is probably due to the NAFTA (or its predecessor, the FTA). Before the 80s, IIRC, Canadian and American traffic control systems had greater variation than there is now. Not a lot, but more.

Nope.  It's due to mere proximity, not NAFTA.  Prior to NAFTA, they were sill very similar.  Even the FMVSS and CMVSS are very similar regarding automobiles (and that dates back to the 1960s).

Perhaps not precisely NAFTA, but the concept of free-flow between our two countries has lead to ideas being shared between the two countries. Of course, that's due to proximity as you mentioned.

Also, I remind you that, until the 70s, Canada used a white center line with a yellow shoulder. Certainly by the 70s, America was well into yellow center lines. That's a huge difference, IMO.

Incorrect. MUTCD didn't require them until 1971 and there was a 4 year transition period that followed. From what I can tell, Canada changed over before then.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on September 03, 2014, 06:07:59 PM
I would imagine that the only reason our traffic signals are even remotely similar, is probably due to the NAFTA (or its predecessor, the FTA). Before the 80s, IIRC, Canadian and American traffic control systems had greater variation than there is now. Not a lot, but more.

Nope.  It's due to mere proximity, not NAFTA.  Prior to NAFTA, they were sill very similar.  Even the FMVSS and CMVSS are very similar regarding automobiles (and that dates back to the 1960s).

Perhaps not precisely NAFTA, but the concept of free-flow between our two countries has lead to ideas being shared between the two countries. Of course, that's due to proximity as you mentioned.

Also, I remind you that, until the 70s, Canada used a white center line with a yellow shoulder. Certainly by the 70s, America was well into yellow center lines. That's a huge difference, IMO.

Incorrect. MUTCD didn't require them until 1971 and there was a 4 year transition period that followed. From what I can tell, Canada changed over before then.

Research fails me once again.

(http://i.imgur.com/PKwyw.gif)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Revive 755 on September 03, 2014, 09:23:12 PM
Regarding permissive double left movements, there are at least four intersections with them in Chicagoland:

* Thorndale Avenue at Park Boulevard (https://www.google.com/maps?q=chicago,+il&hl=en&ll=41.983551,-88.012274&spn=0.000621,0.000862&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=42.901912,56.513672&hnear=Chicago,+Cook+County,+Illinois&t=h&z=20) in Itasca, hte signal is maintained by DuPage County.  This intersection has a permissive double left EB, SB has the center lane marked for left-thru-right, effectively providing a permissive double left and a double right without any restrictions for the inner right turn on red.

* Sunset Ridge Road at Skokie Boulevard (https://www.google.com/maps?q=chicago,+il&hl=en&ll=42.134394,-87.788956&spn=0.001752,0.001725&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=42.901912,56.513672&hnear=Chicago,+Cook+County,+Illinois&t=h&z=19), signal is maintained by Cook County IIRC.

* Joliet Street at Cass Street (https://www.google.com/maps?q=chicago,+il&hl=en&ll=41.527623,-88.084463&spn=0.000885,0.000862&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=42.901912,56.513672&hnear=Chicago,+Cook+County,+Illinois&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.527623,-88.084463&panoid=qRpRxN7L-B8btRLXeqt6eg&cbp=12,15.34,,0,5.74) in downtown Joliet.

* IL 50/Cicero Avenue at the north outer road for I-290 (https://www.google.com/maps?q=chicago,+il&hl=en&ll=41.871834,-87.744938&spn=0.000622,0.000862&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=42.901912,56.513672&hnear=Chicago,+Cook+County,+Illinois&t=h&z=20) (Chicago signal)


I remember reading online somewhere that permissive double lefts can work well if they are offset enough.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on September 03, 2014, 09:34:09 PM
There are a couple of them in different areas of New York City as well.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on September 03, 2014, 09:37:36 PM
There are a couple of them in different areas of New York City as well.

Are all on one-way streets? I wasn't counting them because there's no opposing traffic, but I know of a few that fit this description.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on September 03, 2014, 09:53:22 PM
There are a couple of them in different areas of New York City as well.

Are all on one-way streets? I wasn't counting them because there's no opposing traffic, but I know of a few that fit this description.

While that is true, I did not refer to those on one-way streets there. Such lanes are found on two-lane thoroughfares throughout the boroughs. I personally know of several. One in particular was altered several years ago.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on September 03, 2014, 10:20:38 PM
There are a couple of them in different areas of New York City as well.

Are all on one-way streets? I wasn't counting them because there's no opposing traffic, but I know of a few that fit this description.

While that is true, I did not refer to those on one-way streets there. Such lanes are found on two-lane thoroughfares throughout the boroughs. I personally know of several. One in particular was altered several years ago.

Son of a bitch (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.704464,-73.815613,3a,60.7y,132.27h,81.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1snMokomcBrwM3w1tTvdrqSg!2e0). Other direction is pretty minor, but still.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on September 07, 2014, 08:37:27 AM
There are a couple of them in different areas of New York City as well.

Are all on one-way streets? I wasn't counting them because there's no opposing traffic, but I know of a few that fit this description.

While that is true, I did not refer to those on one-way streets there. Such lanes are found on two-lane thoroughfares throughout the boroughs. I personally know of several. One in particular was altered several years ago.

Now are some of the issues regarding sight lines also an issue if you are on a 2-way street, but the street that you are turning onto is one-way.  It would seem to me that the biggest culprit for blocking sight lines in a double left situation are opposing left turns, not the other cars in the other lane making your left turn.  So if there are no opposing left turns because you are turning onto a one-way street (or the street you are turning onto terminates at this intersection) then a permissive double left should be allowed.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on September 11, 2014, 04:47:52 AM
Ozone Park, Queens, N.Y. set-up. From 2005. New and old sections that were in use.

 (http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/10649973_813742388656570_7350370858841363781_n_zpsca0e5692.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on October 08, 2014, 07:54:53 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7314247,-77.5197958,3a,75y,51.99h,81.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sFHcOEzYSYcWRFa1uyso4ew!2e0 I was always wondering why left turn lanes always flash red as red means that you must come to a complete stop before turning.  Making a left turn anywhere does not require a full stop under law, unless someone is coming.  Therefore left turn signals should be flashing yellow.

Anyway here is one in Virginia along US 301 that is not a full signal, but flashes a red left turn for turning left here at an intersection near Emporia.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kj3400 on October 09, 2014, 07:56:44 AM
I think it's so you're not fooled into thinking you have the right of way, since you're crossing a stream of traffic that does.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Joe The Dragon on October 09, 2014, 08:35:09 AM
Regarding permissive double left movements, there are at least four intersections with them in Chicagoland:

* Thorndale Avenue at Park Boulevard (https://www.google.com/maps?q=chicago,+il&hl=en&ll=41.983551,-88.012274&spn=0.000621,0.000862&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=42.901912,56.513672&hnear=Chicago,+Cook+County,+Illinois&t=h&z=20) in Itasca, hte signal is maintained by DuPage County.  This intersection has a permissive double left EB, SB has the center lane marked for left-thru-right, effectively providing a permissive double left and a double right without any restrictions for the inner right turn on red.



I remember reading online somewhere that permissive double lefts can work well if they are offset enough.

Going away with the EOE
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on October 12, 2014, 01:38:34 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7314247,-77.5197958,3a,75y,51.99h,81.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sFHcOEzYSYcWRFa1uyso4ew!2e0 I was always wondering why left turn lanes always flash red as red means that you must come to a complete stop before turning.  Making a left turn anywhere does not require a full stop under law, unless someone is coming.  Therefore left turn signals should be flashing yellow.

Anyway here is one in Virginia along US 301 that is not a full signal, but flashes a red left turn for turning left here at an intersection near Emporia.

I don't know why there is a separate left turn signal there at all.

With the two flashing yellows, it should be understood that this is an intersection where only cross traffic has a stop sign.  And in that type of intersection, left turns yield to oncoming traffic with or without flashing lights.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on October 12, 2014, 06:40:30 PM
Someone please help me figure this out. I shot this video on Friday in Bremerton, Washington (at this (http://goo.gl/aAWrTw) crosswalk).

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: riiga on October 12, 2014, 07:08:40 PM
Someone please help me figure this out.
Broken signal? They flash amber like that in Europe in case of a broken signal, but then it's usually all traffic lights in the intersection. Or perhaps if it's a turn lane it might be a warning signal/proceed with caution?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on October 12, 2014, 07:13:50 PM
Someone please help me figure this out.


Broken signal? They flash amber like that in Europe in case of a broken signal, but then it's usually all traffic lights in the intersection. Or perhaps if it's a turn lane it might be a warning signal/proceed with caution?

There are driveways on either side of the signal, but sitting in the center lane at the crosswalk is bit odd, because the driveways aren't for at least another 40 or 50 feet. Then again, if traffic is sitting in that center lane waiting to turn, and there is another car facing them also waiting to turn, their paths would cross because there is no 90 degree turn there.

God I'm confused.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on October 12, 2014, 09:12:28 PM
I bet it is a left turn signal. It is equivalent to the modern F.Y.A. set-up.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on October 12, 2014, 11:44:10 PM
I bet it is a left turn signal. It is equivalent to the modern F.Y.A. set-up.

Imagine that both directions have cars waiting at the crosswalk to turn left...their paths would be conflicting, since the west-bound turn movement cannot be completed within the bounds of the opposite direction's stop line.

Either way, the signal needs replacing (two orbs flashing different colors haven't been allowed for some time, AFAIK).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kj3400 on October 15, 2014, 07:18:56 PM
I bet it is a left turn signal. It is equivalent to the modern F.Y.A. set-up.

Imagine that both directions have cars waiting at the crosswalk to turn left...their paths would be conflicting, since the west-bound turn movement cannot be completed within the bounds of the opposite direction's stop line.

Either way, the signal needs replacing (two orbs flashing different colors haven't been allowed for some time, AFAIK).
But only the yellow one is flashing...?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on October 15, 2014, 07:29:57 PM
I bet it is a left turn signal. It is equivalent to the modern F.Y.A. set-up.

Imagine that both directions have cars waiting at the crosswalk to turn left...their paths would be conflicting, since the west-bound turn movement cannot be completed within the bounds of the opposite direction's stop line.

Either way, the signal needs replacing (two orbs flashing different colors haven't been allowed for some time, AFAIK).

But only the yellow one is flashing...?

That would be a grammatical error. :-D I meant to type "two orbs of different colors in the same direction haven't been allowed for some time".
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on October 15, 2014, 08:37:43 PM

Imagine that both directions have cars waiting at the crosswalk to turn left...their paths would be conflicting, since the west-bound turn movement cannot be completed within the bounds of the opposite direction's stop line.


I recently viewed this on Google Map, and I understand your point. Though unlikely present there, if vehicular detection was in use, then both left turn lanes could be split-phased. From my point of view, this would eliminate the conflict of motorists trying to make left turns from both directions at the same time.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on October 28, 2014, 06:15:50 AM
NE 45th St. has a couple of solid FYA by UW in Seattle, but they are dedicated turn lanes (albeit, people who turn left on 20th Ave NE generally whip through the left turn lane for 19th Ave NE). 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 08, 2014, 08:36:57 PM
I stumbled upon this site while checking out info on old jukeboxes and video games. I don't know if anyone here is familiar with this company, but they look like they do novelty signals, commercial signals and legitimate traffic signals for municipalities as well.

http://trafficlights.com/default.htm

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alex4897 on November 09, 2014, 12:49:08 AM
I stumbled upon this site while checking out info on old jukeboxes and video games. I don't know if anyone here is familiar with this company, but they look like they do novelty signals, commercial signals and legitimate traffic signals for municipalities as well.

http://trafficlights.com/default.htm

I've gotten controllers from this site before, they work without issue.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on November 11, 2014, 05:04:53 PM
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/11/11/efb2dfe38c9a7af95e94dc18a278cc5d.jpg)

Here's a unique sign found commonly throughout Seattle.  The light was red for a while so I decided to snap a picture while waiting. 


iPhone
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on November 12, 2014, 02:15:10 AM
I stumbled upon this site while checking out info on old jukeboxes and video games. I don't know if anyone here is familiar with this company, but they look like they do novelty signals, commercial signals and legitimate traffic signals for municipalities as well.

http://trafficlights.com/default.htm

LightsToGo has been around for some time (probably over eight years). The company is well known for manufacturing sequencers, which are capable of performing simple operations for signals wired to them.

As you mentioned, too, LightsToGo also sells signals; however, some of them are slightly overpriced in my opinion. I would rather visit EBay and find one for a good deal. Just my two cents.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mdcastle on November 14, 2014, 09:31:55 PM
The problem with most of them is that they cheap out and don't include a snubber circuit, meaning you can't drive anything inductive with them, but more importantly for most people they might get destroyed if a bulb burns out. There's one sequencer that has relays, but it's not well-liked for some reason (I have no direct experience with any of them).

On the other hand, I have a flasher where something got both the triac and the snubber, or at least burned the resistor to a crisp... I ordered some triacs from China so I'll try to repair it.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on November 16, 2014, 07:34:30 AM
Vintage New York City pedestrian signals in service. From the Bronx. Mosholu Pkwy.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/63447_10203865513412785_8956263443010281241_n_zps16d7ec5f.jpg)

The pair that face the cross street were manufactured by the Winko-Matic company, and they used neon tubes. The pedestrian signal that faces the crosswalk of Mosholu Pkwy. was manufactured by Marbelite.

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: tradephoric on November 16, 2014, 11:20:49 AM

How does NYC keep the traffic signals in SYNC so well?  There are nearly 3,000 traffic signals in Manhattan alone and even a little bit of clock drift can lead to poor progression.  How does the city manage all the signals to make sure they are in sync and running the same time?  It sounds like a maintenance nightmare!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on November 16, 2014, 06:56:57 PM
New York City D.O.T. has its own traffic management center, which has been around for about 20 years, in lower Manhattan. It is at the headquarters, which is the 55 Water St. building.

There's essentially a large room there, where there's an electronic map of the signalized intersection in Manhattan (in real time). The A.S.T.C. signal controllers are constantly communicating through the NYCWin system, so the folks in the room have the ability to adjust a signal controller(s) if necessary.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: steviep24 on December 13, 2014, 12:04:23 PM
New member here. :)

Anyway, I've always found this signal installation to be interesting.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1395182,-77.7086442,3a,75y,171.95h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPbLo1M0PQKsE0oUJNtTOTA!2e0?hl=en

The signals on the second mast arm are 3M type and also notice the five section stack for the protected/permissive left turn signal. This setup is rare for NYS.

Signal is located at the intersection of Pixley Rd. and Hinchey Rd. in Gates, NY (Rochester area). Signal is owned by Monroe County.



Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on December 13, 2014, 06:45:10 PM
New member here. :)

Anyway, I've always found this signal installation to be interesting.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1395182,-77.7086442,3a,75y,171.95h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPbLo1M0PQKsE0oUJNtTOTA!2e0?hl=en

The signals on the second mast arm are 3M type and also notice the five section stack for the protected/permissive left turn signal. This setup is rare for NYS.

Signal is located at the intersection of Pixley Rd. and Hinchey Rd. in Gates, NY (Rochester area). Signal is owned by Monroe County.

The 3Ms certainly aren't rare, although they are being replaced with filteted signals that look more traditional. I can't recall seeing a doghouse 3M signal (certainly doesn't mean they don't exist) and the 3Ms don't have an option for the 4-section with color-changing arrow Erie County (and until very recently, Region 5) loves. 5-sections might not be common here, but I have seen them every now and then, not necessarily recently.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: steviep24 on December 13, 2014, 07:34:44 PM
New member here. :)

Anyway, I've always found this signal installation to be interesting.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1395182,-77.7086442,3a,75y,171.95h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPbLo1M0PQKsE0oUJNtTOTA!2e0?hl=en

The signals on the second mast arm are 3M type and also notice the five section stack for the protected/permissive left turn signal. This setup is rare for NYS.

Signal is located at the intersection of Pixley Rd. and Hinchey Rd. in Gates, NY (Rochester area). Signal is owned by Monroe County.

The 3Ms certainly aren't rare, although they are being replaced with filteted signals that look more traditional. I can't recall seeing a doghouse 3M signal (certainly doesn't mean they don't exist) and the 3Ms don't have an option for the 4-section with color-changing arrow Erie County (and until very recently, Region 5) loves. 5-sections might not be common here, but I have seen them every now and then, not necessarily recently.
Monroe County loves the color changing arrow too.

Come to think of it I don't recall seeing a 3M doghouse signal either.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on December 13, 2014, 11:22:57 PM
New member here. :)

Anyway, I've always found this signal installation to be interesting.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1395182,-77.7086442,3a,75y,171.95h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPbLo1M0PQKsE0oUJNtTOTA!2e0?hl=en

The signals on the second mast arm are 3M type and also notice the five section stack for the protected/permissive left turn signal. This setup is rare for NYS.

Signal is located at the intersection of Pixley Rd. and Hinchey Rd. in Gates, NY (Rochester area). Signal is owned by Monroe County.

The 3Ms certainly aren't rare, although they are being replaced with filteted signals that look more traditional. I can't recall seeing a doghouse 3M signal (certainly doesn't mean they don't exist) and the 3Ms don't have an option for the 4-section with color-changing arrow Erie County (and until very recently, Region 5) loves. 5-sections might not be common here, but I have seen them every now and then, not necessarily recently.
Monroe County loves the color changing arrow too.

Come to think of it I don't recall seeing a 3M doghouse signal either.

Ask and ye shall receive:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1112387,-108.5406032,3a,75y,231.51h,85.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1stZXlWfTJQJdAr8wtxuyTag!2e0

Unfortunately, this will be gone within about a year, when they convert this intersection to a roundabout.  Same may also be said with the rare (in Colorado) green FREEWAY ENTRANCE signs at the on-ramp to I-70 East, if you turn the GSV to your left.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Zeffy on December 14, 2014, 12:05:56 AM
Someone explain this to me:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2374587,-74.8028441,3a,42y,307.44h,90.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sIeN2TUXpqUXA3-NBe-gW_Q!2e0

It is impossible to see the color of the signal unless you are DIRECTLY on top of it. The signal on the right side of the GMSV link is broken. I don't understand why this intersection is like this. I am amazed I have passed through so many times on a green signal, because if it were red... well that would be a bit hard to stop in time, wouldn't it?

I was thinking of contacting the city and asking them if they ever had plans to replace this signal, because whatever lens those are suck...
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2014, 12:24:16 AM
Someone explain this to me:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2374587,-74.8028441,3a,42y,307.44h,90.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sIeN2TUXpqUXA3-NBe-gW_Q!2e0

It is impossible to see the color of the signal unless you are DIRECTLY on top of it. The signal on the right side of the GMSV link is broken. I don't understand why this intersection is like this. I am amazed I have passed through so many times on a green signal, because if it were red... well that would be a bit hard to stop in time, wouldn't it?

I was thinking of contacting the city and asking them if they ever had plans to replace this signal, because whatever lens those are suck...

Nope, it's done this way purposely.  You need to go back a little bit on Rt. 29 first, such as to this position: http://goo.gl/maps/ZL7qw  As you are driving on Rt. 29 North, you want to concentrate on this signal, not the one you pointed out which is only a hundred feet or so behind the first signal.  After you go thru the first light on a green you reach that second light, and you are correct that it will always be green. 

The timing of the signal is such so that regardless of the approach to that signal (there are 3 possibilities - from 29 North, from Sanhican Dr off to the right, or from traffic on Rt. 29 South making a U-turn), if that first signal is green, the light you questioned will be green.  The only time someone would get to this signal and it be red is if they sped thru the first signal on a red.  Or the road is congested (which is extremely rare in this area).

And contacting the city wouldn't do you any good.  It's a State maintained signal.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Roadrunner75 on December 14, 2014, 12:29:15 AM
Someone explain this to me:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2374587,-74.8028441,3a,42y,307.44h,90.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sIeN2TUXpqUXA3-NBe-gW_Q!2e0
It is impossible to see the color of the signal unless you are DIRECTLY on top of it. The signal on the right side of the GMSV link is broken. I don't understand why this intersection is like this. I am amazed I have passed through so many times on a green signal, because if it were red... well that would be a bit hard to stop in time, wouldn't it?
I was thinking of contacting the city and asking them if they ever had plans to replace this signal, because whatever lens those are suck...
I expect there is some intent here, to avoid confusion for drivers entering NB from the side street (Sanhican) who have their own signal just prior to this one (to avoid confusing the far signal with their own), although it sounds like it creates more problems than it solves as is typical with this type of setup.  This entire intersection, including Sanhican and 579 with the U-turn and lack of stacking room is terrible by the way.

Edit:  Looks like Jeff beat me to it as I was typing, with a much better explanation too...

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: steviep24 on December 14, 2014, 09:50:09 AM
New member here. :)

Anyway, I've always found this signal installation to be interesting.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1395182,-77.7086442,3a,75y,171.95h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPbLo1M0PQKsE0oUJNtTOTA!2e0?hl=en

The signals on the second mast arm are 3M type and also notice the five section stack for the protected/permissive left turn signal. This setup is rare for NYS.

Signal is located at the intersection of Pixley Rd. and Hinchey Rd. in Gates, NY (Rochester area). Signal is owned by Monroe County.

The 3Ms certainly aren't rare, although they are being replaced with filteted signals that look more traditional. I can't recall seeing a doghouse 3M signal (certainly doesn't mean they don't exist) and the 3Ms don't have an option for the 4-section with color-changing arrow Erie County (and until very recently, Region 5) loves. 5-sections might not be common here, but I have seen them every now and then, not necessarily recently.
Monroe County loves the color changing arrow too.

Come to think of it I don't recall seeing a 3M doghouse signal either.

Ask and ye shall receive:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1112387,-108.5406032,3a,75y,231.51h,85.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1stZXlWfTJQJdAr8wtxuyTag!2e0

Unfortunately, this will be gone within about a year, when they convert this intersection to a roundabout.  Same may also be said with the rare (in Colorado) green FREEWAY ENTRANCE signs at the on-ramp to I-70 East, if you turn the GSV to your left.
Cool!

Here's a 3M signal with a conventional color changing left arrow. This is at NY 104 EB at the entrance ramp to NY 390 NB.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2064065,-77.6747254,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEWw1x-i9a45Gj6BxbPag2g!2e0!6m1!1e1?hl=en
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Zeffy on December 14, 2014, 12:18:32 PM
Nope, it's done this way purposely.  You need to go back a little bit on Rt. 29 first, such as to this position: http://goo.gl/maps/ZL7qw  As you are driving on Rt. 29 North, you want to concentrate on this signal, not the one you pointed out which is only a hundred feet or so behind the first signal.  After you go thru the first light on a green you reach that second light, and you are correct that it will always be green. 

The timing of the signal is such so that regardless of the approach to that signal (there are 3 possibilities - from 29 North, from Sanhican Dr off to the right, or from traffic on Rt. 29 South making a U-turn), if that first signal is green, the light you questioned will be green.  The only time someone would get to this signal and it be red is if they sped thru the first signal on a red.  Or the road is congested (which is extremely rare in this area).

And contacting the city wouldn't do you any good.  It's a State maintained signal.

Hmm, okay, that actually makes sense now. Still, I really wish that the signal on the right of the one I pointed out was functional. And as Roadrunner75 pointed out, the intersection is a clusterfuck.

P.S. Wouldn't contacting Trenton at least work partially because NJDOT is based in Trenton?  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on December 14, 2014, 10:54:49 PM
I was thinking of contacting the city and asking them if they ever had plans to replace this signal, because whatever lens those are suck...
And contacting the city wouldn't do you any good.  It's a State maintained signal.

Maybe contacting the city/state and telling them to install a roundabout could work  :bigass:

But seriously, the convoluted geometry here looks like the intersection could be better served by a roundabout...
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on December 15, 2014, 12:24:09 AM
I was thinking of contacting the city and asking them if they ever had plans to replace this signal, because whatever lens those are suck...
And contacting the city wouldn't do you any good.  It's a State maintained signal.

Maybe contacting the city/state and telling them to install a roundabout could work  :bigass:

But seriously, the convoluted geometry here looks like the intersection could be better served by a roundabout...

If we're talking roundabouts, I'm always happy to offer a design. The scale is slightly off but the principle is still there. Basically you'd have to tighten up the carriageway. That should do the trick.

(http://i.imgur.com/ZXM8qZs.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Roadrunner75 on December 15, 2014, 01:15:07 AM
Nice drawing, but no more roundabouts in NJ please.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on December 15, 2014, 01:16:30 AM
Nice drawing, but no more roundabouts in NJ please.

But there's not that many.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Roadrunner75 on December 15, 2014, 01:17:11 AM
Nice drawing, but no more roundabouts in NJ please.

But there's not that many.
Let's keep it that way.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on December 15, 2014, 01:18:43 AM
Nice drawing, but no more roundabouts in NJ please.

But there's not that many.

Let's keep it that way.

??? Please expand. I don't see the problem with them. You aren't confusing them with traffic circles are you?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Roadrunner75 on December 15, 2014, 01:33:11 AM
Nice drawing, but no more roundabouts in NJ please.

But there's not that many.

Let's keep it that way.

??? Please expand. I don't see the problem with them. You aren't confusing them with traffic circles are you?
NJ has had quite a history with circular intersections (the 'traffic circle').  While we may have some nostalgia for our circles, many of us think of the congestion, getting cut-off, no clear right-of-way, difficulty getting across the primary route, general anarchy, etc..  Most people I know around here are not happy to see something new that is circular, no matter how small you make it or how many Yield signs you put up.  We have simply too much traffic and too many aggressive drivers for these things to work properly, which is why we started getting rid of them in the first place.  Change the name, make it smaller, put up signs to control the right-of-way - it's still a circle to NJ drivers and we're still gonna barrel through it like we own it, other drivers be damned.

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 15, 2014, 01:45:19 AM
You do realize NJ has added MANY roundabouts over the past few years. I don't know the exact amount, but I would say we now have more roundabouts than we do traffic circles in the state.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Roadrunner75 on December 15, 2014, 01:52:04 AM
You do realize NJ has added MANY roundabouts over the past few years. I don't know the exact amount, but I would say we now have more roundabouts than we do traffic circles in the state.
I would agree with that.  I see a bunch popping up on minor routes or in residential areas.  Often unnecessary but relatively harmless.  Putting in a new one on a major route such as 29 would be an absolute mess.

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on December 15, 2014, 01:54:28 AM
You do realize NJ has added MANY roundabouts over the past few years. I don't know the exact amount, but I would say we now have more roundabouts than we do traffic circles in the state.

I would agree with that.  I see a bunch popping up on minor routes or in residential areas.  Often unnecessary but relatively harmless.  Putting in a new one on a major route such as 29 would be an absolute mess.

Are there any major two-lane proper modern roundabouts in New Jersey? On a more-or-less major thoroughfare? Not a traffic circle, but an actual roundabout built within the last decade or so? Excluding converted traffic circles.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on December 15, 2014, 03:31:05 AM
Maybe contacting the city/state and telling them to install a roundabout could work  :bigass:

But seriously, the convoluted geometry here looks like the intersection could be better served by a roundabout...

If we're talking roundabouts, I'm always happy to offer a design. The scale is slightly off but the principle is still there. Basically you'd have to tighten up the carriageway. That should do the trick.

(http://i.imgur.com/ZXM8qZs.jpg)

Didn't mean to start controversy with that suggestion...

I had actually envisioned a 5-point roundabout when I was thinking of it, to include the side street intersection to the east. In any event, your roundabout was well designed, especially the circulatory layout (which some engineers can't even seem to get right :sigh: ).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: tradephoric on December 15, 2014, 11:03:08 AM
Are there any major two-lane proper modern roundabouts in New Jersey? On a more-or-less major thoroughfare? Not a traffic circle, but an actual roundabout built within the last decade or so? Excluding converted traffic circles.

IMO, this is the best designed two-lane modern roundabout in New Jersey (however, only one leg is actually two-lanes).  It was constructed in 2007.
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.989111,-75.010887&spn=0.001125,0.00089&t=h&z=20

There really aren't that many well designed modern roundabouts in NJ (two-lane or otherwise).  Here are some of the better designed single-lane roundabouts in NJ:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.332066,-74.131571&spn=0.000791,0.00089&t=h&z=20
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.4841,-74.43269&spn=0.001579,0.001781&t=h&z=19
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: odditude on December 15, 2014, 11:24:07 AM
If we're talking roundabouts, I'm always happy to offer a design. The scale is slightly off but the principle is still there. Basically you'd have to tighten up the carriageway. That should do the trick.

(http://i.imgur.com/ZXM8qZs.jpg)
First off, a comment - Sanhican Dr ends at 29; the roadway crossing your drawing from left to right is all 29 (which has no local name at this point, although further south it's John Fitch Way). Also, the Sunoco got a ridiculous level of detail there. Not my preferred gas station, since they hike up the prices a bit, but...

How well do roundabouts handle large levels of traffic? 579 SB approaching 29 backs up badly during rush hour, with the vast majority of traffic turning onto 29 SB - I've seen up to 15 minute delays there.

Personally, I've always wished they'd built a grade-separated interchange there, similar to Parkside Ave a little further south.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: tradephoric on December 15, 2014, 12:25:44 PM
How well do roundabouts handle large levels of traffic? 579 SB approaching 29 backs up badly during rush hour, with the vast majority of traffic turning onto 29 SB - I've seen up to 15 minute delays there.

According to Roundabouts: An Informational Guide (Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067), for double-lane roundabouts, 40,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day can be accommodated, depending on the traffic patterns.  Based on the geometry of the intersection, I highly doubt the NJ intersection experiences over 50,000 vehicles per day.

A triple-lane roundabout near me accommodates up to 57,000 vehicles per day.  For the most part it performs very well, but there is a half hour window during the PM rush where it can start to break down.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on December 15, 2014, 05:30:56 PM
I had actually envisioned a 5-point roundabout when I was thinking of it, to include the side street intersection to the east.

579 SB approaching 29 backs up badly during rush hour, with the vast majority of traffic turning onto 29 SB - I've seen up to 15 minute delays there.

How well do roundabouts handle large levels of traffic? 579 SB approaching 29 backs up badly during rush hour, with the vast majority of traffic turning onto 29 SB - I've seen up to 15 minute delays there.

...A triple-lane roundabout near me accommodates up to 57,000 vehicles per day.  For the most part it performs very well, but there is a half hour window during the PM rush where it can start to break down.

MAYBE a stretch too far? Definitely still going to tighten up the carriageway but we move Route 579 slightly east and make the roundabout a bit oblong shape to accommodate Sanhican Drive. The roundabout would vary from four to two lanes depending on where you are.

(http://i.imgur.com/EPP5xg4.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Zeffy on December 15, 2014, 05:34:09 PM
^ ^ That would certainly make my travels through Trenton a bit more interesting, especially after I see how people treat the I-95/NJ 29 interchange... ugh.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on December 15, 2014, 05:38:06 PM
^ ^ That would certainly make my travels through Trenton a bit more interesting, especially after I see how people treat the I-95/NJ 29 interchange... ugh.

Yeah, even I think this second version is just a bit too much.

EDIT: Speaking of Trenton, what the hell is this??: http://goo.gl/YczSSI Just a lane sort of starting out of nowhere that then ends in a thousand yards?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: odditude on December 15, 2014, 06:25:03 PM
^ ^ That would certainly make my travels through Trenton a bit more interesting, especially after I see how people treat the I-95/NJ 29 interchange... ugh.

Yeah, even I think this second version is just a bit too much.

EDIT: Speaking of Trenton, what the hell is this??: http://goo.gl/YczSSI Just a lane sort of starting out of nowhere that then ends in a thousand yards?
that interchange is a mess for quite a few reasons. something tells me you would appreciate its planned replacement (http://scudderfallsbridge.com/images/FigureIII-21route29interchangegraphic.jpg) as part of the Scudders Falls Bridge replacement project. 29 NB still drops to one lane, though.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on December 15, 2014, 06:31:49 PM
^ ^ That would certainly make my travels through Trenton a bit more interesting, especially after I see how people treat the I-95/NJ 29 interchange... ugh.

Yeah, even I think this second version is just a bit too much.

EDIT: Speaking of Trenton, what the hell is this??: http://goo.gl/YczSSI Just a lane sort of starting out of nowhere that then ends in a thousand yards?
that interchange is a mess for quite a few reasons. something tells me you would appreciate its planned replacement (http://scudderfallsbridge.com/images/FigureIII-21route29interchangegraphic.jpg) as part of the Scudders Falls Bridge replacement project. 29 NB still drops to one lane, though.

Interesting. I would just make 29 a dual carriageway along the edge of the river and have a folded diamond (i.e. a parclo) with a couple of signals coming off the 95. Then again, the proposal keeps 29 as a nonstop route, so it has that going for it.

Is 29 supposed to be a freeway, an expressway, or what?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: tradephoric on December 15, 2014, 06:43:08 PM
Hey Jake, how about a teardrop roundabout to incorporate into your second diagram?  The curves of the teardrop help reduce the speed of circulating traffic inside the roundabout.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2743261,-95.990431,141m/data=!3m1!1e3

Here is a multi-lane teardrop roundabout used at an interchange in Carmel, Indiana.

(http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/uploads/monthly_05_2013/post-2672-0-28709700-1369751560.jpg)

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on December 16, 2014, 02:18:27 AM
Hey Jake, how about a teardrop roundabout to incorporate into your second diagram?  The curves of the teardrop help reduce the speed of circulating traffic inside the roundabout.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2743261,-95.990431,141m/data=!3m1!1e3

Here is a multi-lane teardrop roundabout used at an interchange in Carmel, Indiana.

That's a good idea. I'll give it a go and post back here when I come up with something.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on December 16, 2014, 04:26:33 PM
I had actually envisioned a 5-point roundabout when I was thinking of it, to include the side street intersection to the east.

MAYBE a stretch too far? Definitely still going to tighten up the carriageway but we move Route 579 slightly east and make the roundabout a bit oblong shape to accommodate Sanhican Drive. The roundabout would vary from four to two lanes depending on where you are.

(http://i.imgur.com/EPP5xg4.jpg)

I think 2 lanes would work just fine, given that most of the feeder roads are two-lane anyways. And you'd need to do something with the eastbound departure to Route 29--that leg is way too straight.exit on
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on December 16, 2014, 09:03:13 PM
I'd say the 2-lane roundabout with an offset at-grade partial Y is the best of the 2 options compared to what currently exists. Google Maps says NJ 29 is Sanhican Dr, so I'd place any name error on them.

What I would do is make a single-lane roundabout with NJ 29 passing above on a bridge. Clearfield Ave is one-way, so slip ramps could be built to connect to/from SB NJ 29 (actually, one of them already exists). If carriageways are shifted, NB 29 would get direct ramps to/from the roundabout, with the one northwest of the interchange functioning as a frontage road between the roundabout and Mill Rd.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 16, 2014, 09:30:40 PM
Caught this photo of some incandescent traffic lights changing from red to green today:
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8615/16039301255_9975c7c3ba.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qrkBsP)McCain Traffic Lights (https://flic.kr/p/qrkBsP) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on December 22, 2014, 02:07:39 AM
Hey Jake, how about a teardrop roundabout to incorporate into your second diagram?  The curves of the teardrop help reduce the speed of circulating traffic inside the roundabout.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2743261,-95.990431,141m/data=!3m1!1e3

Here is a multi-lane teardrop roundabout used at an interchange in Carmel, Indiana.

That's a good idea. I'll give it a go and post back here when I come up with something.

Alright, so here's a version of that:

A couple of notes:

- The slip lane from CR 579 North to Edgewood is because (apparently) CR 579 is a high-speed through route, and I want to keep the average speed of the road at its maximum. Limiting the number of brake-to-5mph-then-turn instances seems to me like a good idea.
- This version turns NJ-29 into a single-carriageway with a flush median. This is because of the number of houses, and with a tighter carriageway, there's no longer any U-turn points except at the roundabout(s?).
- Given the nature of New Jersey drivers, implementing yield-ahead pavement symbols is a must. Re-enforcement signs overhead and to the side would also be implemented.

(http://i.imgur.com/sS30FaJ.jpg)

Here's an example of a sign that could be placed at the western leg:

(http://i.imgur.com/TMXK4Iv.png)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Zeffy on December 22, 2014, 09:45:00 AM
That actually looks pretty nice, but I would recommend changing the control city on 579 to either "West Trenton" (AKA Ewing), or "Hopewell [Township]".

Quote
- Given the nature of New Jersey drivers, implementing yield-ahead pavement symbols is a must. Re-enforcement signs overhead and to the side would also be implemented.

Most Jersey drivers are decent in this area - it's the damn Pennsylvanian ones that completely blow through every yield without actually yielding.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on December 22, 2014, 03:55:40 PM
That actually looks pretty nice, but I would recommend changing the control city on 579 to either "West Trenton" (AKA Ewing), or "Hopewell [Township]".

Something like this then? I also added some info on Cadwalader Park:

(http://i.imgur.com/5LKfESR.png)

Quote
- Given the nature of New Jersey drivers, implementing yield-ahead pavement symbols is a must. Re-enforcement signs overhead and to the side would also be implemented.

Most Jersey drivers are decent in this area - it's the damn Pennsylvanian ones that completely blow through every yield without actually yielding.

Damn Pennsylvania ruining all the fun for everyone.

(http://media.giphy.com/media/pEP4CwhG1f1uw/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: odditude on December 22, 2014, 06:21:48 PM
k, looked at the NJ SLDs to figure out what was off. my previous comments are wrong, although i was correct that at no point is NJ 29 named Sanhican Dr.

what's labeled as Sanhican Dr to the NE of the roundabout/upper left of that sign is E State St, while Sanhican Dr itself begins at NJ 29 and composes the initial southernmost part of NJ 175 (and does not touch this roundabout at all). the two most major components of the intersection are CR 579/Sullivan Way (to the N) and NJ 29 (to the NW/S), with E State St (to the SE) and Mt Vernon Ave (to the W) being the minor components.

this also means that if you were to name this, you wouldn't call it "Sanhican." it also means this mess is labeled quite incorrectly on Google Maps.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on December 22, 2014, 06:56:15 PM
k, looked at the NJ SLDs to figure out what was off. my previous comments are wrong, although i was correct that at no point is NJ 29 named Sanhican Dr.

what's labeled as Sanhican Dr to the NE of the roundabout/upper left of that sign is E State St, while Sanhican Dr itself begins at NJ 29 and composes the initial southernmost part of NJ 175 (and does not touch this roundabout at all). the two most major components of the intersection are CR 579/Sullivan Way (to the N) and NJ 29 (to the NW/S), with E State St (to the SE) and Mt Vernon Ave (to the W) being the minor components.

this also means that if you were to name this, you wouldn't call it "Sanhican." it also means this mess is labeled quite incorrectly on Google Maps.

According to the LGS at the present-day intersection, it's actually "West State Street", not "East...". But anyways, it appears that Sanhican is actually State, and Lasalle is actually Sanhican (according to the street blades (http://goo.gl/ftVzcS)). This confuses me, because indeed, Google Maps has this wrong. But additionally, both Bing Maps and OpenStreetMap label the streets just the same as Google. I can only assume that all three have used the same source which has incorrectly labelled the streets.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on December 22, 2014, 07:19:23 PM
Here's an example of a sign that could be placed at the western leg:

(http://i.imgur.com/TMXK4Iv.png)

Sign looks great! On small nitpick: roundabout diagrams usually don't show the connection between the entry stem and the circulating roadway just to the left of the entry stem--there would be a gap and an arrowhead on the end. This helps to reinforce that it is a one way circular intersection. (I'm on an iPad right now, otherwise would link to an example.)

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on December 22, 2014, 07:30:25 PM
Sign looks great! On small nitpick: roundabout diagrams usually don't show the connection between the entry stem and the circulating roadway just to the left of the entry stem--there would be a gap and an arrowhead on the end. This helps to reinforce that it is a one way circular intersection. (I'm on an iPad right now, otherwise would link to an example.)

No, I know exactly what you mean. I just forgot to remove it. I've fixed that, changed the street name (and roundabout name), and surrounded the name in black (since it's a junction). Normally I would have added an arrow to the end pointing to the entry leg, but because I have such limited space with the present style diagram, it doesn't quite work. (EDIT 19:39 EDT: Added version with thinner circle)

(http://i.imgur.com/RAldysk.png)(http://i.imgur.com/VaBbSrj.png)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: dfwmapper on December 22, 2014, 09:59:02 PM
I'm as sure as I can be without having actual city GIS data that the labeling on Google is correct. State does indeed curve northwards towards Edgewood/Bruce Park, while Sanhican is both NJ 29 west of the intersection as well as the road east that connects to State. First, the numbering of the buildings along the north side of State (like the church) is consistent with the rest of State (1400s), while the numbering along Sanhican starts with the little grocery store as 2, and increases up to 76 (the big apartment building) as you go west. The Sunoco station is 110, the office building next to it is 120, and so on. NJ 175 is also Sanhican for part of its length, changing to River Road where it leaves Trenton, near Afton Avenue. So, that sign probably needs to be changed again to Sanhican Drive - To State Street.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on December 23, 2014, 12:51:54 AM
These vintage, 1950s G.E. "Streamline" traffic signals are thankfully still in service in Washington Twp. in northern N.J. Great traffic signals of yesteryear.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/15887759079_036473df67_o_zps0b9186b9.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: odditude on December 23, 2014, 01:03:11 PM
I'm as sure as I can be without having actual city GIS data that the labeling on Google is correct.
Given that I actually live in the area, drive through this intersection on a weekly basis and see the sign blades, and have confirmed with the SLDs, I'm as sure as I can be that Google is wrong.

According to the LGS at the present-day intersection, it's actually "West State Street", not "East...".
yep, typo on my part. thanks!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Zeffy on December 23, 2014, 04:25:40 PM
Looking at the closest thing I could find to Trenton's GIS data, I found that this is the road marked as "Sanhican Drive":

(http://i.imgur.com/Z8dWa51.png)

You can look for yourself by going to here (http://www.trentonnj.org/Cit-e-Access/webpage.cfm?TID=55&TPID=11580) and using the "internet dataviewing" link. WARNING: It ONLY works in Internet Explorer with compatibility settings enabled on the web page.

And this (http://goo.gl/maps/tDcmc) could help a bit, but given it's angle, I'm not sure what to make of it.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: dfwmapper on December 24, 2014, 06:21:52 AM
Looking at the closest thing I could find to Trenton's GIS data, I found that this is the road marked as "Sanhican Drive":
Which agrees with Google, and what I said.
Quote
And this (http://goo.gl/maps/tDcmc) could help a bit, but given it's angle, I'm not sure what to make of it.
Also seems to agree, if you look at it from a less distorted angle. Try http://goo.gl/maps/wFMr2.

NJ's data is clearly wrong. Either that or a bunch of businesses have addresses on a street that doesn't exist. Someone should probably tell them.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 24, 2014, 09:05:37 AM
Looking at the closest thing I could find to Trenton's GIS data, I found that this is the road marked as "Sanhican Drive":
Which agrees with Google, and what I said.
Quote
And this (http://goo.gl/maps/tDcmc) could help a bit, but given it's angle, I'm not sure what to make of it.
Also seems to agree, if you look at it from a less distorted angle. Try http://goo.gl/maps/wFMr2.

NJ's data is clearly wrong. Either that or a bunch of businesses have addresses on a street that doesn't exist. Someone should probably tell them.

Do state politicians and political donors own those businesses?  They may be 'legit' after all.  They even file income taxes, showing massive amounts of losses every year!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: odditude on December 24, 2014, 09:13:44 AM
Looking at the closest thing I could find to Trenton's GIS data, I found that this is the road marked as "Sanhican Drive":
Which agrees with Google, and what I said.
Quote
And this (http://goo.gl/maps/tDcmc) could help a bit, but given it's angle, I'm not sure what to make of it.
Also seems to agree, if you look at it from a less distorted angle. Try http://goo.gl/maps/wFMr2.

NJ's data is clearly wrong. Either that or a bunch of businesses have addresses on a street that doesn't exist. Someone should probably tell them.
welp, i stand corrected.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: dfwmapper on December 24, 2014, 04:38:32 PM
Do state politicians and political donors own those businesses?  They may be 'legit' after all.  They even file income taxes, showing massive amounts of losses every year!
You should ask them at their next meeting at the Legitimate Businessman's Social Club.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 6a on December 24, 2014, 08:36:36 PM

These vintage, 1950s G.E. "Streamline" traffic signals are thankfully still in service in Washington Twp. in northern N.J. Great traffic signals of yesteryear.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/15887759079_036473df67_o_zps0b9186b9.jpg)
What is the purpose of the little one next to the leftmost signal?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on December 24, 2014, 11:51:41 PM

These vintage, 1950s G.E. "Streamline" traffic signals are thankfully still in service in Washington Twp. in northern N.J. Great traffic signals of yesteryear.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/15887759079_036473df67_o_zps0b9186b9.jpg)
What is the purpose of the little one next to the leftmost signal?

It serves primarily as a protected left turn signal.

The design of the G.E. "Streamline" was unique in its own way, and, therefore, it was impossible to attach an entirely different traffic signal brand to one. So, this explains why the individual traffic signal section is suspended on its own.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on December 26, 2014, 09:28:48 PM
I found this assembly in Buffalo, New York earlier this week:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7574/16114891402_4c5b9bd93f_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qy22Md)

It's on Ohio Street at the lift bridge over the Buffalo River, facing southbound. Trombone arm has a horizontal-mount 8" 3-lens signal with green in the center and 2 reds and there's a 12" 2-lens signal mounted vertically on the pole. An identical setup exists in the opposite direction. At the Michigan Ave bridge shortly downstream, setup is similar, with a standard horizontal arm replacing the trombone arm. The other moveable bridge over the river (South Park Ave) and the 2 Erie Canal crossings within the city feature standard signals. All Buffalo River crossings are city-maintained.

I have never seen anything like this in New York. Judging by some photos I've seen on the forums recently, it looks like Buffalo took a couple of pages out of Wisconsin's design manual for these 2 installations.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on January 17, 2015, 11:41:17 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.481012,-75.687821,3a,75y,22.09h,98.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHZcozhxhD0kvrGveyhr0Fg!2e0
What is this type of assembly that is commonly used in Pennsylvania called?  If you wondering what I am referring to it is the "almost" doghouse assembly for the left turn signal head here.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on January 17, 2015, 01:43:52 PM
I don't know that it has a name, but it appears to be a variant on the typical 4-section split phasing signal:

R
Y
G
GA

In this case, it appears an existing 3-section display was modified to include the green/green arrow (it's very Frankenstein-ish when you look closely in street view).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on January 17, 2015, 03:12:57 PM
I've seen that type of assembly all over the place. There are a couple near Buffalo, notably on NY 324 at I-290 facing the NB exit ramp.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: DrSmith on January 17, 2015, 07:31:55 PM
Those types of signals are found all over Delaware....like here
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.657778,-75.784378&spn=0.02174,0.090895&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=39.657748,-75.784389&panoid=9k73kEP_pZsh-F8Bme_Tig&cbp=11,309.79,,0,0
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: freebrickproductions on January 17, 2015, 11:09:45 PM
HDOT is currently in the process of hunting down the last inline 4-section signals that aren't FYAs and replacing them with those. I personally like to call them "upside-down T signals" because they look like a T that's upside-down.
They aren't very common in Alabama outside of Huntsville though, I only know of a couple down in Dothan.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ian on January 20, 2015, 05:15:42 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.481012,-75.687821,3a,75y,22.09h,98.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHZcozhxhD0kvrGveyhr0Fg!2e0
What is this type of assembly that is commonly used in Pennsylvania called?  If you wondering what I am referring to it is the "almost" doghouse assembly for the left turn signal head here.

Not sure what the official term is for that type of signal, but the signal fans like to call it a "Dolly Parton."
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on January 21, 2015, 05:27:26 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.481012,-75.687821,3a,75y,22.09h,98.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHZcozhxhD0kvrGveyhr0Fg!2e0
What is this type of assembly that is commonly used in Pennsylvania called?  If you wondering what I am referring to it is the "almost" doghouse assembly for the left turn signal head here.

Not sure what the official term is for that type of signal, but the signal fans like to call it a "Dolly Parton."

I concur.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 22, 2015, 03:33:03 PM
Why are 8" signals used?  Is it for costs since there's less LEDs.  I have never seen 8" directional arrow signals, so it looks funky on mast-arms when you have 8" through signals and 12" left turn signals, which is a common setup in Seattle.  Since the MUTCD requires two through signals, is that why 8" signals are favored?

Speaking of MUTCD requirements for two through signals, how about a split? 

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.674827,-122.125599,3a,50.1y,96.51h,92.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shpIPEdc66efMSZ92pl6Few!2e0
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on January 22, 2015, 03:55:27 PM
Why are 8" signals used?  Is it for costs since there's less LEDs.  I have never seen 8" directional arrow signals, so it looks funky on mast-arms when you have 8" through signals and 12" left turn signals, which is a common setup in Seattle.  Since the MUTCD requires two through signals, is that why 8" signals are favored?

Speaking of MUTCD requirements for two through signals, how about a split? 

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.674827,-122.125599,3a,50.1y,96.51h,92.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shpIPEdc66efMSZ92pl6Few!2e0

8" arrows were disallowed by MUTCD a long time ago.  The 2009 MUTCD calls for all 12" signals except for certain situations.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 22, 2015, 03:57:16 PM
I call them a T, inverted T, or hammerhead.

NJ has used them recently on rare occasions.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PColumbus73 on January 22, 2015, 08:42:01 PM
Why are 8" signals used?  Is it for costs since there's less LEDs.  I have never seen 8" directional arrow signals, so it looks funky on mast-arms when you have 8" through signals and 12" left turn signals, which is a common setup in Seattle.  Since the MUTCD requires two through signals, is that why 8" signals are favored?

Speaking of MUTCD requirements for two through signals, how about a split? 

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.674827,-122.125599,3a,50.1y,96.51h,92.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shpIPEdc66efMSZ92pl6Few!2e0

8" arrows were disallowed by MUTCD a long time ago.  The 2009 MUTCD calls for all 12" signals except for certain situations.

I think 8" signals are still allowed for minor streets.

I call them a T, inverted T, or hammerhead.

NJ has used them recently on rare occasions.

South Carolina uses T signals exclusively for left turn signals, I've seen few in Ohio and West Virginia.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on January 22, 2015, 09:03:00 PM
Why are 8" signals used?  Is it for costs since there's less LEDs.  I have never seen 8" directional arrow signals, so it looks funky on mast-arms when you have 8" through signals and 12" left turn signals, which is a common setup in Seattle.  Since the MUTCD requires two through signals, is that why 8" signals are favored?

Speaking of MUTCD requirements for two through signals, how about a split? 

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.674827,-122.125599,3a,50.1y,96.51h,92.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shpIPEdc66efMSZ92pl6Few!2e0

8" arrows were disallowed by MUTCD a long time ago.  The 2009 MUTCD calls for all 12" signals except for certain situations.

I think 8" signals are still allowed for minor streets.


Hence certain situations
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on January 22, 2015, 09:11:39 PM
Why are 8" signals used?  Is it for costs since there's less LEDs.  I have never seen 8" directional arrow signals, so it looks funky on mast-arms when you have 8" through signals and 12" left turn signals, which is a common setup in Seattle.  Since the MUTCD requires two through signals, is that why 8" signals are favored?

Speaking of MUTCD requirements for two through signals, how about a split? 

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.674827,-122.125599,3a,50.1y,96.51h,92.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shpIPEdc66efMSZ92pl6Few!2e0

8" arrows were disallowed by MUTCD a long time ago.  The 2009 MUTCD calls for all 12" signals except for certain situations.

I think 8" signals are still allowed for minor streets.


Hence certain situations

Colloquially speaking, "certain situations" implies "on a limited basis", but minor street signals are at least as common as major street signals (depending on the locale).

Unless I'm mistaken, it's more about distance from the stop line to the signal head.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: freebrickproductions on January 22, 2015, 09:17:31 PM
I call them a T, inverted T, or hammerhead.

NJ has used them recently on rare occasions.

South Carolina uses T signals exclusively for left turn signals, I've seen few in Ohio and West Virginia.
I've seen a T signal here in Huntsville, AL.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on January 22, 2015, 10:22:56 PM
Why are 8" signals used?  Is it for costs since there's less LEDs.  I have never seen 8" directional arrow signals, so it looks funky on mast-arms when you have 8" through signals and 12" left turn signals, which is a common setup in Seattle.  Since the MUTCD requires two through signals, is that why 8" signals are favored?

Speaking of MUTCD requirements for two through signals, how about a split? 

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.674827,-122.125599,3a,50.1y,96.51h,92.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shpIPEdc66efMSZ92pl6Few!2e0

8" arrows were disallowed by MUTCD a long time ago.  The 2009 MUTCD calls for all 12" signals except for certain situations.

I think 8" signals are still allowed for minor streets.


Hence certain situations

Colloquially speaking, "certain situations" implies "on a limited basis", but minor street signals are at least as common as major street signals (depending on the locale).

Unless I'm mistaken, it's more about distance from the stop line to the signal head.

Jakeroot, you are not mistaken. The specific exception you're referring to is for streets with speeds of 30mph or less where the circular signal indications are mounted less than 120 feet from the stop line.

New 8" circular indications for vehicular traffic are also okay for near-side supplemental signal faces, in the yellow and green sections at emergency signals, and certain situations for closely-spaced signals (where visibility limited signals are not practical).


Existing 8" signals may be retained through the end of their useful service life. I am guessing that the signals we are talking about are okay because they were existing (albeit modified). Even in that situation, 8" arrows are not allowed, hence the separate sizes for the green modification. I think it would have been simpler to just put a full 12" display up, unless the support would not allow for the extra weight.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on January 22, 2015, 10:43:11 PM
Speaking of MUTCD requirements for two through signals, how about a split? 

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.674827,-122.125599,3a,50.1y,96.51h,92.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shpIPEdc66efMSZ92pl6Few!2e0

On an approach with no through movement, whichever turning movement is the major movement on the approach will be considered the "primary" movement, and is thus required to have a minimum of two signal faces.

For this case, I assume the left turn is primary movement, as it does have two signal heads.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on January 23, 2015, 08:14:25 PM
Someone mentioned 8-inch arrow lenses. The very first arrows I ever saw as a kid back in the late 1950's were 8-inch. I don't think 12-inch lenses existed yet. Around the mid-1960's, I started seeing 12-inch used for arrows only. And some years later, probably the 1970's for circular lights.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on January 23, 2015, 09:56:43 PM
Someone mentioned 8-inch arrow lenses. The very first arrows I ever saw as a kid back in the late 1950's were 8-inch. I don't think 12-inch lenses existed yet. Around the mid-1960's, I started seeing 12-inch used for arrows only. And some years later, probably the 1970's for circular lights.

Some signal manufacturers first offered 12" indications in the 1950s decade, such as Crouse-Hinds and Eagle.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on January 24, 2015, 04:33:23 PM
Will NYC switch as most of their signal heads are 8-8-8?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on January 24, 2015, 04:57:21 PM
Only as they need to replace signal heads that don't meet the 8" criteria. Existing installs can remain until the end of useful service life.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on January 24, 2015, 05:07:30 PM
And NYC speed limits are low enough in most places to allow new 8" signals.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on January 24, 2015, 06:35:55 PM
Saw this odd assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.991138,-78.85299,3a,50.4y,100.53h,92.64t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfK3jGx5D1ZQbM00oa6Lc6g!2e0) earlier today. Basically a cross between a doghouse and an inverted T. Red and arrow lenses are 12", others are 8". The single arrow lens is color-changing. Tonawanda has quite a bit of interesting signals and signage (square I-290, anyone?), but this is even strange by their standards.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 25, 2015, 06:31:56 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.616206,-122.201597,3a,73.9y,207.78h,95.59t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sF7ipoBD5alGbKmWIbbk6uA!2e0

Here's an odd mast-arm assembly in Bellevue, WA.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on January 25, 2015, 09:00:49 AM
Will NYC switch as most of their signal heads are 8-8-8?

The city's default speed limit is 25 M.P.H., so that will not happen. Certain thoroughfares, though, throughout the boroughs  received upgrades in recent years from 8" to 12" heads, due to compliance with the speed limits (above 30 in certain locations). Other locations have 8" heads that have been grandfathered.

I am rather happy, from a collector's and enthusiast's point of view, that 8" heads will still be the norm in New York City.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NYhwyfan on January 25, 2015, 10:49:11 AM
Saw this odd assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.991138,-78.85299,3a,50.4y,100.53h,92.64t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfK3jGx5D1ZQbM00oa6Lc6g!2e0) earlier today. Basically a cross between a doghouse and an inverted T. Red and arrow lenses are 12", others are 8". The single arrow lens is color-changing. Tonawanda has quite a bit of interesting signals and signage (square I-290, anyone?), but this is even strange by their standards.

Those replaced signal heads like this one further down Brighton Road:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.990958,-78.840224,3a,24.5y,308.72h,88.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sS5zSCrq6Ni6-OFWMA9XyYg!2e0
Instead of a dual 12" yellow and 12" green arrow section Tonawanda placed one 12" section with a bi-modal green-yellow arrow.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Zeffy on January 30, 2015, 09:58:16 AM
This is the first time I've seen an arrow used for the straight movement:

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.424118,-71.08969&spn=0.000003,0.001778&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=42.424037,-71.089567&panoid=Hf4_v749XHCaOBafDcluNg&cbp=12,320.16,,2,-3.61
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on January 30, 2015, 10:21:11 AM
This is the first time I've seen an arrow used for the straight movement:

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.424118,-71.08969&spn=0.000003,0.001778&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=42.424037,-71.089567&panoid=Hf4_v749XHCaOBafDcluNg&cbp=12,320.16,,2,-3.61

I've seen that plenty of times before.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.050761,-88.033588,3a,40.9y,271.92h,88.15t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJUupHZZEXuzw-GE0VaFJvg!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.050818,-88.030619,3a,44.8y,269.96h,95.71t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3IwPl4-Ot8ydWfjc7KH1tQ!2e0
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 30, 2015, 10:23:34 AM
This is the first time I've seen an arrow used for the straight movement:

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.424118,-71.08969&spn=0.000003,0.001778&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=42.424037,-71.089567&panoid=Hf4_v749XHCaOBafDcluNg&cbp=12,320.16,,2,-3.61

I've seen that plenty of times before.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.050761,-88.033588,3a,40.9y,271.92h,88.15t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJUupHZZEXuzw-GE0VaFJvg!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.050818,-88.030619,3a,44.8y,269.96h,95.71t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3IwPl4-Ot8ydWfjc7KH1tQ!2e0

Delaware has/had them all over the place too.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Zeffy on January 30, 2015, 10:27:19 AM
So what's the rationale between using arrows and using solid balls? Just a choice?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: riiga on January 30, 2015, 10:33:20 AM
Arrow = only applies to the direction the arrow is pointing.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on January 30, 2015, 10:43:16 AM
@ Zeffy:

One scenario -- when no turns are allowed at the intersection.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on January 30, 2015, 01:31:32 PM
@ Zeffy:

One scenario -- when no turns are allowed at the intersection.
Plus the example Zeffy posted is located in Massachusetts; that arrangement & assembly been has around since the early 70s... years before Right turn on Red was became the legal default condition in the Bay State as well as the practice of having separate signal heads for turning lanes.

Back then, it was not uncommon to have a situation/scenario where both the red ball and one of the green arrows (be it upright, horizontal or angled) would be lit on a 4-signal head.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on January 30, 2015, 02:14:26 PM
@ Zeffy:

One scenario -- when no turns are allowed at the intersection.
Plus the example Zeffy posted is located in Massachusetts; that arrangement & assembly been has around since the early 70s... years before Right turn on Red was became the legal default condition in the Bay State as well as the practice of having separate signal heads for turning lanes.

Back then, it was not uncommon to have a situation/scenario where both the red ball and one of the green arrows (be it upright, horizontal or angled) would be lit on a 4-signal head.

Still is, in Chicago, even with RTOR.

(http://i837.photobucket.com/albums/zz298/midamcrossrds/100_4815_zps8098fc1c.jpg) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_4815_zps8098fc1c.jpg.html)

MUTCD?  We don't need no stinking MUTCD.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on January 30, 2015, 02:16:28 PM
@ Zeffy:

One scenario -- when no turns are allowed at the intersection.
Plus the example Zeffy posted is located in Massachusetts; that arrangement & assembly been has around since the early 70s... years before Right turn on Red was became the legal default condition in the Bay State as well as the practice of having separate signal heads for turning lanes.

Back then, it was not uncommon to have a situation/scenario where both the red ball and one of the green arrows (be it upright, horizontal or angled) would be lit on a 4-signal head.

Still is, in Chicago, even with RTOR.

MUTCD?  We don't need no stinking MUTCD.

Isn't that just a poor-man's 5-section tower? I see that style of signal all the time where I live.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on January 30, 2015, 02:21:11 PM
@ Zeffy:

One scenario -- when no turns are allowed at the intersection.
Plus the example Zeffy posted is located in Massachusetts; that arrangement & assembly been has around since the early 70s... years before Right turn on Red was became the legal default condition in the Bay State as well as the practice of having separate signal heads for turning lanes.

Back then, it was not uncommon to have a situation/scenario where both the red ball and one of the green arrows (be it upright, horizontal or angled) would be lit on a 4-signal head.

Still is, in Chicago, even with RTOR.

MUTCD?  We don't need no stinking MUTCD.

Isn't that just a poor-man's 5-section tower? I see that style of signal all the time where I live.

Nope.  There is no yellow arrow at this intersection (Cermak and the ramps to the outbound Ryan Expy).  The lanes look like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8528027,-87.6310646,146m/data=!3m1!1e3
All lanes turn, two to the left, and two to the right.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on January 30, 2015, 03:02:26 PM
@ Zeffy:

One scenario -- when no turns are allowed at the intersection.
Plus the example Zeffy posted is located in Massachusetts; that arrangement & assembly been has around since the early 70s... years before Right turn on Red was became the legal default condition in the Bay State as well as the practice of having separate signal heads for turning lanes.

Back then, it was not uncommon to have a situation/scenario where both the red ball and one of the green arrows (be it upright, horizontal or angled) would be lit on a 4-signal head.

Still is, in Chicago, even with RTOR.

MUTCD?  We don't need no stinking MUTCD.

Isn't that just a poor-man's 5-section tower? I see that style of signal all the time where I live.

Nope.  There is no yellow arrow at this intersection (Cermak and the ramps to the outbound Ryan Expy).  The lanes look like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8528027,-87.6310646,146m/data=!3m1!1e3
All lanes turn, two to the left, and two to the right.

Ah okay. So what exactly stops the right turn lanes from turning? Amber orb? I would think that all turning directions would get a green (with the right arrow lit), followed by an amber across-the-board with the arrow staying lit, followed by a red with the green arrow still lit. Immediately after, the WB Cermak traffic towards the Ryan Expressway would get their turn arrow, and once their turn arrow began to expire, so would the right turn off the Ryan Expressway (using an amber arrow, since the left-turning traffic is already facing a red orb).

FWIW, here's an odd signal near where I live:

(http://i.imgur.com/EeOV6v9.png)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on January 30, 2015, 03:53:45 PM
IIRC, it's a leading right turn.  The signal's operation is: Red -> Red/Green Arrow -> Green/Green Arrow -> Yellow -> Red.  There's a few left turn ones in Chicago like that as well where the operations is: Red -> Green -> Green/Green Arrow -> Yellow -> Red.

Example: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.87511,-87.683791,3a,40.7y,179.97h,86.25t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sVy6VBxyHdjWDTI9hl0-Yfg!2e0
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on January 31, 2015, 12:46:30 PM
NYC used to have one exiting the Queens Midtown Tunnel on the Manhattan side, but with a left turn green arrow present during a red light.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on February 01, 2015, 05:38:40 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/EeOV6v9.png)
As previously mentioned; in MA, many 4-section signalheads (RY^>, RY^<, RYG>, RYG<) would feature one red-light (or yellow light)/one green-arrow lit concurrently. 

Heck one old signal installation in Lynn, MA along MA 1A (the Lynnway) northbound had a couple of 4-section signalheads that had three of its 4 lights lit concurrently as part of normal operations (Y^> and R^>).  The red (& yellow) were lit concurrently with the upright & right-turn green arrow due to another 4-section signalhead that had a left green-arrow on it; it was lit as Y^ and R^ when left-turn movements weren't allowed.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: J Route Z on February 02, 2015, 08:32:47 PM
How come some lights are mounted sideways and some are vertical? Also, how come some are wire mounted?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 02, 2015, 10:15:24 PM
How come some lights are mounted sideways and some are vertical?

I think it may have to do with wind. I tend to see it in the west, where the land is flatter and winds can be higher. Just my guess though.

http://goo.gl/maps/z3F2q

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on February 02, 2015, 10:22:02 PM
How come some lights are mounted sideways and some are vertical?

Let's say you approach an overpass and you drive under it. The intersection you approach right after you drive under the bridge may not be visible to you if the traffic signals are vertical. If they are horizontal, then it would be easy to see them without doubt.

This is generally a common practice by many municipalities.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: UCFKnights on February 02, 2015, 10:45:58 PM
Also, how come some are wire mounted?
Wire mounted gives more flexibility to the exact placement of the signals. It also has a tendency of being much cheaper, even more so the more signals you add.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on February 03, 2015, 07:40:29 AM
Then there's this wonderful MUTCD violation at the Stevenson Expressway (I-55) and Cicero Avenue (IL-50):

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.816777,-87.743248&spn=0.002383,0.005284&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.816708,-87.743288&panoid=cXSZXqPwMVz1_7hj02yHXw&cbp=12,106.41,,0,-6.35

It's just like the ones in jakeroot's photograph.  The red ball is on while the green arrow is on.

Always great to see at a corner with red light cameras on your way to Midway Airport.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 6a on February 13, 2015, 07:44:19 PM
Can someone tell me what the two gray, teardrop shaped things are? They look to be aluminum or the like and are held up with chains, but I couldn't make out if there was any actual wiring going to it.

(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/13/35d9f914456f2f33a82f7ab609ef25db.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ian on February 13, 2015, 08:02:45 PM
^ I could be wrong, but they look like vibration dampers.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 6a on February 13, 2015, 08:19:01 PM
That sent me in the right direction...Stockbridge dampers, thanks!
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PurdueBill on February 13, 2015, 11:16:15 PM
Tons of state-erected lighting on Massachusetts expressways has those dampers; never seen so many in other states (if any) as in Massachusetts. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on February 14, 2015, 12:04:40 PM
So what is their function?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 6a on February 14, 2015, 02:46:56 PM
They reduce vibration (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockbridge_damper). In this case it's on the end of a good sized mast arm.

(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/14/4bbb058a58a0e106d59d0be16035741d.jpg)

Completely unrelated, I just noticed The Google calls that National Road SW when it's West Broad St. I mean yeah, it's the National Rd but that's not the name in that area.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on February 14, 2015, 08:02:36 PM
They reduce vibration (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockbridge_damper). In this case it's on the end of a good sized mast arm.

I have been wondering what those things were for many years. NYSDOT and NYSTA use them on sign gantries quite extensively.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: TEG24601 on February 15, 2015, 10:52:12 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/EeOV6v9.png)
As previously mentioned; in MA, many 4-section signalheads (RY^>, RY^<, RYG>, RYG<) would feature one red-light (or yellow light)/one green-arrow lit concurrently. 

Heck one old signal installation in Lynn, MA along MA 1A (the Lynnway) northbound had a couple of 4-section signalheads that had three of its 4 lights lit concurrently as part of normal operations (Y^> and R^>).  The red (& yellow) were lit concurrently with the upright & right-turn green arrow due to another 4-section signalhead that had a left green-arrow on it; it was lit as Y^ and R^ when left-turn movements weren't allowed.


This sort of thing just popped up near me.  One of my co-workers brought it to my attention because he was pulled over for moving through the intersection as though it was a protected right turn, and the cop said that because it was a red light, he still needed to stop.  This can't be right, can it?.  From what I can tell is is a replacement for those lights that added a 4th light for a protected right turn, which would turn into a green ball when all traffic was allowed to go, or am I reading it wrong?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on February 15, 2015, 11:02:32 AM
They reduce vibration (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockbridge_damper). In this case it's on the end of a good sized mast arm.

I have been wondering what those things were for many years. NYSDOT and NYSTA use them on sign gantries quite extensively.

Thanks for the explanation.  Here in CO, we have long mast arms -- and quite a bit of wind on occasion -- and yet they are nowhere to be found here.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 6a on February 15, 2015, 11:54:11 AM
It had been a curiosity to me for a while, Ian's post above sent me off to read up on them.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PurdueBill on February 15, 2015, 01:11:59 PM
This sort of thing just popped up near me.  One of my co-workers brought it to my attention because he was pulled over for moving through the intersection as though it was a protected right turn, and the cop said that because it was a red light, he still needed to stop.  This can't be right, can it?.  From what I can tell is is a replacement for those lights that added a 4th light for a protected right turn, which would turn into a green ball when all traffic was allowed to go, or am I reading it wrong?

Sounds like BS.  Would the cop pull someone over for going through a green arrow at a doghouse that also had circular red lit?  The signal showed green right arrow; if problems like that persist they may need to change the signals.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: dcbjms on February 16, 2015, 09:43:04 AM
Hmm, interesting setup in Hull, QC:

http://goo.gl/maps/r7KZk

Quebec has always fascinated me with their traffic lights, and this is further proof of it.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: steviep24 on February 21, 2015, 07:03:23 PM
Never seen this setup in NY before. This is at NY 104 at Furnace Rd.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.227454,-77.281641,3a,37.5y,281.8h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sc8VKEBksHqkfH9n2rvmw7Q!2e0!6m1!1e1?hl=en
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: HTM Duke on February 27, 2015, 03:03:06 AM
Only saw this signal last week or so, but it's definitely new to me.  I guess it's what you get when you want to permit left turns on green arrows only at certain times of day and don't want to pay for a third signal.

N Washington and Princess Streets, Alexandria, VA. (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=38.808466,-77.046264&spn=0.002625,0.013078&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.808466,-77.046264&panoid=nbHzY_hX-g4LGBz0tzqFtg&cbp=11,9.17,,0,-3.81)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on February 27, 2015, 09:06:11 AM
This sort of thing just popped up near me.  One of my co-workers brought it to my attention because he was pulled over for moving through the intersection as though it was a protected right turn, and the cop said that because it was a red light, he still needed to stop.  This can't be right, can it?.  From what I can tell is is a replacement for those lights that added a 4th light for a protected right turn, which would turn into a green ball when all traffic was allowed to go, or am I reading it wrong?

Sounds like BS.  Would the cop pull someone over for going through a green arrow at a doghouse that also had circular red lit?  The signal showed green right arrow; if problems like that persist they may need to change the signals.
In this day and age where most drivers have cell phones w/built-in cameras (even old-school cheap flip-types have such), had your (TEG24601) co-worker indeed been cited for such; a quick pic of the signal showing the green arrow & red light lit together would be enough evidence to legally challenge the citation in court.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: TEG24601 on February 28, 2015, 04:07:00 PM
This sort of thing just popped up near me.  One of my co-workers brought it to my attention because he was pulled over for moving through the intersection as though it was a protected right turn, and the cop said that because it was a red light, he still needed to stop.  This can't be right, can it?.  From what I can tell is is a replacement for those lights that added a 4th light for a protected right turn, which would turn into a green ball when all traffic was allowed to go, or am I reading it wrong?

Sounds like BS.  Would the cop pull someone over for going through a green arrow at a doghouse that also had circular red lit?  The signal showed green right arrow; if problems like that persist they may need to change the signals.
In this day and age where most drivers have cell phones w/built-in cameras (even old-school cheap flip-types have such), had your (TEG24601) co-worker indeed been cited for such; a quick pic of the signal showing the green arrow & red light lit together would be enough evidence to legally challenge the citation in court.
Which is exactly what I told him.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on February 28, 2015, 04:54:08 PM
This sort of thing just popped up near me.  One of my co-workers brought it to my attention because he was pulled over for moving through the intersection as though it was a protected right turn, and the cop said that because it was a red light, he still needed to stop.  This can't be right, can it?.  From what I can tell is is a replacement for those lights that added a 4th light for a protected right turn, which would turn into a green ball when all traffic was allowed to go, or am I reading it wrong?

Sounds like BS.  Would the cop pull someone over for going through a green arrow at a doghouse that also had circular red lit?  The signal showed green right arrow; if problems like that persist they may need to change the signals.

In this day and age where most drivers have cell phones w/built-in cameras (even old-school cheap flip-types have such), had your (TEG24601) co-worker indeed been cited for such; a quick pic of the signal showing the green arrow & red light lit together would be enough evidence to legally challenge the citation in court.

Which is exactly what I told him.

Did the cop take note of the arrow being lit green at the time of the turn?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kj3400 on March 04, 2015, 10:52:26 AM
http://goo.gl/maps/n4gnK

'No Movement on Red'. Well, there's something new.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on March 07, 2015, 01:08:13 AM
A rare close-up of a suspended, 1st generation Ruleta head. From New York City. 1926.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/1926%20early%20ruleta_zpsarfqzwxa.png)

This traffic signal had angled-signal sections, because it was located at a skewed intersection.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on March 26, 2015, 10:53:08 PM
5th Av. G.E. "bronze signal" in Manhattan, N.Y. Unknown year.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/10929952_555037157970572_3897755349953090989_n_zpsjwoveeoj.png)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on March 26, 2015, 10:55:11 PM
E. 34th St. and Queens-Midtown Tunnel exit Marbelite cluster. Manhattan, N.Y. 1985.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/10984614_921712177859590_1347941444336278967_n_zpsfxq7itug.jpg)

Its original partner attached to a late 1950s truss-arm setup.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/11069949_921713624526112_7846373203964986018_n_zpstgptby3d.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: riiga on March 27, 2015, 03:40:01 PM
Typical Swedish traffic lights on larger roads
(https://www.lysator.liu.se/~riiga/Bilder/Foton/P1020389.jpg)

Lower section
(https://www.lysator.liu.se/~riiga/Bilder/Foton/P1020391.jpg)

Pedestrian signal
(https://www.lysator.liu.se/~riiga/Bilder/Foton/P1020375.jpg)

Bike signal
(https://www.lysator.liu.se/~riiga/Bilder/Foton/P1020394.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on March 27, 2015, 04:35:35 PM
Typical Swedish traffic lights on larger roads
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24401393/Foton/P1020389.jpg)
Love the old-school-looking green arrow.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: freebrickproductions on March 28, 2015, 12:00:09 AM
How about a 4-way traffic light with two red lights on each side?
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8690/16328351314_9e9df06cc2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qST4Yw)Crouse-hinds Type-M 4-way (https://flic.kr/p/qST4Yw) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7612/16763262060_20658bbef5.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rxj6ME)Crouse-hinds Type-M 4-way (https://flic.kr/p/rxj6ME) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8740/16743371537_00b4f5c206.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rvya2B)Crouse-hinds Type-M 4-way (https://flic.kr/p/rvya2B) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7623/16328351104_893b035f67.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qST4UU)Crouse-hinds Type-M 4-way (https://flic.kr/p/qST4UU) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8696/16949775991_d8c4d0b21b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rPN2T6)Crouse-hinds Type-M 4-way (https://flic.kr/p/rPN2T6) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8754/16743371387_61bd059d3d.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rvy9Z2)Crouse-hinds Type-M 4-way (https://flic.kr/p/rvy9Z2) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on March 31, 2015, 03:36:02 PM
I pass through this intersection near Tacoma, Washington quite a few times during the week (typically 10-20 times) and every time I drive through, I think about ways to improve the intersection. Here's what's up:

Nyanza Road meets Gravelly Lake Drive at what is basically a right angle. Gravelly makes a sweeping turn through the intersection, and slip lanes round off the edges:

(http://i.imgur.com/WD9hkTd.png)

The problem that I have with the intersection is that as you drive along Gravelly Lake approaching Nyanza from the left of the image, the sharp bend hides the wire-hung protected-only left turn signal, but there is a signal repeater on the NW signal mast. So you can see from a distance whether or not the light is green, but not if the turn signal is.

To fix this, could the signal repeater feasibly be something like this?

(http://i.imgur.com/hamll4s.png)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Revive 755 on March 31, 2015, 05:25:08 PM
^ You would need to mount two separate three-section heads to stay in compliance with the MUTCD rather than having one large six-section head.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: NYhwyfan on March 31, 2015, 06:32:10 PM
George Urban Blvd/French Rd - Cheektowaga, NY - old 9x12 pedestrian signal heads

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.918657,-78.713627,3a,75y,127.6h,75.3t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1st7W36vfNHRHwajP1gchcoA!2e0

Payne Ave - North Tonawana, NY - 9x12 peds mounted with 8" signals on span wire

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.03999,-78.873583,3a,75y,4.53h,82.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sYkplHiP6jpeDfb1eTHRk5w!2e0
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on April 01, 2015, 01:57:05 AM
^ You would need to mount two separate three-section heads to stay in compliance with the MUTCD rather than having one large six-section head.

Cocking nora.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: PHLBOS on April 01, 2015, 09:15:05 AM
Payne Ave - North Tonawana, NY - 9x12 peds mounted with 8" signals on span wire
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.03999,-78.873583,3a,75y,4.53h,82.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sYkplHiP6jpeDfb1eTHRk5w!2e0
Overhead pedestrain signals; that's certainly different.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on April 01, 2015, 11:39:48 PM
Payne Ave - North Tonawana, NY - 9x12 peds mounted with 8" signals on span wire
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.03999,-78.873583,3a,75y,4.53h,82.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sYkplHiP6jpeDfb1eTHRk5w!2e0
Overhead pedestrain signals; that's certainly different.

Never seen anything like that... Don't think that ever would have been MUTCD acceptable.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on April 04, 2015, 05:33:31 PM
In the Bronx in New York, on E. Fordham Rd., some old Marbelite "flat top" traffic signals remain. They likely date back to 1954.

From Google Maps.

One at the corner of Hoffman St.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/bronx%20hoffman%20st_zpsgqokij9k.png)

A second one on Bathgate Av.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/the%20bronx%202_zpsde8zeqom.jpg)


Each one still uses a plumbizer, which is rare in New York City nowadays.

The "flat top" heads there are few and far between, so see them while they last.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on April 05, 2015, 05:24:30 AM
I pass through this intersection near Tacoma, Washington quite a few times during the week (typically 10-20 times) and every time I drive through, I think about ways to improve the intersection. Here's what's up:

Nyanza Road meets Gravelly Lake Drive at what is basically a right angle. Gravelly makes a sweeping turn through the intersection, and slip lanes round off the edges:

(http://i.imgur.com/WD9hkTd.png)

The problem that I have with the intersection is that as you drive along Gravelly Lake approaching Nyanza from the left of the image, the sharp bend hides the wire-hung protected-only left turn signal, but there is a signal repeater on the NW signal mast. So you can see from a distance whether or not the light is green, but not if the turn signal is.

To fix this, could the signal repeater feasibly be something like this?

(http://i.imgur.com/hamll4s.png)


I believe the MUTCD only requires thru traffic to have a repeater for blind corners.  You're going to have to slow down anyways for a left turn. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on April 11, 2015, 05:04:25 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/17107337121/in/photostream/
Here is one that is missing all but one visor.

Also it has two red signals, similar to Texas and North Carolina for left turn signals.  I believe, that LADOTD has either a written or non written rule for having drawbridge signals with double reds.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2015, 01:28:11 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/17107337121/in/photostream/
Here is one that is missing all but one visor.

Also it has two red signals, similar to Texas and North Carolina for left turn signals.  I believe, that LADOTD has either a written or non written rule for having drawbridge signals with double reds.

Reminds me of the New Orleans CBD. Tons of signals without visors, and plenty with some on, some off.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on April 29, 2015, 04:56:42 PM
Pierce County just recently installed a new diagonal span-wire signal near South Hill, Washington. I find it amusing because, back in 2000, Pierce County celebrated the replacement of the last diagonal span-wire signal (http://goo.gl/iVLfcx), only to then install a new one 15 years later. They replaced the signals because they were hard to see. They've mitigated this by placing far-side ground-mounted signals for the sides of the intersection that are closer to their respective signals (thus the sides with the most neck-craning).

(http://i.imgur.com/GK1IUpd.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 30, 2015, 09:37:03 AM
Huntsville only has one diagonal span-wire intersection with actual traffic lights on it left.
We still do have some intersections with diagonal spans that hold up beacons though, such as this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.744903,-86.60785,3a,66.8y,290.78h,90.2t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOJZmd8kQk9272odhZXHgaQ!2e0?authuser=1&hl=en).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: 6a on April 30, 2015, 06:00:34 PM
I wish I had a picture of the old diagonal span at W. Broad and Georgesville/Phillipi Rds. here. There were probably a dozen or more signals on this thing, it was fantastic.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on April 30, 2015, 09:38:03 PM
I wish I had a picture of the old diagonal span at W. Broad and Georgesville/Phillipi Rds. here. There were probably a dozen or more signals on this thing, it was fantastic.

New York installed stuff like that until pretty recently (they may still do so, but all NYSDOT intersections I've seen in the past 3-4 years out here are mast arms). A bunch of recently-installed (as in late summer 2014) county assemblies in Amherst do actually have 12 signals (8 3-section and 4 4-section with color-changing arrow).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on May 01, 2015, 01:08:53 AM
Pierce County just recently installed a new diagonal span-wire signal near South Hill, Washington. I find it amusing because, back in 2000, Pierce County celebrated the replacement of the last diagonal span-wire signal (http://goo.gl/iVLfcx), only to then install a new one 15 years later. They replaced the signals because they were hard to see. They've mitigated this by placing far-side ground-mounted signals for the sides of the intersection that are closer to their respective signals (thus the sides with the most neck-craning).

(http://i.imgur.com/GK1IUpd.jpg)

That's a first. A bottom bracket on two individual traffic signals. I wouldn't even consider that as a cluster without the top bracket!

 :-|
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on May 01, 2015, 01:47:26 AM
That's a first. A bottom bracket on two individual traffic signals. I wouldn't even consider that as a cluster without the top bracket!

"Pierce County" and "first" don't usually go together. If I understand what you're saying, the bracket is usually on top instead of the bottom? It did look a bit funny. Though I think it makes sense, since if wind started blowing them around, they risk blowing in front of each other. With the bracket, they'll at least swing together.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ian on May 01, 2015, 10:09:05 AM
That's a first. A bottom bracket on two individual traffic signals. I wouldn't even consider that as a cluster without the top bracket!

"Pierce County" and "first" don't usually go together. If I understand what you're saying, the bracket is usually on top instead of the bottom? It did look a bit funny. Though I think it makes sense, since if wind started blowing them around, they risk blowing in front of each other. With the bracket, they'll at least swing together.

It also prevents the other signals from hitting each other in heavy winds. NYSDOT used to do something similar whenever they installed lane signs on their installs to prevent the signs from hitting the signals. Here's one that used to be (since replaced) at the intersection of US 9 and NY 119 in Tarrytown...

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5220/5516216284_3e0c54605c_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on May 01, 2015, 11:20:49 AM
That's a first. A bottom bracket on two individual traffic signals. I wouldn't even consider that as a cluster without the top bracket!

"Pierce County" and "first" don't usually go together. If I understand what you're saying, the bracket is usually on top instead of the bottom? It did look a bit funny. Though I think it makes sense, since if wind started blowing them around, they risk blowing in front of each other. With the bracket, they'll at least swing together.

It also prevents the other signals from hitting each other in heavy winds. NYSDOT used to do something similar whenever they installed lane signs on their installs to prevent the signs from hitting the signals. Here's one that used to be (since replaced) at the intersection of US 9 and NY 119 in Tarrytown...

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5220/5516216284_3e0c54605c_z.jpg)

New York span wire installs, whether they be NYSDOT or otherwise, typically connect closely-placed signals at the top and/or bottom, and have for some time.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: TrevorB on May 02, 2015, 08:24:12 PM
Southaven, MS

Goodman Road at Elmore Road/Greenbrook Parkway (soon to be replaced as MDOT adds mast arms along Goodman Road):

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.962748,-89.980445,3a,47.2y,76.56h,97.88t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s9U09Gh7-4q82t0Np1xtZrg!2e0

(http://i.imgur.com/cV2yjWS.jpg)


Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ian on May 03, 2015, 12:05:00 PM
That's a first. A bottom bracket on two individual traffic signals. I wouldn't even consider that as a cluster without the top bracket!

"Pierce County" and "first" don't usually go together. If I understand what you're saying, the bracket is usually on top instead of the bottom? It did look a bit funny. Though I think it makes sense, since if wind started blowing them around, they risk blowing in front of each other. With the bracket, they'll at least swing together.

It also prevents the other signals from hitting each other in heavy winds. NYSDOT used to do something similar whenever they installed lane signs on their installs to prevent the signs from hitting the signals. Here's one that used to be (since replaced) at the intersection of US 9 and NY 119 in Tarrytown...

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5220/5516216284_3e0c54605c_z.jpg)

New York span wire installs, whether they be NYSDOT or otherwise, typically connect closely-placed signals at the top and/or bottom, and have for some time.

Yes, I'm aware. But I'm talking about the lane signs, and how they're connected to the signals via that bottom bar you see in the photo. I've seen it on a good handful of intersections in the state, but a lot have been replaced since after, they started using tether wire to hold everything in place.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: signalman on May 03, 2015, 12:21:31 PM
Yes, I'm aware. But I'm talking about the lane signs, and how they're connected to the signals via that bottom bar you see in the photo. I've seen it on a good handful of intersections in the state, but a lot have been replaced since after, they started using tether wire to hold everything in place.
Region 2 loves to use tether wires; as observed yesterday on the Utica meet road tour.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on May 18, 2015, 01:11:49 AM
A new setup in Rosedale, Queens, N.Y. The setup is actuated, so pedestrian push buttons are present.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/17452558899_e8e02947f3_o%201_zpst1rfwh32.jpg)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/17451016978_1bb526721d_o_zpsvvcjzn46.jpg)

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/17016339844_800318178b_o_zps5wcl2vhx.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on May 18, 2015, 01:17:24 AM
Those are new? They look very old (to the uneducated, that is).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on May 18, 2015, 01:54:02 AM
Those are new? They look very old (to the uneducated, that is).

Yes. Everything I believe has been installed by NYCDOT over a week ago.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on May 18, 2015, 04:12:27 AM
Those are new? They look very old (to the uneducated, that is).

Yes. Everything I believe has been installed by NYCDOT over a week ago.

Does the crosswalk have a countdown?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on May 18, 2015, 05:09:00 AM
No.

Standard Leotek hand and man inserts are in use. Depending on each borough's preference, NYCDOT continues to install them at intersections along with countdown units.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on May 23, 2015, 03:30:47 PM
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5461/17826993959_225533c18e_z.jpg)
A signal in New Orleans, LA that is missing some visors.  Notice that the overhead signal facing the right is missing its red light visor while the side mount facing the right has its red signal visor, but instead is missing its yellow and green signal visors.

Also to note in addition to this particular installation using double guys, it is also common for New Orleans using tunnel visors while the rest of LA uses cutout visors.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on May 23, 2015, 04:28:00 PM
^^ And a one way street where no vehicular traffic is facing the signals with the missing visors.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on May 23, 2015, 11:52:35 PM
Last time I was in New Orleans, a lot of the signals in the CBD were missing visors.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on May 24, 2015, 03:53:45 PM
^^ And a one way street where no vehicular traffic is facing the signals with the missing visors.
No.  To the left is one way up river with traffic flowing to the right, as Magazine Street (among many) follow the course of the Mississippi River so they all form the shape of a crescent.

To the right its two way traffic and not featured in the photo is another street that takes the through traffic heading downriver along Magazine Street.  It is located on the left cut off by the photo.

So to the right is traffic coming into the intersection.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on May 25, 2015, 03:16:55 PM
A trolley track signal with Pennsylvania Railroad inspired positional lines instead of the traditional three color signals.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8869/17463553754_73bba55a34_z.jpg)

Today's photo update.  Photo taken 10/24/13 under US 90 Business on St. Charles Avenue.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: steviep24 on May 25, 2015, 05:19:52 PM
3M signals mounted on a sign gantry. These are on NY 252.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.08718,-77.632383,3a,37.5y,88.97h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sVrklKsB9hI3DEAVuMITpXg!2e0?hl=en
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: steviep24 on May 26, 2015, 04:50:56 PM
Intersections with dual left turn lanes but only one protected left turn signal head is provided.

NY 104 at Greece Ridge Center Mall., Rochester
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.208993,-77.689808,3a,75y,283h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shwL1Ri_ycH-xZDY9DJlzjA!2e0!6m1!1e1?hl=en

NY 104 at Ridgemont Plaza
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.210142,-77.70306,3a,75y,250.13h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s7JtYf8lK8akN_g_G3A8ZtA!2e0?hl=en

NY 96 at Commerce Dr., Victor
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.02051,-77.440501,3a,37.5y,202h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sgC2_80Kp5DriG80avvIn5A!2e0!6m1!1e1?hl=en
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on May 30, 2015, 04:12:17 PM
That seems common throughout a lot of areas of New York. Normally, there are at least two traffic signals that control one left turn lane elsewhere.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on May 30, 2015, 04:46:13 PM
That seems common throughout a lot of areas of New York. Normally, there are at least two traffic signals that control one left turn lane elsewhere.

You think so? In most of the New York installations I've seen, whether they be NYSDOT or county, there's one per lane at a minimum for a protected turn movement.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 30, 2015, 04:47:14 PM
Well here's something you don't see every day...
1st pic: 2 red lights.
2nd pic: 2 green lights.
3rd pic: 2 Burned out yellow lights!! 
The first yellow went out about 2 week ago. The 2nd yellow burned out a few days ago.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/8195B956-0168-4EB2-9B95-73D36DDFDEF4.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/8195B956-0168-4EB2-9B95-73D36DDFDEF4.jpg.html)
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/62FB3733-6D7A-4C9F-95DC-148252539608.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/62FB3733-6D7A-4C9F-95DC-148252539608.jpg.html)
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/3605D06A-6F19-4D98-A735-4A3D486F4AE2.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/3605D06A-6F19-4D98-A735-4A3D486F4AE2.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Zeffy on May 30, 2015, 06:14:16 PM
I believe those are Trenton's jurisdiction and not the state's because West State Street is only within the city correct? Unfortunately, a lot of things seem to be broken (or breaking) in Trenton with regards to traffic signals. I'm fairly certain I know of a few broken detectors within the city, because they used to trigger and now they don't.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignBridge on May 30, 2015, 07:34:55 PM
Re: the above post about 2 left-turn lanes with only one protected signal-head, that is common in Long Island, New York as well. Surprisingly, the MUTCD does not require a second head if there are two protected left-turn lanes unless the left turn is the predominant traffic movement.

And I agree that many other states do have a second head for most protected left-turns with either one or two lanes. California and Colorado come to mind.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on May 30, 2015, 08:43:28 PM
That seems common throughout a lot of areas of New York. Normally, there are at least two traffic signals that control one left turn lane elsewhere.

You think so? In most of the New York installations I've seen, whether they be NYSDOT or county, there's one per lane at a minimum for a protected turn movement.

Yes. Consider NYC as an example.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 30, 2015, 09:43:06 PM
I believe those are Trenton's jurisdiction and not the state's because West State Street is only within the city correct? Unfortunately, a lot of things seem to be broken (or breaking) in Trenton with regards to traffic signals. I'm fairly certain I know of a few broken detectors within the city, because they used to trigger and now they don't.

I believe all Trenton jurisdiction lights are fixed timed. There are even a few newer ones with attached optical sensors that are still timed. The one you mentioned previously that had an issue is a DRJTBC light, and I've never had any issues with that intersection myself. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: steviep24 on May 31, 2015, 11:36:16 AM
That seems common throughout a lot of areas of New York. Normally, there are at least two traffic signals that control one left turn lane elsewhere.

You think so? In most of the New York installations I've seen, whether they be NYSDOT or county, there's one per lane at a minimum for a protected turn movement.

Yes. Consider NYC as an example.
NYSDOT usually has two protected left turn signal heads when there are dual left turn lanes and has been doing it that way for years. In the examples I posted earlier I think the contractor cheaped out. Those signals are not even that old.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on June 12, 2015, 07:49:59 PM
Found this temporary one in DC during a construction project on Mass. Ave.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.899903,-77.015244,3a,75y,158.43h,98.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw2vamRgSu-4hUBp44dwDIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Unusual to see a span wire installation in our Nation's Capital.  Considering they're used to side mounted signaling, you would figure that they would continue using their norm as that is just as simple as running a wire if not simpler.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: wisvishr0 on June 13, 2015, 12:42:35 AM
Found this temporary one in DC during a construction project on Mass. Ave.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.899903,-77.015244,3a,75y,158.43h,98.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw2vamRgSu-4hUBp44dwDIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Unusual to see a span wire installation in our Nation's Capital.  Considering they're used to side mounted signaling, you would figure that they would continue using their norm as that is just as simple as running a wire if not simpler.

Hi! Washingtonian here.

That's interesting... you're right in that DC prefers to use side mounts, and that they *do* tend to use span wire during construction.

Here's my thinking: If you look at the poles they use at normal intersections, they tend to be pretty heavy, bulky and permanent. Most intersections have these types of poles:

(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g431/wisvishr0/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-13%20at%2012.24.06%20AM.png) (http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/wisvishr0/media/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-13%20at%2012.24.06%20AM.png.html)

There are (at least) two criteria that a temporary signal mount has to accomplish:

1) It's temporary (i.e. portable).
2) It's compatible with the signal (that is, you have to be able to attach the signal to the mount easily).

The normal poles DC uses aren't very temporary: they're heavy, steel beams that have to be secured in place by a huge block of concrete, and have to be buried in the ground. We'd then have to rule out the normal gray poles DC uses.

Alternatively, they could use a wooden side-pole that's temporary (like the poles that are used to hold up the span wire in your link above). The issue is, you can't use the normal method of mounting the signal to the pole (by using one of those gray arm things in my photo above), because the arm things aren't compatible with the wooden pole. You'd need to design a new arm to attach the signal to the pole. So a temporary wooden pole side mount wouldn't be compatible with the signal.

The easier option would be to use span wire, which is portable and readily available in Maryland *and* Virginia, both of which use span wire for temporary installations. Also, all traffic signals can be attached to the span wire fairly easily without having to use a different mount. Temporary, portable, available and compatible.

I have no idea if that makes sense, but that's my guess.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on June 13, 2015, 12:53:23 AM
Found this temporary one in DC during a construction project on Mass. Ave.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.899903,-77.015244,3a,75y,158.43h,98.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw2vamRgSu-4hUBp44dwDIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Unusual to see a span wire installation in our Nation's Capital.  Considering they're used to side mounted signaling, you would figure that they would continue using their norm as that is just as simple as running a wire if not simpler.

For that particular installation, it's much simpler to use the span wire. Side mounts typically mean one signal on far left and far right, which would mean a temporary pole on 4 corners and longer wire runs. This setup uses only 3 temporary poles, and all the wire runs to both signal heads controlling a direction are right next to each other overhead--this makes it much easier to install and remove.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on June 13, 2015, 02:26:46 AM
Hi! Washingtonian here.

In New England, if you say you are a Washingtonian, do people assume DC? Because out west, a "Washingtonian" is someone from the state of Washington.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: wisvishr0 on June 13, 2015, 02:36:50 AM
Hi! Washingtonian here.

In New England, if you say you are a Washingtonian, do people assume DC? Because out west, a "Washingtonian" is someone from the state of Washington.

Hi! Washingtonian here.

In New England, if you say you are a Washingtonian, do people assume DC? Because out west, a "Washingtonian" is someone from the state of Washington.
I don't know if people recognize it in New England, but "Washingtonian" is the demonym for those of us from DC (we even have a local publication called "Washingtonian Magazine.")

I know those from Washington State are also called Washingtonians, but I didn't think it would be ambiguous given the context. We are, after all, talking about DC.

Maybe to limit any confusion, we should change the names to reflect the river that flows through it, as they do in the UK. DC could be "Washington-upon-Potomac" and Washington State could be "Washington-upon-Cascade." In that case, I'd be a "Washington-upon-Potomackian."

I like it. ;)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on June 13, 2015, 03:03:32 AM
Hi! Washingtonian here.

In New England, if you say you are a Washingtonian, do people assume DC? Because out west, a "Washingtonian" is someone from the state of Washington.

I don't know if people recognize it in New England, but "Washingtonian" is the demonym for those of us from DC (we even have a local publication called "Washingtonian Magazine.")

I know those from Washington State are also called Washingtonians, but I didn't think it would be ambiguous given the context. We are, after all, talking about DC.

Maybe to limit any confusion, we should change the names to reflect the river that flows through it, as they do in the UK. DC could be "Washington-upon-Potomac" and Washington State could be "Washington-upon-Cascade." In that case, I'd be a "Washington-upon-Potomackian."

I like it. ;)

Lol, that might be a bit longwinded. I think we should just stick to using both and letting the listener figure it out via context. I just brought it up because I hadn't thought much about it before, not necessarily because I was confused (though it did catch me off guard).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kj3400 on June 13, 2015, 02:20:22 PM
I just say they're from DC. A lot simpler.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignGeek101 on June 13, 2015, 06:43:40 PM
Hi! Washingtonian here.

In New England, if you say you are a Washingtonian, do people assume DC? Because out west, a "Washingtonian" is someone from the state of Washington.

Any palm / plant enthusiasts like myself also know the Latin name for a Mexican Fan Pan is called the Washingtonia Robusta and the Washingtonia filifera for the Desert Fan Palm, both found in California.

Sorry to get off topic a little bit, but I had to bring it up.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: freebrickproductions on June 13, 2015, 09:37:05 PM
Bought this 12 inch LFE signal today:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/527/18596601819_679930f1e1.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ukjrPR)My 12 inch LFE Traffic Light (https://flic.kr/p/ukjrPR) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: on_wisconsin on July 03, 2015, 01:14:22 AM
The first doghouse style stop lights in Wisconsin where recently installed by the City of Eau Claire. Here are some photos I took:

(http://i.imgur.com/G84Gl9N.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/w2I2r6B.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/uxLk5fk.jpg?2)

(http://i.imgur.com/eDB0Zkj.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/qbetaor.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/KgdHt7f.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/lQ0Zqj4.jpg?1)
(Yes, they where taken with a phone, sorry there not the best.)

As long as there is a full backplate used, as seen above, doghouse stop lights could grow on me.
They also have FYA's too.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alex4897 on July 03, 2015, 10:31:22 AM
The first doghouse style stop lights in Wisconsin where recently installed by the City of Eau Claire. Here are some photos I took:

[snip]
(Yes, they where taken with a phone, sorry there not the best.)

As long as there is a full backplate used, as seen above, doghouse stop lights could grow on me.
They also have FYA's too.
Hold up, the doghouse in that second picture is displaying a yellow arrow in the bottom left aspect.  Can you explain the phasing?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: TEG24601 on July 03, 2015, 11:04:07 AM
The first doghouse style stop lights in Wisconsin where recently installed by the City of Eau Claire. Here are some photos I took:

[snip]
(Yes, they where taken with a phone, sorry there not the best.)

As long as there is a full backplate used, as seen above, doghouse stop lights could grow on me.
They also have FYA's too.
Hold up, the doghouse in that second picture is displaying a yellow arrow in the bottom left aspect.  Can you explain the phasing?


It looks like it has the flashing Yellow for "Yield", which converts to a Green when the turn is protected.  I just saw one of these in Washington, and found it odd.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 03, 2015, 12:23:20 PM
Saw this along US 280 in the Birmingham, AL area:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/332/18760409494_c313cb0321.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uzN197)Odd Siemens Traffic Lights (https://flic.kr/p/uzN197) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Bruce on July 03, 2015, 10:01:59 PM
Two from Everett, WA. Firstly, an unusual gantry:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/499/18345185553_8a3093c6a5_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/tX6SwD)
Hewitt & Colby (https://flic.kr/p/tX6SwD) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

And secondly, a continuous green light at a seagull intersection:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/461/18779519629_e0f5e68c43_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uBtWVc)Continuous green light in Everett (https://flic.kr/p/uBtWVc) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: DaBigE on July 04, 2015, 10:45:56 AM
The first doghouse style stop lights in Wisconsin where recently installed by the City of Eau Claire. Here are some photos I took:

[snip]
(Yes, they where taken with a phone, sorry there not the best.)

As long as there is a full backplate used, as seen above, doghouse stop lights could grow on me.
They also have FYA's too.
Hold up, the doghouse in that second picture is displaying a yellow arrow in the bottom left aspect.  Can you explain the phasing?


It looks like it has the flashing Yellow for "Yield", which converts to a Green when the turn is protected.  I just saw one of these in Washington, and found it odd.

I doubt the FYA in the Eau Claire photos is bimodal. My guess is the left turn is permissive-only throughout the cycle, since there is no dedicated left turn lane on the doghouse approaches. I haven't been able to find any specific verbiage, but it may be an un-written WisDOT policy not to allow/use them. (Although, yes, local municipalities could experiment, but they generally stick within WisDOT design parameters).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: TEG24601 on July 04, 2015, 11:09:07 AM
Two from Everett, WA. Firstly, an unusual gantry:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/499/18345185553_8a3093c6a5_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/tX6SwD)
Hewitt & Colby (https://flic.kr/p/tX6SwD) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

And secondly, a continuous green light at a seagull intersection:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/461/18779519629_e0f5e68c43_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uBtWVc)Continuous green light in Everett (https://flic.kr/p/uBtWVc) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr


I love the unique gantries that Everett comes up with.  The single span ones in South Everett along Evergreen Way and Everett Mall Way are awesome.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on July 04, 2015, 02:34:41 PM
The first doghouse style stop lights in Wisconsin where recently installed by the City of Eau Claire. Here are some photos I took:

...

They also have FYA's too.

What I'm confused about is that the 5-section doghouse display is overhead, but the far left post-mounted vertical displays use only 4 sections... That does not make sense.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: DaBigE on July 04, 2015, 03:58:30 PM
The first doghouse style stop lights in Wisconsin where recently installed by the City of Eau Claire. Here are some photos I took:

...

They also have FYA's too.

What I'm confused about is that the 5-section doghouse display is overhead, but the far left post-mounted vertical displays use only 4 sections... That does not make sense.

That would blow my permissive-only phasing theory out of the water. Maybe Eau Claire is experimenting with a bimodal signal indication :hmmm:

Maybe those approaches operate in split-phasing part of the day? The lack of a dedicated left-turn lane throws a monkey-wrench into things.

Looking at a before reconstruction GSV image (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.807023,-91.501385,3a,75y,74h,85.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLkDdBFTkiJeD9OOmIxV01w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) doesn't really shed any light either. I really wish Eau Claire wasn't a 2.5-hour drive away. :banghead:
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on July 05, 2015, 06:25:51 AM
The doghouse with the FYA setup on the left side uses a bi-modal section on the bottom. After the initial protected left turn movement ends, the amber arrow then flashes for the remainder of the phase.

Finally, the top section then illuminates amber (arrow).


The video below (from Monte) provides further insight on what I mentioned above...

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on July 05, 2015, 10:44:25 AM
My question is if a FYA is really needed in a doghouse assembly?  Just the doghouse itself has meant that left turns are only protected during the green arrow phase.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 05, 2015, 11:41:42 AM
Technically, a solid green has always meant you can turn left when safe to do so. Why we need a flashing yellow arrow in the first place always baffled me.

This weekend, here in Jersey, I watched a car with Texas plate refuse to turn left on a green ball at one intersection. I guess she wanted a yellow flashing arrow. Based on the lack of cross traffic which wouldn't cause the light to cycle and the unusual lineup of cars behind her, she was probably waiting there a long time.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on July 05, 2015, 02:26:13 PM
Why we need a flashing yellow arrow in the first place always baffled me.

Yellow trap, plus left turns can go when oncoming traffic has a protected left turn, so theoretically there's a higher vehicle through-put.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on July 05, 2015, 03:53:37 PM
My question is if a FYA is really needed in a doghouse assembly?  Just the doghouse itself has meant that left turns are only protected during the green arrow phase.

It may be cheaper to install than either a four-section or three-section FYA unit. Just my two cents.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on July 05, 2015, 04:42:25 PM
Saw this along US 280 in the Birmingham, AL area:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/332/18760409494_c313cb0321.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uzN197)Odd Siemens Traffic Lights (https://flic.kr/p/uzN197) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr

I've never understood these or the green arrow only signals.  Yes, there probably is a left turn arrow that is controlled by a light RYG or doghouse, but in my opinion, this type of signal is a waste of electricity.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on July 05, 2015, 04:47:12 PM
My question is if a FYA is really needed in a doghouse assembly?  Just the doghouse itself has meant that left turns are only protected during the green arrow phase.

It may be cheaper to install than either a four-section or three-section FYA unit. Just my two cents.

This is especially true if converting from a regular protected/permissive doghouse setup to a FYA.  The doghouses are already installed, so it's naturally cheaper.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: RG407 on July 05, 2015, 09:16:26 PM
Here's a flashing yellow arrow that flashes no more. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

This is the intersection of Longwood Hills Rd./E.E. Williamson Rd. and Rangeline Rd. in Longwood, FL, near Orlando.  Until last year there was a doghouse signal at this intersection.  It was replaced by a FYA.  A few weeks ago, the "Left turn yield on flashing yellow arrow" sign was removed and the signal now only operates with protected left turns.

Has anyone else seen this happen?  My guess is the FYA may have caused an increase in accidents since a lot people don't know what to do with them.  I've had a couple of near-misses with drivers turning when they weren't supposed to.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on July 05, 2015, 09:57:13 PM
Here's a flashing yellow arrow that flashes no more. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

This is the intersection of Longwood Hills Rd./E.E. Williamson Rd. and Rangeline Rd. in Longwood, FL, near Orlando.  Until last year there was a doghouse signal at this intersection.  It was replaced by a FYA.  A few weeks ago, the "Left turn yield on flashing yellow arrow" sign was removed and the signal now only operates with protected left turns.

Has anyone else seen this happen?  My guess is the FYA may have caused an increase in accidents since a lot people don't know what to do with them.  I've had a couple of near-misses with drivers turning when they weren't supposed to.

When you have a large population of retirees & senior citizens, it doesn't really matter what you do at intersections to try to make them safer, they still won't get it.  And it's not just in Florida either.  I live in an area where the AARPers will sit in a right turn lane at a dead stop despite a red ball w/ green right arrow directly ahead of them -- and a toot on the horn doesn't wake them up, either.

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on July 05, 2015, 10:00:18 PM
Here's a flashing yellow arrow that flashes no more. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

This is the intersection of Longwood Hills Rd./E.E. Williamson Rd. and Rangeline Rd. in Longwood, FL, near Orlando.  Until last year there was a doghouse signal at this intersection.  It was replaced by a FYA.  A few weeks ago, the "Left turn yield on flashing yellow arrow" sign was removed and the signal now only operates with protected left turns.

Has anyone else seen this happen?  My guess is the FYA may have caused an increase in accidents since a lot people don't know what to do with them.  I've had a couple of near-misses with drivers turning when they weren't supposed to.

When you have a large population of retirees & senior citizens, it doesn't really matter what you do at intersections to try to make them safer, they still won't get it.  And it's not just in Florida either.  I live in an area where the AARPers will sit in a right turn lane at a dead stop despite a red ball w/ green right arrow directly ahead of them -- and a toot on the horn doesn't wake them up, either.

That or they make rights on red into other vehicles. The median age in Buffalo is quite high and you can tell it on the roads by the stupidity of the drivers.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mdcastle on July 05, 2015, 10:39:31 PM
The first doghouse style stop lights in Wisconsin where recently installed by the City of Eau Claire. Here are some photos I took:

...

They also have FYA's too.

What I'm confused about is that the 5-section doghouse display is overhead, but the far left post-mounted vertical displays use only 4 sections... That does not make sense.

That could be a copy of the original FYA Doghouse setup that operates in split phase at peak times and permissive only at non-peak; that has a conventional 4-head FYA on the left pole. Mn/DOT later modified the phasing and changed the signal on the left pole to a second doghouse for the more common protected / permissive setup.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: uknowbeers on July 05, 2015, 10:44:17 PM
Here's a flashing yellow arrow that flashes no more. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

This is the intersection of Longwood Hills Rd./E.E. Williamson Rd. and Rangeline Rd. in Longwood, FL, near Orlando.  Until last year there was a doghouse signal at this intersection.  It was replaced by a FYA.  A few weeks ago, the "Left turn yield on flashing yellow arrow" sign was removed and the signal now only operates with protected left turns.

Has anyone else seen this happen?  My guess is the FYA may have caused an increase in accidents since a lot people don't know what to do with them.  I've had a couple of near-misses with drivers turning when they weren't supposed to.

When you have a large population of retirees & senior citizens, it doesn't really matter what you do at intersections to try to make them safer, they still won't get it.  And it's not just in Florida either.  I live in an area where the AARPers will sit in a right turn lane at a dead stop despite a red ball w/ green right arrow directly ahead of them -- and a toot on the horn doesn't wake them up, either.

That intersection is not in a retiree area. It's in Orlando suburbia and has mostly commuters and families going to/from the local schools. I assume the protected-only was installed because of the odd configuration of the side streets. If you need a definitive answer, PM me and I will talk to my contact at the county.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: tradephoric on July 06, 2015, 10:01:21 AM
Here's a flashing yellow arrow that flashes no more. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

This is the intersection of Longwood Hills Rd./E.E. Williamson Rd. and Rangeline Rd. in Longwood, FL, near Orlando.  Until last year there was a doghouse signal at this intersection.  It was replaced by a FYA.  A few weeks ago, the "Left turn yield on flashing yellow arrow" sign was removed and the signal now only operates with protected left turns.

Has anyone else seen this happen?  My guess is the FYA may have caused an increase in accidents since a lot people don't know what to do with them.  I've had a couple of near-misses with drivers turning when they weren't supposed to.

When you have a large population of retirees & senior citizens, it doesn't really matter what you do at intersections to try to make them safer, they still won't get it.  And it's not just in Florida either.  I live in an area where the AARPers will sit in a right turn lane at a dead stop despite a red ball w/ green right arrow directly ahead of them -- and a toot on the horn doesn't wake them up, either.

That intersection is not in a retiree area. It's in Orlando suburbia and has mostly commuters and families going to/from the local schools. I assume the protected-only was installed because of the odd configuration of the side streets. If you need a definitive answer, PM me and I will talk to my contact at the county.

Did the phasing of the left-turn change when the signal was converted from a doghouse to a FYA?  With this example, a leading-left would likely create a lot of problems with traffic blocking the intersection.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: KEK Inc. on July 06, 2015, 11:51:43 AM
Here's a flashing yellow arrow that flashes no more. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

This is the intersection of Longwood Hills Rd./E.E. Williamson Rd. and Rangeline Rd. in Longwood, FL, near Orlando.  Until last year there was a doghouse signal at this intersection.  It was replaced by a FYA.  A few weeks ago, the "Left turn yield on flashing yellow arrow" sign was removed and the signal now only operates with protected left turns.

Has anyone else seen this happen?  My guess is the FYA may have caused an increase in accidents since a lot people don't know what to do with them.  I've had a couple of near-misses with drivers turning when they weren't supposed to.

My first and only accident I was involved in was from a flashing yellow ball.  There's a supplement under the sign that implies that the signal is for left turns. 

Some douche thought he could jump it or didn't know it wasn't protected.  Needless to say, his insurance covered everything.   I noticed that SDOT updated all of the U-District 8" flashing yellow balls to 12" flashing yellow arrows about a month after my accident. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.661256,-122.306592,3a,47.2y,103.84h,96.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG7thC70ZNPGncjfHbYELiw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: uknowbeers on July 06, 2015, 09:45:58 PM
Here's a flashing yellow arrow that flashes no more. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.713074,-81.362477,3a,75y,235.72h,77.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK0BG6N80g0reieXW99UliQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

This is the intersection of Longwood Hills Rd./E.E. Williamson Rd. and Rangeline Rd. in Longwood, FL, near Orlando.  Until last year there was a doghouse signal at this intersection.  It was replaced by a FYA.  A few weeks ago, the "Left turn yield on flashing yellow arrow" sign was removed and the signal now only operates with protected left turns.

Has anyone else seen this happen?  My guess is the FYA may have caused an increase in accidents since a lot people don't know what to do with them.  I've had a couple of near-misses with drivers turning when they weren't supposed to.

When you have a large population of retirees & senior citizens, it doesn't really matter what you do at intersections to try to make them safer, they still won't get it.  And it's not just in Florida either.  I live in an area where the AARPers will sit in a right turn lane at a dead stop despite a red ball w/ green right arrow directly ahead of them -- and a toot on the horn doesn't wake them up, either.

That intersection is not in a retiree area. It's in Orlando suburbia and has mostly commuters and families going to/from the local schools. I assume the protected-only was installed because of the odd configuration of the side streets. If you need a definitive answer, PM me and I will talk to my contact at the county.

Did the phasing of the left-turn change when the signal was converted from a doghouse to a FYA?  With this example, a leading-left would likely create a lot of problems with traffic blocking the intersection.

I don't travel that street often, but I highly doubt it was anything other than Leading Left, with the doghouse or with the flashing yellow arrow. FDOT likes lagging lefts at intersections (during peak times) but Seminole County almost never uses lagging lefts. I can't think of any lagging lefts on Seminole county-maintained roads, in fact.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on July 07, 2015, 01:48:12 AM
In Puyallup, Washington, where 2nd St intersects Meridian Ave and River Rd north of the city center near the auto dealers, is this rather strange setup. The two right-most side-saddle signals have, in order from top to bottom, red orb, amber orb, amber arrow, green arrow. In one phase of the video, the two signals act as additional repeaters for the thru-traffic, but during the latter phase, they are only for the right turn. Very strange. Oh and then during the amber phase, both the amber arrow and amber orb light up. Wtf.

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Bruce on July 08, 2015, 12:03:04 AM
Though you can't see it in this picture, the signal at 23rd & John in Seattle has a straight arrow AND a left turn arrow.

https://goo.gl/maps/706kr
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on July 08, 2015, 09:12:04 PM
http://la.streetsblog.org/2015/07/06/dangerous-intersection-of-venice-and-robertson-gets-a-flashing-yellow-signal/

Quote

Last November, David Lindley was walking across the street at the five point intersection of Venice and South Robertson Boulevard when he was struck and killed. Lindley, an autistic teen who attended nearby Hamilton High School, was mourned by friends and family who vowed to see the intersection fixed.

...

Over six months after Lindley’s tragic death, LADOT recently unveiled its answer to the safety issues created by what one Hamilton High School student described as a “busy, confusing and dangerous” intersection, a flashing yellow arrow warning drivers to be aware of pedestrians. This is the first time the City of Los Angeles has used this traffic control device, but they are common in other parts of the country. Motorists have shown greater likelihood to yield during a flashing yellow arrow than a red one.

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on July 08, 2015, 09:27:31 PM
In Puyallup, Washington, where 2nd St intersects Meridian Ave and River Rd north of the city center near the auto dealers, is this rather strange setup. The two right-most side-saddle signals have, in order from top to bottom, red orb, amber orb, amber arrow, green arrow. In one phase of the video, the two signals act as additional repeaters for the thru-traffic, but during the latter phase, they are only for the right turn. Very strange. Oh and then during the amber phase, both the amber arrow and amber orb light up. Wtf.


I don't consider it that strange.  I believe that the light is meant mainly to control the right turn, but it can also be used to provide additional visibility to the red light.

Does WA consider a red right arrow to mean no turn on red?

In most states, a red right arrow is synonymous with no turn while the arrow is on.  So simply making the signal RA,YA,GA would prohibit turning on red.  So the red arrow is replaced with a red ball.  But if you have a red ball, it should be on at times when the other red balls are on, even if a right turn is permitted during the right turn phase (cross-street left turn phase).  That's what we see with red ball and green arrow at the same time.  The yellow ball and yellow arrow denote that both straight and right turn green times are ending and that red is approaching.

There is a similar signal phasing at the corner of Santa Monica and Wilshire in Beverly Hills, CA.  There, the right turn signal is Red ball, yellow arrow, green arrow.

At SM & Wilshire, like the intersection above, pedestrians are not allowed to cross the street on the right side.  That is why you have a green arrow lit for the entire green phase.  If pedestrians would be allowed to cross, you would probably see a 5-section signal on the right, which is fairly common.  R,Y,G,YA,GA.  The sequence would be as folllows:  R, R+GA, R+YA, R (all-red), G, Y, R.  The  arrows would be lit only when the cross street has green left arrow and yellow left arrow, and the RYG would match the other lights at the intersection.  But here,  as there are no pedestrian conflicts, the green ball is eliminated.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on July 09, 2015, 01:07:03 AM
Does WA consider a red right arrow to mean no turn on red?

They don't. Red balls and red arrows are synonymous. It's a little annoying to come to an off-ramp of a freeway, and some tourist is sitting there on a red arrow not turning, when they can. There's usually a symphony of horns but they don't catch on.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on July 09, 2015, 02:01:34 AM
Does WA consider a red right arrow to mean no turn on red?

They don't. Red balls and red arrows are synonymous. It's a little annoying to come to an off-ramp of a freeway, and some tourist is sitting there on a red arrow not turning, when they can. There's usually a symphony of horns but they don't catch on.
That happens there too?  I thought it only happened here in Florida.  Here, too we have people who sit at lights with a green right turn arrow saying its okay to turn.  As we know a green arrow is the same as a green ball as well, but some people are idiots.  Remember the flashing yellow arrow because some drivers cannot tell the difference between a protected left turn and and non protected turn with just the arrow at the beginning and allowed to turn on regular green.  If they cannot tell the difference there on that one, then expect it on right turns red or green arrows.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ace10 on July 09, 2015, 05:28:47 AM
There's definitely a patchwork of laws on whether or not it's legal to turn right on a red arrow. I know in California and Idaho it is not legal, but in states like Washington, Oregon, Mississippi, and Florida, it is legal.

Do you ever think someday we'll see something like a flashing red arrow to universally permit turning right on red (after stop), and a solid red arrow to universally mean such a turn is prohibited on red? That way, the meaning and legality are consistent across all 50 states. Of course these would be mostly for dedicated turn lanes only - intersections getting by just fine with red balls could likely stay that way.

I'd also want to advocate for a flashing red left arrow to denote turning left on red is legal onto one-way streets. Here in Oregon and Washington, a left on red onto a one-way (or freeway onramp) is legal, even from a two-way street. Seemed a bit odd to me at first (I grew up in the southeast and had never heard of such a legal maneuver), but after doing it a few times, it makes complete sense to me, and I'm happy to live somewhere where I can do that legally. Problem is, a ton of people around here have no idea it's legal, and just sit at the red light when there's little to no traffic and when they can safely make a turn. Some intersections have the flashing yellow arrow, but of course the arrow is red when cross traffic has green, but the turn can still be made legally. If the left turn arrows in this situation flashed red, people would know that they could turn on red after stopping and yielding to all other traffic and pedestrians.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Rothman on July 09, 2015, 08:21:41 AM
Does WA consider a red right arrow to mean no turn on red?

They don't. Red balls and red arrows are synonymous. It's a little annoying to come to an off-ramp of a freeway, and some tourist is sitting there on a red arrow not turning, when they can. There's usually a symphony of horns but they don't catch on.

From New York DMV:

Quote
Red Arrow: Do not go in the direction of the arrow until the red arrow light is of and a green light or arrow light goes on. A right or left turn on red is not permitted at a red arrow.

Be careful.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: kkt on July 09, 2015, 12:34:34 PM
There's definitely a patchwork of laws on whether or not it's legal to turn right on a red arrow. I know in California and Idaho it is not legal, but in states like Washington, Oregon, Mississippi, and Florida, it is legal.

Right turn on red is legal in California, in fact California invented the legal right turn on red (at least according to Annie Hall and this legislative report http://www.cga.ct.gov/ps99/rpt/olr/htm/99-r-1021.htm (http://www.cga.ct.gov/ps99/rpt/olr/htm/99-r-1021.htm)

And according to Wikipedia, right turn on red is now the rule in all 50 states, although some cities (notably New York) have citywide laws against RTOR.

Red arrow.

Yes, I saw that right after posting and removed my post.  But not soon enough.

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2015, 12:45:13 PM
Does WA consider a red right arrow to mean no turn on red?

They don't. Red balls and red arrows are synonymous. It's a little annoying to come to an off-ramp of a freeway, and some tourist is sitting there on a red arrow not turning, when they can. There's usually a symphony of horns but they don't catch on.

From New York DMV:

Quote
Red Arrow: Do not go in the direction of the arrow until the red arrow light is of and a green light or arrow light goes on. A right or left turn on red is not permitted at a red arrow.

Be careful.

I think he was specifically referencing WA.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Rothman on July 09, 2015, 01:40:53 PM
Does WA consider a red right arrow to mean no turn on red?

They don't. Red balls and red arrows are synonymous. It's a little annoying to come to an off-ramp of a freeway, and some tourist is sitting there on a red arrow not turning, when they can. There's usually a symphony of horns but they don't catch on.

From New York DMV:

Quote
Red Arrow: Do not go in the direction of the arrow until the red arrow light is of and a green light or arrow light goes on. A right or left turn on red is not permitted at a red arrow.

Be careful.

I think he was specifically referencing WA.

Yeah; I was just sloppy in joining the overall conversation about "right turn on red arrow."
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on July 09, 2015, 02:12:04 PM
I'd also want to advocate for a flashing red left arrow to denote turning left on red is legal onto one-way streets. Here in Oregon and Washington, a left on red onto a one-way (or freeway onramp) is legal, even from a two-way street. Seemed a bit odd to me at first (I grew up in the southeast and had never heard of such a legal maneuver), but after doing it a few times, it makes complete sense to me, and I'm happy to live somewhere where I can do that legally.

It's also legal in Michigan to turn left on red from a two-way street to a one-way street including freeway entrance ramps.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Ace10 on July 09, 2015, 04:14:15 PM
I'd also want to advocate for a flashing red left arrow to denote turning left on red is legal onto one-way streets. Here in Oregon and Washington, a left on red onto a one-way (or freeway onramp) is legal, even from a two-way street. Seemed a bit odd to me at first (I grew up in the southeast and had never heard of such a legal maneuver), but after doing it a few times, it makes complete sense to me, and I'm happy to live somewhere where I can do that legally.

It's also legal in Michigan to turn left on red from a two-way street to a one-way street including freeway entrance ramps.

I haven't read up on Michigan's laws. Is that turn legal on a red arrow, or just a red ball? The two other states in which it's legal to turn left from a two-way to a one-way on red are Alaska and Idaho I believe; however, Idaho permits the turn only on a red ball, not on a red arrow. Washington and Oregon make no distinction between an arrow and ball in regards to turns on red.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on July 09, 2015, 05:03:30 PM
I'd also want to advocate for a flashing red left arrow to denote turning left on red is legal onto one-way streets. Here in Oregon and Washington, a left on red onto a one-way (or freeway onramp) is legal, even from a two-way street. Seemed a bit odd to me at first (I grew up in the southeast and had never heard of such a legal maneuver), but after doing it a few times, it makes complete sense to me, and I'm happy to live somewhere where I can do that legally.

It's also legal in Michigan to turn left on red from a two-way street to a one-way street including freeway entrance ramps.

I haven't read up on Michigan's laws. Is that turn legal on a red arrow, or just a red ball? The two other states in which it's legal to turn left from a two-way to a one-way on red are Alaska and Idaho I believe; however, Idaho permits the turn only on a red ball, not on a red arrow. Washington and Oregon make no distinction between an arrow and ball in regards to turns on red.

A red ball equals a red arrow in both Michigan and Illinois, and are treated the same.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on July 09, 2015, 11:04:03 PM
I had only asked earlier about WA's right turn on red arrow law to try to make sense of the signal that Jakeroot posted.

But one thing that is clear given the conversation above is that it is a problem that there are different laws regarding right turn on red arrow, left turn on red, and other laws heralds the need for one set of national standards with regard to traffic laws.

So, given that most states have a no left on red onto a one-way that should be the national default.  For any intersection where the turn is permitted, it can be permitted with a sign"  "Left Turn on Red Permitted after Stop".

Similarly, I'm opposed to NYC's blanket rule against No Turn on Red, because it conflicts with teh national default.  I beleive that a sign should be posted <i> at every intersection </i> that it is warranted.

Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on July 11, 2015, 09:40:17 PM
Here's an odd one- Slade Ave at Ridge Rd/US 219/I-90 in West Seneca, NY (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.828792,-78.787797,3a,17.5y,200.81h,94.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPxLLpy0W5JPqKYx77hLvIQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DPxLLpy0W5JPqKYx77hLvIQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D67.663025%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656). Both turns are protected-only and each movement only gets one signal face (a big no-no). Top section in each face is a red arrow, middle is a circular yellow, and the bottom is a bimodal yellow/green arrow. I do not know if the middle section ever illuminates. I do not know if this is an NYSDOT or county install, but the name blades and NTOR signage are clearly NYSDOT.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: UCFKnights on July 11, 2015, 09:52:17 PM
Signal replacement...

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.565335,-81.165705,3a,15y,20.19h,93.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svlGY1Unwz9Zhwb4r60XfBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

They're even replacing entire mast arms that are very new:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.565506,-81.194896,3a,51.5y,37.12h,82.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0MB4xVYRcR1LCUkpgwz0Lg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

They're doing a few in X patterns for the wire mounted, I hate that:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.566921,-81.207421,3a,75y,287.69h,76.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sofcgqYOVF-FSwKJtsgY9kQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Mast arms built in 2011 with a bracket to extend it for this construction project being replaced by wires:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.568762,-81.223554,3a,75y,270.23h,84.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sz6p4mlPZ-sRZToEWFb7zGw!2e0!5s20150401T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mdcastle on July 12, 2015, 01:14:49 PM
What's the logic in downgrading masts to wires?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 12, 2015, 03:38:35 PM
What's the logic in downgrading masts to wires?
Higher wind resistance.
Here in Huntsville, when the city installed new signals along Airport Road after an F4 tornado tore out all of the old ones in 1989, they installed all of the signals on span wires even though some of the old ones were on masts for the added wind resistance.
Span signals may have a tendency to get blown around in the wind, but the supporting structure is less likely to collapse in high winds, from what I understand.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on July 12, 2015, 03:51:05 PM
I was noticing that in Fort Worth, Texas the signals there are NOT horizontal like the rest of Texas.  I even noticed that it extended outside the city limits as well.  Going east they were all along the IH 30 up until Arlington.

Am I to assume that its Tarrant County that prefers standard signals in which I was seeing?  I also know that San Antonio and Galveston both use standard as well, but not in their metro areas surrounding so much.  I was just wondering what Fort Worth area signals have in common that use them.  Not that I have anything against them, but I just cannot find the defined boundary of where the vertical ends and the rest of Texas begins so I am assuming that that is Tarrant County's rule to use vertical without backplates just as SA and Galveston have done.

BTW having different assemblies throughout Texas makes signaling more interesting between the black heads in Greater Houston to some span wires in suburban and rural areas to the rest being curved mast arms or straight arms all throughout the Lone Star State.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on July 12, 2015, 10:35:38 PM
What's the logic in downgrading masts to wires?
Higher wind resistance.
Here in Huntsville, when the city installed new signals along Airport Road after an F4 tornado tore out all of the old ones in 1989, they installed all of the signals on span wires even though some of the old ones were on masts for the added wind resistance.
Span signals may have a tendency to get blown around in the wind, but the supporting structure is less likely to collapse in high winds, from what I understand.

Funny, because the opposite is, from what I've been told, why NYSDOT Region 5 is mainly using mast arms from now on outside of temporary installations. Buffalo area winds are, on many days, over 20 mph steady and higher is not uncommon. They've recently had a lot of issues with signals falling during the heavy gusts this area is known for and the mast arms show little movement.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: UCFKnights on July 12, 2015, 10:39:16 PM
What's the logic in downgrading masts to wires?
The only thing I can think of is that the state came up with this plan a very, very long time ago, and bid it as such. The county has upgraded various intersecting roads and put the mast arms in with accommodations for this expansion, for the state decided not to change their spec to account for that. It doesn't make much sense why they are replacing  mast arms that were put are only a few years old.

I know here in Florida, they say the mast arms are generally hurricane ready while the span wires are not. I know in South Florida when we had the last 3 hurricanes, very few mast arms failed and the signals remainend intact (minus cameras and backlit street signs). Nearly every span wire lost every signal. Their big reason for not for not doing more mast arms is that the cost is double, and even more when the arms are especially long.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on July 13, 2015, 02:31:00 AM
What's the logic in downgrading masts to wires?
Higher wind resistance.
Here in Huntsville, when the city installed new signals along Airport Road after an F4 tornado tore out all of the old ones in 1989, they installed all of the signals on span wires even though some of the old ones were on masts for the added wind resistance.
Span signals may have a tendency to get blown around in the wind, but the supporting structure is less likely to collapse in high winds, from what I understand.

A mast arm, properly designed and installed, can have high wind resistance. This is why some places with high winds (or frequent high wind potential) either tend to have mast arms or are making that conversion.

Another consideration is the cost long term. While mast arm signals probably cost twice as much in the initial installation, that is potentially offset by long-term maintenance costs. Span wire installations have to have tension wires periodically tightened and are more susceptible to damage in winds.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: AndyMax25 on July 14, 2015, 03:31:48 PM
Check out this traffic signal in the background go haywire.  The battery backup controller was failing. https://vimeo.com/133485530 (https://vimeo.com/133485530)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Bruce on July 21, 2015, 04:24:57 PM
Apparently traffic lights aren't high enough for this rental truck driver:

(http://i.imgur.com/XKyBRUj.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/i701mhs.jpg)

1st & Marion in Seattle this morning.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: DaBigE on July 21, 2015, 04:31:00 PM
Apparently traffic lights aren't high enough for this rental truck driver:

...[photos removed]...

1st & Marion in Seattle this morning.

Had the steep incline not been present immediately downstream of the signal, the truck probably would have had enough clearance.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on July 21, 2015, 05:22:11 PM
Apparently traffic lights aren't high enough for this rental truck driver:

...[photos removed]...

1st & Marion in Seattle this morning.

Had the steep incline not been present immediately downstream of the signal, the truck probably would have had enough clearance.

This doesn't happen a lot, but perhaps they should take a hint and put the signals on the sides of the street, like they do at other intersections downtown.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2015, 05:29:33 PM
Apparently traffic lights aren't high enough for this rental truck driver:

...[photos removed]...

1st & Marion in Seattle this morning.

Had the steep incline not been present immediately downstream of the signal, the truck probably would have had enough clearance.

This doesn't happen a lot, but perhaps they should take a hint and put the signals on the sides of the street, like they do at other intersections downtown.

Um, there are no signals above the street here:  https://goo.gl/maps/ZvJ1X . 

Looks like he just took the curve too sharp, and the light got hung up or imbedded in the door of that truck.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on July 21, 2015, 05:42:11 PM
Apparently traffic lights aren't high enough for this rental truck driver:

...[photos removed]...

1st & Marion in Seattle this morning.

Had the steep incline not been present immediately downstream of the signal, the truck probably would have had enough clearance.

This doesn't happen a lot, but perhaps they should take a hint and put the signals on the sides of the street, like they do at other intersections downtown.

Um, there are no signals above the street here:  https://goo.gl/maps/ZvJ1X . 

Looks like he just took the curve too sharp, and the light got hung up or [e]mbedded in the door of that truck.

Touché. I cannot see any other hanging signals in the photo nor any wires. It would appear he snagged the southern signal facing Marion turning right from 1st Ave (N) towards Marion.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: mrsman on July 24, 2015, 11:38:10 AM
Apparently traffic lights aren't high enough for this rental truck driver:

...[photos removed]...

1st & Marion in Seattle this morning.

Had the steep incline not been present immediately downstream of the signal, the truck probably would have had enough clearance.

This doesn't happen a lot, but perhaps they should take a hint and put the signals on the sides of the street, like they do at other intersections downtown.

Um, there are no signals above the street here:  https://goo.gl/maps/ZvJ1X . 

Looks like he just took the curve too sharp, and the light got hung up or [e]mbedded in the door of that truck.

Touché. I cannot see any other hanging signals in the photo nor any wires. It would appear he snagged the southern signal facing Marion turning right from 1st Ave (N) towards Marion.

The discussion begs the question as to what height signals should be hung at.  (Excuse grammar).   While I have seen low clearance signs and recently posted about the low R/R bridge above Gregson Street in Durham, NC that is frequently struck by trucks, I have never seen a low clearance sign in relation to signals hung on a wire (or a mast arm). 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2015, 12:02:57 PM
Apparently traffic lights aren't high enough for this rental truck driver:

...[photos removed]...

1st & Marion in Seattle this morning.

Had the steep incline not been present immediately downstream of the signal, the truck probably would have had enough clearance.

This doesn't happen a lot, but perhaps they should take a hint and put the signals on the sides of the street, like they do at other intersections downtown.

Um, there are no signals above the street here:  https://goo.gl/maps/ZvJ1X . 

Looks like he just took the curve too sharp, and the light got hung up or [e]mbedded in the door of that truck.

Touché. I cannot see any other hanging signals in the photo nor any wires. It would appear he snagged the southern signal facing Marion turning right from 1st Ave (N) towards Marion.

The discussion begs the question as to what height signals should be hung at.  (Excuse grammar).   While I have seen low clearance signs and recently posted about the low R/R bridge above Gregson Street in Durham, NC that is frequently struck by trucks, I have never seen a low clearance sign in relation to signals hung on a wire (or a mast arm). 

Obviously, signals are supposed to be above the minimum height for trucks.  In most cases, they are going to be about 15' or higher at their low point above the road.  In this case, the rental truck would've only been about 11 feet high, so clearly the light wouldn't have been that low as buses are usually a little taller, and tractor trailers are 2.5 - 3 feet taller.   Traffic lights are fairly cheap, so there's no reason to have one below the minimum height requirements for all normal vehicles (trucks, buses, cars, etc).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Big John on July 24, 2015, 12:23:55 PM
^^ MUTCD calls for a 15' minimum clearance, but several states use a 17' minimum rule.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on July 26, 2015, 04:06:39 PM
The 15 ft. rule of thumb has been around for a long time.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: SignGeek101 on July 26, 2015, 07:58:35 PM
(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b551/slik_sh00ter/Double%20Red_zpsef8vw3df.jpg)

Never seen this before. Double red light.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2015, 09:51:52 PM
Never seen this before. Double red light.

There's a lot of them in Alberta (chiefly Edmonton) where turns are protected-only, since so many of the turns are permissive (including a surprising amount of two-lane left turns).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: UCFKnights on July 26, 2015, 09:54:56 PM
I guess you're allowed to turn left on red if one of the red bulbs burns out?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on July 26, 2015, 11:54:12 PM
I guess you're allowed to turn left on red if one of the red bulbs burns out?

Or if it is a 4-segment signal...
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mr. Matté on August 02, 2015, 05:23:25 PM
There's a newly reconfigured traffic signal at the intersection of US 1 and CR 546/Bakers Basin Rd. in Lawrence Twp., NJ where the pedestrian countdown signals start the countdown (parallel to US 1) but at 0, the walk symbol returns for a few seconds and starts the countdown again. The countdown happens about three times before the US 1 signals actually change to yellow and the Bakers Basin traffic can proceed thereafter.

It's personally annoying for me since 100% of the time I'm on Bakers Basin/546, I'm on my bike and I use the time before the signals change to clip out, lower my glasses so they don't get fogged up, etc. When the cross street goes yellow, that's when I start my sequence to get ready to pedal hard across there. Is there some kind of actual statement that bans this in the MUTCD or any other official document that I can cite before sending the report out to DOT? I don't want to make this solely a convenience report to them. (not that it actually matters since they never respond even when I include my email and and I've stated before, one problem remained unfixed until I wrote my state legislator)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: US71 on August 02, 2015, 09:32:01 PM

Never seen this before. Double red light.

Texas uses them on their Left Turn Signals

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2899/14323144365_9365ab3920_z_d.jpg)

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2080/2530670341_2767feece0_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2015, 09:41:52 PM
There's a newly reconfigured traffic signal at the intersection of US 1 and CR 546/Bakers Basin Rd. in Lawrence Twp., NJ where the pedestrian countdown signals start the countdown (parallel to US 1) but at 0, the walk symbol returns for a few seconds and starts the countdown again. The countdown happens about three times before the US 1 signals actually change to yellow and the Bakers Basin traffic can proceed thereafter.

It's personally annoying for me since 100% of the time I'm on Bakers Basin/546, I'm on my bike and I use the time before the signals change to clip out, lower my glasses so they don't get fogged up, etc. When the cross street goes yellow, that's when I start my sequence to get ready to pedal hard across there. Is there some kind of actual statement that bans this in the MUTCD or any other official document that I can cite before sending the report out to DOT? I don't want to make this solely a convenience report to them. (not that it actually matters since they never respond even when I include my email and and I've stated before, one problem remained unfixed until I wrote my state legislator)

I saw this on US 130 at Browning Rd in Bellmawr one day. At least here, the signal length is dictated by a collective network of sensors determining when to change the light.  I figured that when the countdown reached to 0, there will still too much traffic approaching, and reset the ped to a walk phase and another countdown phase.

In my case above, I saw it occur once. Other times, either the walk signal never activated, or it only counted down once, and the light cycled soon after that.

If it's occurring every time the way you mentioned, there may be some sort of issue. But otherwise, the light is probably programmed to sense traffic coming from longer distances, and as above, if traffic is too heavy the light will remain green.  You'll have to go thru during slower period of traffic to determine if there's truly a problem.  I don't think there's any problems regarding the MUTCD .
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: thenetwork on August 02, 2015, 09:56:12 PM
There's a newly reconfigured traffic signal at the intersection of US 1 and CR 546/Bakers Basin Rd. in Lawrence Twp., NJ where the pedestrian countdown signals start the countdown (parallel to US 1) but at 0, the walk symbol returns for a few seconds and starts the countdown again. The countdown happens about three times before the US 1 signals actually change to yellow and the Bakers Basin traffic can proceed thereafter.

It's personally annoying for me since 100% of the time I'm on Bakers Basin/546, I'm on my bike and I use the time before the signals change to clip out, lower my glasses so they don't get fogged up, etc. When the cross street goes yellow, that's when I start my sequence to get ready to pedal hard across there. Is there some kind of actual statement that bans this in the MUTCD or any other official document that I can cite before sending the report out to DOT? I don't want to make this solely a convenience report to them. (not that it actually matters since they never respond even when I include my email and and I've stated before, one problem remained unfixed until I wrote my state legislator)

It could be that the pedestrian activation button for the crosswalk is not working properly or broken.  That is happened a few times in my town, resulting in the countdown timer and the WALK/DON'T WALK signal recycling 2-3 times until the actual traffic light changes for drivers.  If the light only changes on the side street when a vehicle is detected, then the crosswalk recycling will continue ad nauseum until the light does need to change for the waiting vehicle(s) on the side street.

On the other side of the coin, if there is a broken crosswalk activation button for the side street to cross the primary street, that will usually result in the side street getting a green on a regular and full-length basis with or without any vehicles &/or pedestrians waiting -- A big Pain In The Ass when the side street's green is only long enough for the waiting vehicle(s) if the signal system is working properly and there is no crosswalk traffic, but goes to a full 20-30+ second cycle if the crosswalk is activated (or broken).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mr. Matté on August 02, 2015, 10:40:37 PM
If it's occurring every time the way you mentioned, there may be some sort of issue. But otherwise, the light is probably programmed to sense traffic coming from longer distances, and as above, if traffic is too heavy the light will remain green.  You'll have to go thru during slower period of traffic to determine if there's truly a problem.

I saw this happen this morning at about 9:00 AM, and saw it last weekend on Saturday morning as well so traffic was light in all directions. In this morning's instance though, all three of the turning lanes were filled so it wasn't a case of the sensors seeing a car and then the car going away.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on August 08, 2015, 02:36:35 PM
There's a newly reconfigured traffic signal at the intersection of US 1 and CR 546/Bakers Basin Rd. in Lawrence Twp., NJ where the pedestrian countdown signals start the countdown (parallel to US 1) but at 0, the walk symbol returns for a few seconds and starts the countdown again. The countdown happens about three times before the US 1 signals actually change to yellow and the Bakers Basin traffic can proceed thereafter.

It's personally annoying for me since 100% of the time I'm on Bakers Basin/546, I'm on my bike and I use the time before the signals change to clip out, lower my glasses so they don't get fogged up, etc. When the cross street goes yellow, that's when I start my sequence to get ready to pedal hard across there. Is there some kind of actual statement that bans this in the MUTCD or any other official document that I can cite before sending the report out to DOT? I don't want to make this solely a convenience report to them. (not that it actually matters since they never respond even when I include my email and and I've stated before, one problem remained unfixed until I wrote my state legislator)

It could be that the signal is set to automatic recall of the pedestrian phase, or on a "rest in walk" setting. If that happens, then the pedestrian walk phase is automatically activated and is allowed to cycle. Then if there is no conflicting traffic on the side street that would cause the main street to turn red, then the signal controller automatically restarts the walk sequence—this repeats until a conflicting call for service terminates the main street green.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Mr. Matté on August 08, 2015, 11:19:40 PM
It could be that the signal is set to automatic recall of the pedestrian phase, or on a "rest in walk" setting. If that happens, then the pedestrian walk phase is automatically activated and is allowed to cycle. Then if there is no conflicting traffic on the side street that would cause the main street to turn red, then the signal controller automatically restarts the walk sequence—this repeats until a conflicting call for service terminates the main street green.

In this particular case, all three lanes heading west had a car in it (and I believe eastbound too) so some sensor should have tripped. Again, it's just a personal tic of mine and I have thus far not received any response to my submission nor do I expect any action from NJDOT on it the next time I go through there (winds came from the east today and will be from the north tomorrow so no Pennington/Pennsylvania/Central Sourlands rides).
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 09, 2015, 12:10:27 AM
There's a newly reconfigured traffic signal at the intersection of US 1 and CR 546/Bakers Basin Rd. in Lawrence Twp., NJ where the pedestrian countdown signals start the countdown (parallel to US 1) but at 0, the walk symbol returns for a few seconds and starts the countdown again. The countdown happens about three times before the US 1 signals actually change to yellow and the Bakers Basin traffic can proceed thereafter.

It's personally annoying for me since 100% of the time I'm on Bakers Basin/546, I'm on my bike and I use the time before the signals change to clip out, lower my glasses so they don't get fogged up, etc. When the cross street goes yellow, that's when I start my sequence to get ready to pedal hard across there. Is there some kind of actual statement that bans this in the MUTCD or any other official document that I can cite before sending the report out to DOT? I don't want to make this solely a convenience report to them. (not that it actually matters since they never respond even when I include my email and and I've stated before, one problem remained unfixed until I wrote my state legislator)

It could be that the signal is set to automatic recall of the pedestrian phase, or on a "rest in walk" setting. If that happens, then the pedestrian walk phase is automatically activated and is allowed to cycle. Then if there is no conflicting traffic on the side street that would cause the main street to turn red, then the signal controller automatically restarts the walk sequence—this repeats until a conflicting call for service terminates the main street green.

This particular intersection on US 1 is notable as the only at-grade intersection between the PA/NJ state line & the Princeton area. Bakers Basin Rd was recently widened at the intersection, and an elongated jug handle combined with a roundabout was recently installed. The chances of no traffic on the side road here during the day is nil to none. It's extremely busy here, and unfortunate they couldn't make it grade separated as they have done at numerous nearby intersections.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Alex on August 12, 2015, 11:18:26 AM
The picture of a mast arm signal over an urban prairie is worth seeing.

Traffic light on road to nowhere found in middle of urban wasteland in Russia (http://www.rt.com/news/312233-russia-street-light-nowhere/)

Quote
Installing traffic lights where no car could ever pass seem like a weird idea? Well, that’s what a Russian government spending watchdog discovered in the city of Yaroslavl. Pictures of the find have quickly brewed up a storm of online scorn and ridicule.
Despite appearing to be perfectly useless, the warning beacon seems to, nevertheless, work without a hitch.

Quote
“In fact there is traffic in that area, but a small one,” Nikolay Stepanov, head of the Yaroslavl municipal services agency said. “Though the asphalt road hasn’t been built, car owners managed to make a kind of country road leading to their houses. That’s why the traffic light is necessary for this crossroad.”

Pictures of the site however make it hard to believe there is a necessity for traffic regulation in the area. It would take a vivid imagination to even picture an intersection near the traffic lights.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: cl94 on August 12, 2015, 11:22:36 AM
The picture of a mast arm signal over an urban prairie is worth seeing.

Traffic light on road to nowhere found in middle of urban wasteland in Russia (http://www.rt.com/news/312233-russia-street-light-nowhere/)

Quote
Installing traffic lights where no car could ever pass seem like a weird idea? Well, that’s what a Russian government spending watchdog discovered in the city of Yaroslavl. Pictures of the find have quickly brewed up a storm of online scorn and ridicule.
Despite appearing to be perfectly useless, the warning beacon seems to, nevertheless, work without a hitch.

Quote
“In fact there is traffic in that area, but a small one,” Nikolay Stepanov, head of the Yaroslavl municipal services agency said. “Though the asphalt road hasn’t been built, car owners managed to make a kind of country road leading to their houses. That’s why the traffic light is necessary for this crossroad.”

Pictures of the site however make it hard to believe there is a necessity for traffic regulation in the area. It would take a vivid imagination to even picture an intersection near the traffic lights.

In Soviet Russia, lights are installed BEFORE intersections.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 12, 2015, 01:39:12 PM
The picture of a mast arm signal over an urban prairie is worth seeing.

Traffic light on road to nowhere found in middle of urban wasteland in Russia (http://www.rt.com/news/312233-russia-street-light-nowhere/)

Quote
Installing traffic lights where no car could ever pass seem like a weird idea? Well, that’s what a Russian government spending watchdog discovered in the city of Yaroslavl. Pictures of the find have quickly brewed up a storm of online scorn and ridicule.
Despite appearing to be perfectly useless, the warning beacon seems to, nevertheless, work without a hitch.

Quote
“In fact there is traffic in that area, but a small one,” Nikolay Stepanov, head of the Yaroslavl municipal services agency said. “Though the asphalt road hasn’t been built, car owners managed to make a kind of country road leading to their houses. That’s why the traffic light is necessary for this crossroad.”

Pictures of the site however make it hard to believe there is a necessity for traffic regulation in the area. It would take a vivid imagination to even picture an intersection near the traffic lights.

In Soviet Russia, lights are installed BEFORE intersections.

Redflex Traffic Systems is trying desperately to put red light cameras there. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: Brandon on August 12, 2015, 01:49:31 PM
The picture of a mast arm signal over an urban prairie is worth seeing.

Traffic light on road to nowhere found in middle of urban wasteland in Russia (http://www.rt.com/news/312233-russia-street-light-nowhere/)

Quote
Installing traffic lights where no car could ever pass seem like a weird idea? Well, that’s what a Russian government spending watchdog discovered in the city of Yaroslavl. Pictures of the find have quickly brewed up a storm of online scorn and ridicule.
Despite appearing to be perfectly useless, the warning beacon seems to, nevertheless, work without a hitch.

Quote
“In fact there is traffic in that area, but a small one,” Nikolay Stepanov, head of the Yaroslavl municipal services agency said. “Though the asphalt road hasn’t been built, car owners managed to make a kind of country road leading to their houses. That’s why the traffic light is necessary for this crossroad.”

Pictures of the site however make it hard to believe there is a necessity for traffic regulation in the area. It would take a vivid imagination to even picture an intersection near the traffic lights.

In Soviet Russia, lights are installed BEFORE intersections.

Redflex Traffic Systems is trying desperately to put red light cameras there. 

And bribing the officials so they can do so.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on September 06, 2015, 09:46:12 PM
E. 50th St. and 5th Av. Manhattan, N.Y. Easter, 1959.

(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af258/Steven197981/11222362_730938333706872_2030453384575521126_n_zpsbwpaasgv.jpg)
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on September 07, 2015, 03:46:59 PM
Inspired to see GSV in the Rockaways from another thread, I encountered this.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Far+Rockaway,+Queens,+NY/@40.583625,-73.816004,3a,66.8y,69.97h,84.86t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sp2uHc3ecQ5c9SRcAsICiOQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c268aaff36802d:0x18a125e4487aa688

Why is NYDOT using wooden poles to replace the old signals along the beachfront road?  Most of all I see the standard NYC traffic light pole at the following intersection.

Also another question, will anyone tell NYC that those controllers that operate the signals are out of date?  Look and you will see these new lights still use the small old style signal control boxes mounted on the signal poles.  Heck even PA is starting to use ground mounted cabinets, why is NYC so behind in technology?
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on September 07, 2015, 05:35:01 PM
Why is NYDOT using wooden poles to replace the old signals along the beachfront road?  Most of all I see the standard NYC traffic light pole at the following intersection.

According to Google Map, the street view image is from February of 2013. Shortly after super-storm Sandy struck the Rockaways. What you see at the intersection was merely temporary.

Also another question, will anyone tell NYC that those controllers that operate the signals are out of date?  Look and you will see these new lights still use the small old style signal control boxes mounted on the signal poles.  Heck even PA is starting to use ground mounted cabinets, why is NYC so behind in technology?

Just as a FYI, NYCDOT is up to date in traffic control technology. The cabinet in the picture from Google Map was manufactured by Peek and designed exclusively for the city of New York. It complies with NYCDOT specifications and houses Peek's NYC ASTC (Advanced Intersection Control Cabinet) solid-state unit. Available as a 6, 8, or 12 load switch assembly.

Everything's compact, which proves ideal, due to the limited space on New York City streets. An average-sized NEMA cabinet wouldn't help alleviate the issue.

In the late 1990s, NYCDOT first experimented with the ASTC unit in Manhattan, and it proved to be beneficial. It led to the official decision to convert all of the city's mechanical units to computerized units in the early 2000s. Since then, over 6000 Peek ASTC units have been installed throughout the boroughs. Although NYCDOT is still in the conversion process, not many mechanical units remain in service. The anticipated goal for the folks is to have all intersections controlled by computerized controllers by the beginning of the next decade.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadman65 on September 07, 2015, 05:44:34 PM
How did you get the date?   Lately my Google images have been just saying New York and not even borough name anymore.  Being that you got that info, it must be that there is something I must of clicked on accidentally or an improved program that allows you to hide certain things.

I miss the photo dates and areas the photos are in, and would like it back. 
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on September 07, 2015, 05:48:02 PM
I'm not sure how you could access that feature, but, for me, when I look at street view, a small black box appears to the top left of my screen.

It shows the location, intersection, and date the Google vehicle drove through the area.
Title: Re: Traffic signal
Post by: roadfro on September 07, 2015, 07:09:55 PM
Also another question, will anyone tell NYC that those controllers that operate the signals are out of date?  Look and you will see these new lights still use the small old style signal control boxes mounted on the signal poles.  Heck even PA is starting to use ground mounted cabinets, why is NYC so behind in technology?

Just as a FYI, NYCDOT is up to date in traffic control technology. The cabinet in the picture from Google Map was manufactured by Peek and designed exclusively for the city of New York. It complies with NYCDO