Traffic signal

[jeffandnicole]

I call them a T, inverted T, or hammerhead.

NJ has used them recently on rare occasions.

[PColumbus73]

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.

[cl94]

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

[jakeroot]

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.

[freebrickproductions]

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.

[roadfro]

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.

[roadfro]

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.

[SignBridge]

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.

[M3019C LPS20]

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.

[roadman65]

Will NYC switch as most of their signal heads are 8-8-8?

[roadfro]

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.

[Big John]

And NYC speed limits are low enough in most places to allow new 8" signals.

[cl94]

Saw this odd assembly 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.

[KEK Inc.]

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.

[M3019C LPS20]

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.

[NYhwyfan]

Saw this odd assembly 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.

[Zeffy]

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

[Brandon]

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

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[Zeffy]

So what's the rationale between using arrows and using solid balls? Just a choice?

[riiga]

Arrow = only applies to the direction the arrow is pointing.

[thenetwork]

@ Zeffy:

One scenario -- when no turns are allowed at the intersection.

[PHLBOS]

@ 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.

[Brandon]

@ 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.

[jakeroot]

@ 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.