Slip lanes with stop signs

[DaBigE]

I'm assuming you're referring to this one? Your link went to the same unsignalized right-turn. For the record, I have yet to see this one go red (or this over-signalized monstrosity...yes that's FIVE signals all for a single right-turn lane  ). Trust me, they had the money, but because of the volumes, they were lazy and kept the Stop sign. As part of the same project, this was also put in. The project spanned from just west of the Hill Farms WisDOT HQ (near Sheboygan Ave) to approximately Allen Blvd. The only way they could have spent more money is if it would have been all concrete. For what it's worth, I don't believe the original right turn movement in question was ever a Yield control. Several in Wisconsin have followed the pattern of Yield sign to Stop sign but I don't think this was one of them.

Anyways, I refuse to acknowledge the concept of over-signalization. I come from an area with virtually no requirements for secondary signals (just cities and counties doing whatever the hell they want, sometimes using them, sometimes not), so I have a strong appreciation for "just in case" signals.

The University/Spring Harbor intersection might be the first signal I've seen in Wisconsin without a secondary through signal face. Obviously the right turn has one, as does the oncoming left and the oncoming through, but nothing extra for northbound traffic. Funny how they can have single-lane right turns with five signal faces, but be unable to find a way to have even one secondary through head for that movement.

I assume you're referring to the bike signal. From the Interim Approval for the Bicycle Signal:

i. As a specific exception to Item A in Paragraph 1 of Section 4D.11, a minimum of one primary bicycle signal face shall be provided traffic control for the bicycle movement, even if a bicycle through movement exists.
iii. When the primary bicycle signal face is located more than 120 feet from beyond the stop line, a supplemental near-side bicycle signal face shall be provided.
iv. When the primary bicycle signal face is located more than 80 feet from beyond the stop line, a supplemental near-side bicycle signal face should be provided.

Depending on where you measure, the distance is approximately 80-ft. Based on other installations in the city, they apparently have interpreted the "should" as, "we're not going to": Example 1. This one bucks one-signal face the trend: Example 2

[Brandon]

This one bucks one-signal face the trend: Example 2

How cute, it even has its own small trombone, mounted the traditional Wisconsin way.

[jakeroot]

I assume you're referring to the bike signal.

No, I was referring to the lack of a side-mounted or near-side through signal head for northbound vehicles on University. The normal placement area has, evidently, been taken by bicycle signals. Typically this is when you see two signals mounted right next to each other on a pole (in your "Example 2"), but no attempt was made to do that at the University/Spring Harbor intersection.

[kphoger]

Woah, a slip lane in IL that's unsignalized!

There are slip lanes in Illinois, however, where it's unclear whether you have to stop at a red light or not.  Take a look at this intersection in Marion, for example.  There is a slip lane with a signal next to it made up of right arrows, but no stop bar or crosswalk markings.  The geometry and pavement seems to contradict the signal indication.

That is strange. The other slip lanes have stop lines (though very faded), yet no indication that one ever existed for that right turn. I could sort of understand it, if the right turn got its own lane (making the arrow an effective "keep moving" signal), but that's obviously not the case. I guess they just want drivers to stop before entering the "intersection control area"?

While they are certainly rare, slip lanes do exist in Illinois without restriction.  Just down Route 13 from that other intersection is this one (very near where I briefly worked a miserable temp job at a Circuit City distribution center 12½ years ago) with no restriction at all.

I assume the idea is to follow the lead of the signals to the left?

Well, you might assume that, but I wouldn't.  I would treat that as a normal merge situation, wherein no stop is required if no cross-traffic is approaching.

[DaBigE]

I assume you're referring to the bike signal.

No, I was referring to the lack of a side-mounted or near-side through signal head for northbound vehicles on University. The normal placement area has, evidently, been taken by bicycle signals. Typically this is when you see two signals mounted right next to each other on a pole (in your "Example 2"), but no attempt was made to do that at the University/Spring Harbor intersection.

Yeah, they could have easily put a near-side on the left. Not sure why they didn't; however, left-side near signals aren't nearly as common when there isn't a left-turn lane for the approach. This one lacks a near-side through signal as well. Despite having the pole already there, that one was done as someone's grand idea of how to save money.

[doorknob60]

I don't like them, makes no sense. But I can't think of many. There's one near where I used to live in Bend: Street View Link. I don't remember how people usually treated it, I almost always turned left there so I didn't really pay much attention to it.

But I can't think of any in the Boise area. We have lots of Yields. We have signals (these are fine, as they're green when thru traffic is green, and you can RTOR), which are not on GSV as they were recently added to the Cole/Overland intersection. Even some with no restrictions as they form a new lane (and about 30% of people stop and wait anyways  )Link

[jakeroot]

I assume the idea is to follow the lead of the signals to the left?

Well, you might assume that, but I wouldn't.  I would treat that as a normal merge situation, wherein no stop is required if no cross-traffic is approaching.

But there are no signs or markings that indicate that. Merges that I'm familiar with are marked by at least one of these: markings (of any type), yield signs, merge signs, add-lane signs, stop signs, signals, etc. One with nothing is not something I'm familiar with. I guess I'd follow the "boulevard" rule, which would give priority to the entering road.

I was referring to the lack of a side-mounted or near-side through signal head for northbound vehicles on University. The normal placement area has, evidently, been taken by bicycle signals. Typically this is when you see two signals mounted right next to each other on a pole (in your "Example 2"), but no attempt was made to do that at the University/Spring Harbor intersection.

Yeah, they could have easily put a near-side on the left. Not sure why they didn't; however, left-side near signals aren't nearly as common when there isn't a left-turn lane for the approach. This one lacks a near-side through signal as well. Despite having the pole already there, that one was done as someone's grand idea of how to save money.

At least at that second intersection, the second primary signal face is in a "supplemental" position. Better than two overhead, equally-invisible-behind-trucks, signals (ie University @ Spring Harbor).

I don't like them, makes no sense. But I can't think of many. There's one near where I used to live in Bend: Street View Link. I don't remember how people usually treated it, I almost always turned left there so I didn't really pay much attention to it.

I remember seeing this one in Bend as well, though not nearly as bad as that first example you gave: https://goo.gl/kNs4fr

[bcroadguy]

This one in Tucson, AZ is pretty gross:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1900319,-110.90553,3a,49.8y,97.4h,86.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srvtl6c8N7DzSZyx8Pl-a0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[jakeroot]

This one in Tucson, AZ is pretty gross:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1900319,-110.90553,3a,49.8y,97.4h,86.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srvtl6c8N7DzSZyx8Pl-a0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Jesus, no kidding. All that room and that was the best setup they could come up with? Tucson normally has my admiration, but they lost a tiny bit here.

Knowing Arizona drivers, I get the feeling that stop sign is barely acknowledged.

[kphoger]

This one in Tucson, AZ is pretty gross:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1900319,-110.90553,3a,49.8y,97.4h,86.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srvtl6c8N7DzSZyx8Pl-a0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Jesus, no kidding. All that room and that was the best setup they could come up with? Tucson normally has my admiration, but they lost a tiny bit here.

Knowing Arizona drivers, I get the feeling that stop sign is barely acknowledged.

I think it's especially bad because the ramp parallels the through lanes for so long.  By the time you reach the actual merge point, if you haven't yet figured out how to merge between two vehicles, you need your license revoked anyway.

[roadman]

The off-ramps from I-95/128 to North Ave/Walkers Brook Drive in Wakefield MA have both traffic lights and "free" right turns.  When originally put in, the turns had Yield signs, which is correct for this type of treatment.  About two months later, the Town replaced the Yield signs with Stop signs.  Shortly thereafter, the MassHighway District changed the Stop signs back to Yield signs.  Sure enough, the Town eventually changed the Yield signs back to Stop signs.

When the signals at this location were last upgraded to reflect yet another retail development on Walkers Brook Drive, the Stop signs were again replaced with Yield signs.  So far, the newest Yield signs have remained in place.

[kphoger]

The off-ramps from I-95/128 to North Ave/Walkers Brook Drive in Wakefield MA have both traffic lights and "free" right turns.  When originally put in, the turns had Yield signs, which is correct for this type of treatment.  About two months later, the Town replaced the Yield signs with Stop signs.  Shortly thereafter, the MassHighway District changed the Stop signs back to Yield signs.  Sure enough, the Town eventually changed the Yield signs back to Stop signs.

When the signals at this location were last upgraded to reflect yet another retail development on Walkers Brook Drive, the Stop signs were again replaced with Yield signs.  So far, the newest Yield signs have remained in place.

Why can both the town and the state swap signs?

[jakeroot]

Just found another one of these bastards. Spokane, at the intersection of Monroe and W 14th: https://goo.gl/hauXXi

The entire intersection was rebuilt (and narrowed) a couple years ago, but the signals remain from the old setup (with text-only ped signals). Annoyingly, the stop signs were carried over as well.

[DaBigE]

Every bloody slip lane has one at this intersection. Even more frustrating is that a couple of the Stop signs are mounted to signal poles with wiring already to them. 

[jakeroot]

Every bloody slip lane has one at this intersection. Even more frustrating is that a couple of the Stop signs are mounted to signal poles with wiring already to them. 

I am willing to forgive installations where there is no conduit availability. This is unforgivable.

[doorknob60]

I don't like them, makes no sense. But I can't think of many. There's one near where I used to live in Bend: Street View Link. I don't remember how people usually treated it, I almost always turned left there so I didn't really pay much attention to it.

I remember seeing this one in Bend as well, though not nearly as bad as that first example you gave: https://goo.gl/kNs4fr

Oh yeah, I used that one all the time. That one never bothered me as much, because it was less of a slip lane and more of a glorified RIRO, and it was onto a 45 MPH expressway (where traffic is often 55-60). Though, they should really just redesign it with a proper acceleration/merge lane.

[jakeroot]

I don't like them, makes no sense. But I can't think of many. There's one near where I used to live in Bend: Street View Link. I don't remember how people usually treated it, I almost always turned left there so I didn't really pay much attention to it.

I remember seeing this one in Bend as well, though not nearly as bad as that first example you gave: https://goo.gl/kNs4fr

Oh yeah, I used that one all the time. That one never bothered me as much, because it was less of a slip lane and more of a glorified RIRO, and it was onto a 45 MPH expressway (where traffic is often 55-60). Though, they should really just redesign it with a proper acceleration/merge lane.

Even so, most slip lanes have no merge area but still use yield signs. The Bend example has plenty of visibility on the approach, thus a full stop should not be required.

[7/8]

If we're including on-ramps, then one example I know is the EB on-ramp for Highway 58 from Pine St in Thorold, ON. The merge is short (especially for Ontario), but there's okay visibility leading up to the merge. I'm not sure how I feel about this one.

https://goo.gl/maps/3j7H9aDP3yE2

[jakeroot]

If we're including on-ramps, then one example I know is the EB on-ramp for Highway 58 from Pine St in Thorold, ON. The merge is short (especially for Ontario), but there's okay visibility leading up to the merge. I'm not sure how I feel about this one.

https://goo.gl/maps/3j7H9aDP3yE2

Plenty of room for a proper merge. That goes into the "silly" bin.

[kphoger]

Plenty of room for a proper merge. That goes into the "silly" bin.

It's Canada, so that would be the "loonie" bin.

[jakeroot]

Plenty of room for a proper merge. That goes into the "silly" bin.

It's Canada, so that would be the "loonie" bin.

Bin full of dollars!

[ErmineNotyours]

On an intersection in Mexico posted by kphoger in another thread: https://goo.gl/maps/o8HULPQXedF2

The ALTO sign is a bit ahead of a slip lane by a signal.

[jakeroot]

On an intersection in Mexico posted by kphoger in another thread: https://goo.gl/maps/o8HULPQXedF2

The ALTO sign is a bit ahead of a slip lane by a signal.

That seems like odd placement for the sign. I hope they don't intend for traffic to stop at that point. Nevermind stopping at all.

[PHLBOS]

These off the NJ Turnpike Exit 3 looks like the perfect yield situations, but each has a stop sign. https://goo.gl/maps/g3fosPsjJ652.

Your posted link is for Exit 2.  Either of these two below-GSVs are for Exit 3:

Onto NJ 168 Northbound

Onto NJ 168 Southbound

It's possible you could argue the nearby driveways would require a stop sign at these locations.

I would think that the reasoning for STOP signs instead of YIELD signs at the Exit 3 locations have more to do with the traffic volumes/congestion along the Black Horse Pike (NJ 168); the above northbound-GSV show such.

[jakeroot]

^^
A ramp meter might be more desirable in these locations, if the merging issues occur primarily during rush hour.