Traffic signal

[Amtrakprod]

Older signals in Massachusetts can be a little nutty. But I've found that newer installations usually meet current standards and are usually good quality, at least in the south suburbs of Boston. In that area even the older signals were generally good.

No doubt, and I can confirm from my 'Street View' drives around Massachusetts that they are likely second only to New Jersey in terms of their signalization standards (compared to other New England States). But they have a lot of really odd stuff too. Not odd enough to offset all the good they generally do, but it's all stuff that makes me ask, simply, "why?"

Even for us here we say the same. Our new traffic lights are of the best though I would have to say. Top 10 tier for sure. MassDot has gone all out in support of FYA signals; even for 3 section ones! But with these old lights I'm not even sure where to begin. This light needs a total redesigns. The signal placement and timing is abysmal. Even a radio talk show host from Boston commented on this intersection awhile back. So weird! I'd go as far to say that this is the worst signal in Massachusetts.


iPhone

[Amtrakprod]

Some more MA things:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5907812,-72.3096552,3a,23.9y,14.46h,90.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRVpSMPDDn86YzBvUAggw0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3951338,-71.1195326,3a,26.8y,43.85h,93.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3QYPkqYA-r7YeMmjMMS8NQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.374929,-71.1395656,3a,34.3y,281.26h,94.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sreMwlsVqI2qlOT66Vt88ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3582254,-71.1615937,3a,29.9y,233.68h,90.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSmBREPOFX9hMCdB59saCXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1016091,-72.6267693,3a,20y,245.44h,99.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSLwO1BNjp293t_-mLvALBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0905963,-72.6263715,3a,35y,33.98h,92.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF8Zc_Ul9bFZgMf45nzxLxQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[CJResotko]

Signal that I found in Lancaster, NH: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.487116,-71.569628,3a,75y,351.98h,94.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjnS5tm9I7dw3MkGXqAEB9g!2e0!5s20120901T000000!7i13312!8i6656

[jakeroot]

Older signals in Massachusetts can be a little nutty. But I've found that newer installations usually meet current standards and are usually good quality, at least in the south suburbs of Boston. In that area even the older signals were generally good.

No doubt, and I can confirm from my 'Street View' drives around Massachusetts that they are likely second only to New Jersey in terms of their signalization standards (compared to other New England States). But they have a lot of really odd stuff too. Not odd enough to offset all the good they generally do, but it's all stuff that makes me ask, simply, "why?"

Even for us here we say the same. Our new traffic lights are of the best though I would have to say. Top 10 tier for sure. MassDot has gone all out in support of FYA signals; even for 3 section ones! But with these old lights I'm not even sure where to begin. This light needs a total redesigns. The signal placement and timing is abysmal. Even a radio talk show host from Boston commented on this intersection awhile back. So weird! I'd go as far to say that this is the worst signal in Massachusetts.

I do appreciate their attempt to approach each intersection individually, addressing each based on their relative needs. But some of the older individual projects do seem to be lacking in terms of consistency and placement.

One thing Mass has, that a fair number of New England states have, but not many western states have, is some pretty complex intersections. So I will give credit for at least finding ways to signalize them at all.

[jakeroot]

Some more MA things:
...
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.374929,-71.1395656,3a,34.3y,281.26h,94.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sreMwlsVqI2qlOT66Vt88ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This one definitely reminds me of this intersection in Seattle. Must wait for a green arrow to turn left:

https://goo.gl/maps/unH41zWZp3WkbM3J6

[mrsman]

Some more MA things:
...
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.374929,-71.1395656,3a,34.3y,281.26h,94.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sreMwlsVqI2qlOT66Vt88ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This one definitely reminds me of this intersection in Seattle. Must wait for a green arrow to turn left:

https://goo.gl/maps/unH41zWZp3WkbM3J6

At the very least, one could say that the Seattle example would have a higher cost to put in a RA-YA-GA signal to enforce left on arrow only.  For the Boston example, you already have 4 signal faces at the intersection, so it shouldn't be terribly difficult to convert the left corner signal and the left most signal on the mast arm to RA-YA-GA.

Also, it's unfortunate that from the point of view of the side street at the Boston intersection that there is no right turn arrow during the time of the corresponding left turn arrow.  Unless u-turns are heavy, right turns should be allowed at this time, but they are not because of the no turn on red.

[Amtrakprod]

Older signals in Massachusetts can be a little nutty. But I've found that newer installations usually meet current standards and are usually good quality, at least in the south suburbs of Boston. In that area even the older signals were generally good.

No doubt, and I can confirm from my 'Street View' drives around Massachusetts that they are likely second only to New Jersey in terms of their signalization standards (compared to other New England States). But they have a lot of really odd stuff too. Not odd enough to offset all the good they generally do, but it's all stuff that makes me ask, simply, "why?"

Even for us here we say the same. Our new traffic lights are of the best though I would have to say. Top 10 tier for sure. MassDot has gone all out in support of FYA signals; even for 3 section ones! But with these old lights I'm not even sure where to begin. This light needs a total redesigns. The signal placement and timing is abysmal. Even a radio talk show host from Boston commented on this intersection awhile back. So weird! I'd go as far to say that this is the worst signal in Massachusetts.

I do appreciate their attempt to approach each intersection individually, addressing each based on their relative needs. But some of the older individual projects do seem to be lacking in terms of consistency and placement.

One thing Mass has, that a fair number of New England states have, but not many western states have, is some pretty complex intersections. So I will give credit for at least finding ways to signalize them at all.

Maybe it's just because I'm from MA, but other places don't design lights based on each specific intersection?!?!? Why! That makes way more sense and improves our traffic flow!


iPhone

[Amtrakprod]

Some more MA things:
...
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.374929,-71.1395656,3a,34.3y,281.26h,94.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sreMwlsVqI2qlOT66Vt88ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This one definitely reminds me of this intersection in Seattle. Must wait for a green arrow to turn left:

https://goo.gl/maps/unH41zWZp3WkbM3J6

At the very least, one could say that the Seattle example would have a higher cost to put in a RA-YA-GA signal to enforce left on arrow only.  For the Boston example, you already have 4 signal faces at the intersection, so it shouldn't be terribly difficult to convert the left corner signal and the left most signal on the mast arm to RA-YA-GA.

Also, it's unfortunate that from the point of view of the side street at the Boston intersection that there is no right turn arrow during the time of the corresponding left turn arrow.  Unless u-turns are heavy, right turns should be allowed at this time, but they are not because of the no turn on red.

U turns aren't common here, there should be a right turn signal.


iPhone

[roadfro]

Older signals in Massachusetts can be a little nutty. But I've found that newer installations usually meet current standards and are usually good quality, at least in the south suburbs of Boston. In that area even the older signals were generally good.

No doubt, and I can confirm from my 'Street View' drives around Massachusetts that they are likely second only to New Jersey in terms of their signalization standards (compared to other New England States). But they have a lot of really odd stuff too. Not odd enough to offset all the good they generally do, but it's all stuff that makes me ask, simply, "why?"

Even for us here we say the same. Our new traffic lights are of the best though I would have to say. Top 10 tier for sure. MassDot has gone all out in support of FYA signals; even for 3 section ones! But with these old lights I'm not even sure where to begin. This light needs a total redesigns. The signal placement and timing is abysmal. Even a radio talk show host from Boston commented on this intersection awhile back. So weird! I'd go as far to say that this is the worst signal in Massachusetts.

I do appreciate their attempt to approach each intersection individually, addressing each based on their relative needs. But some of the older individual projects do seem to be lacking in terms of consistency and placement.

One thing Mass has, that a fair number of New England states have, but not many western states have, is some pretty complex intersections. So I will give credit for at least finding ways to signalize them at all.

Maybe it's just because I'm from MA, but other places don't design lights based on each specific intersection?!?!? Why! That makes way more sense and improves our traffic flow!

Practically every traffic signal everywhere is designed based on the particular intersection it's being constructed for. I think what jakeroot is alluding to is that MA seems to have a lot of complex, atypical intersection designs and turning movements, such that a lot of odd or unique signalization schemes have been developed to address these scenarios.

[fwydriver405]

This ought to be called a Tetris Signal.

A little off topic, but I was going to say pentominoes since a typical doghouse has 5 parts (the P piece in Puyo Puyo Tetris kinda looks like an offset doghouse), but since the signal has 6 parts, would the Tetris pieces be called hexominoes instead?

[jakeroot]

Older signals in Massachusetts can be a little nutty. But I've found that newer installations usually meet current standards and are usually good quality, at least in the south suburbs of Boston. In that area even the older signals were generally good.

No doubt, and I can confirm from my 'Street View' drives around Massachusetts that they are likely second only to New Jersey in terms of their signalization standards (compared to other New England States). But they have a lot of really odd stuff too. Not odd enough to offset all the good they generally do, but it's all stuff that makes me ask, simply, "why?"

Even for us here we say the same. Our new traffic lights are of the best though I would have to say. Top 10 tier for sure. MassDot has gone all out in support of FYA signals; even for 3 section ones! But with these old lights I'm not even sure where to begin. This light needs a total redesigns. The signal placement and timing is abysmal. Even a radio talk show host from Boston commented on this intersection awhile back. So weird! I'd go as far to say that this is the worst signal in Massachusetts.

I do appreciate their attempt to approach each intersection individually, addressing each based on their relative needs. But some of the older individual projects do seem to be lacking in terms of consistency and placement.

One thing Mass has, that a fair number of New England states have, but not many western states have, is some pretty complex intersections. So I will give credit for at least finding ways to signalize them at all.

Maybe it's just because I'm from MA, but other places don't design lights based on each specific intersection?!?!? Why! That makes way more sense and improves our traffic flow!

Practically every traffic signal everywhere is designed based on the particular intersection it's being constructed for. I think what jakeroot is alluding to is that MA seems to have a lot of complex, atypical intersection designs and turning movements, such that a lot of odd or unique signalization schemes have been developed to address these scenarios.

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. Look out west at Nevada, California, or Arizona, and you see a lot of intersections that are all remarkably similar, in terms of the traffic they handle and their expectations from both the road agencies and highway users. As such, every intersection looks just like the others around it, with the only variation being in the number of lanes and how the turns are handled. High levels of standardization have been achieved thanks to relatively simple and straightforward intersections. That's just not the case in Massachusetts, where the roads are laid out as though they might have been cow paths at one point. Western states appear to have been built by the Romans in comparison.

In California, by and large this means (much to my chagrin) applying protected lefts at all virtually all intersections without giving it extra thought. You just don't see that level of standardization in Massachusetts, from what I've seen. Applying the same logic over and over again wouldn't work there.

[Amtrakprod]

Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, MassDOT doesn't do a lot of protected lefts, which is nice.

[jakeroot]

Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, MassDOT doesn't do a lot of protected lefts, which is nice.

Totally, and I know certain nearby states have an undeniable fancy for them. So props to Mass for that, especially because it would be easy to justify protected lefts at "odd" intersections.

To preface what I was saying, I want to acknowledge that there is still going to be a high level of standardization even in Massachusetts (the engineers aren't just screwing around), but there's more room for [what could be perceived as] innovation because of the unusual road layouts and uneven traffic patterns. That's just less often the case out west, although you see some agencies like those in Utah doing some really unique work, despite the fairly regular grid.

[Amtrakprod]

Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, MassDOT doesn't do a lot of protected lefts, which is nice.

Totally, and I know certain nearby states have an undeniable fancy for them. So props to Mass for that, especially because it would be easy to justify protected lefts at "odd" intersections.

To preface what I was saying, I want to acknowledge that there is still going to be a high level of standardization even in Massachusetts (the engineers aren't just screwing around), but there's more room for [what could be perceived as] innovation because of the unusual road layouts and uneven traffic patterns. That's just less often the case out west, although you see some agencies like those in Utah doing some really unique work, despite the fairly regular grid.

Many people would think it's confusing, but the odd intersections around here are really fun! Left turns can be weird at some spots like here:


iPhone

[fwydriver405]

Saw this earlier today in this video. Is Caltrans adding yellow reflective tape on their new signal installations, or is this a just a city/town decision?

Redwood City near YouTube headquarters

I've been seeing it sparingly, but doesn't appear to be coming from Caltrans. Other intersections nearby (that were also recently updated) have them too.

For the record, Youtube's headquarters are in San Bruno (indeed near this intersection), not Redwood City.

Oops my bad, meant to type San Bruno instead of Redwood City - running on little sleep this week!

The one on that Youtube video is at 4:50. It is in St Helena CA at this intersection. For some reason, they decided to keep the 8 inch (200 mm) signals. Wonder if that is a new installation, or if they just slapped on some reflective tape on the signals and kept the existing configuration like what some signals in New Hampshire are doing.

All good! Not like Redwood City isn't known for being the headquarters for other groups as well.

For the record, I'm not able to watch the video. "Bad Drivers of [Napa Valley]" banned me years ago. I told him he was a shit driver a while ago, and that his videos were boring for including stuff that everyone does all the time.

Well, it seems like Caltrans is adding yellow borders on some of its signalised intersections statewide...

http://californialtap.org/index.cfm?pid=1080
https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/downtown-placerville-traffic-signals-framed-in-yellow-to-improve-visibility/

[jakeroot]

This is the first I've heard of the retroreflective border being used to help colorblind drivers "frame" a traffic signal (to aid identification of which lens is which).

The first install of retroreflective borders in North America was along McKenzie Avenue in Victoria, BC in 1998. The study was conducted by the Ministry of Transportation and the Insurance Corporation of BC (ICBC) to improve recognition of the signal under varying lighting conditions (primarily night hours). There's no mention of colour blindness in their initial research. Any benefit beyond recognition during dark conditions would have been beyond the scope of the study that made these things common.

Still, the research was very conclusive in terms of aiding recognition, hence why it quickly spread to the rest of BC, and why we now see it all over North America, even in *gasp* relatively conservative California, even if they cite additional research that I'm not familiar with.

EDIT: the article also says that California chose yellow because of its association with "caution or advisory" situations. Uhhhh, I don't think California had any say in the color. I'm 99% sure that North American only uses yellow because the backplates along the first study route in Victoria were all all yellow, as is standard in BC and much of Canada. If the study had been American, I think white might have been the preferred choice to contrast with the black color of American backplates.

[RobbieL2415]

Older signals in Massachusetts can be a little nutty. But I've found that newer installations usually meet current standards and are usually good quality, at least in the south suburbs of Boston. In that area even the older signals were generally good.

MassDOT has a fetish for:

-Single pole-mounted installations, that is, one signal face per direction (particularly in old-timey towns)
-Flashing green balls (a local ordeal)
-Channelized protected left turns
-Neglected incandescent installations from the 1980s.

[RobbieL2415]

Some more MA things:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.374929,-71.1395656,3a,34.3y,281.26h,94.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sreMwlsVqI2qlOT66Vt88ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

If I'm reading the sign correctly, no arrow means stop?
Then why not add another signal for protected left turns?  How does that sign not cause accidents?

[jakeroot]

Some more MA things:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.374929,-71.1395656,3a,34.3y,281.26h,94.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sreMwlsVqI2qlOT66Vt88ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

If I'm reading the sign correctly, no arrow means stop?
Then why not add another signal for protected left turns?  How does that sign not cause accidents?

At the beginning of the cycle, the only movement permitted is straight-ahead, hence the up arrow. Left turns do not yet have a signal indicating that it is OK to turn. At the end of the cycle, a green left arrow activates, and left turns can proceed.

Is this a bit silly and outdated? Yes, but I'm sure it works OK. There are other signals like this around the country (such as the Seattle example I linked to above, reply #2879), and the accompanying sign is fairly straightforward (LEFT ON ARROW ONLY), although a symbolic "LEFT ON [green arrow symbol] ONLY" would be better.

In all, this is definitely a candidate for a dedicated left turn signal (FYA or protected only), or even a standard 4/5 section "yield on green" signal.

[mrsman]

Some more MA things:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.374929,-71.1395656,3a,34.3y,281.26h,94.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sreMwlsVqI2qlOT66Vt88ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

If I'm reading the sign correctly, no arrow means stop?
Then why not add another signal for protected left turns?  How does that sign not cause accidents?

At the beginning of the cycle, the only movement permitted is straight-ahead, hence the up arrow. Left turns do not yet have a signal indicating that it is OK to turn. At the end of the cycle, a green left arrow activates, and left turns can proceed.

Is this a bit silly and outdated? Yes, but I'm sure it works OK. There are other signals like this around the country (such as the Seattle example I linked to above, reply #2879), and the accompanying sign is fairly straightforward (LEFT ON ARROW ONLY), although a symbolic "LEFT ON [green arrow symbol] ONLY" would be better.

In all, this is definitely a candidate for a dedicated left turn signal (FYA or protected only), or even a standard 4/5 section "yield on green" signal.

As I said earlier, this seems an easy candidate to replace the two left most signal faces with dedicated left turn signals.  A 4 section FYA signal will allow for most flexibility, including time of day signaling.  A 3 section RA-YA-GA signal would very clearly enforce the left on green arrow only rule that the DOT seems to require.

While I have not driven by here to know what actual conditions are, this appears to be an intersection with good sightlines and should allow for permissive left turns, IMO.  Perhaps it originally did, and when the DOT decided to restrict turns they just added a sign and did not bother with updating the signal for RA-YA-GA.  If they decide to allow permissive turns, there is no problem with the current R-Y-G-GA signal as it used to be the standard face for lagging permissive left turns.  As it is a lagging signal, the green arrow and green orb end at the same time so the yellow orb acts as the termination signal for both the green org and the green arrow.  The latest MUTCD would require a 5 section signal under such circumstances, but doesn't require a retrofit for older signals.  IMO, a 5 sections signal of bimodal green/yellow arrow is just not necessary for a lagging signal.

In short, my preference would be to just remove the sign and allow permissive turns with a lagging protected left with the existing signal equipment.

[Amtrakprod]

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4581256,-121.4284152,3a,27.8y,154.08h,106.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_NKEQiaO7k49DWhk__GdZg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2

What's the point of programable signals if you're gonna install louvers as well.

[jakeroot]

I noticed that two of the four protected left turns at this intersection in Chicago have two blankout signs (for both left turn signals) reading "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY". Any idea why this would need to be a blankout sign? The other two approaches use 5-section protective/permissive displays; as far as I can tell, the intersection was only built within the last five years or so.

S Torrence Ave / E 130th St (facing the other two signals at this intersection; image below is other two blankout signs):



Unrelated: excellent signal placement as usual. Nicely done, Chicago.

[Amtrakprod]

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2594611,-77.4015287,3a,30y,262.78h,96.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skvRtPTP0BJLRZ3z2w-lB2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

In Colonial Heights, VA. There is a similar thing for a yielding left. This was taken out though in 2017 when a roundabout was installed.

[fwydriver405]

"Left turn yield on green" . To who? The right turn overlap? The only left here is into a fire station.  Manchester NH at NH-28 (S Willow St) and Perimeter Rd.

[kphoger]

"Left turn yield on green" . To who? The right turn overlap? The only left here is into a fire station.  Manchester NH at NH-28 (S Willow St) and Perimeter Rd.

Probably the fire station.   ?