Traffic signal

[freebrickproductions]

Anyway, I have seen some mast arms around in many places where the last signal head is not mounted to the end of the arm.  In New Jersey I have seen that too just as Jeff pointed out with that wasted arm as shorter mast arms could be used if some of it will hang further than it needs to be.

I've seen several intersections like that around here.

[roadfro]

Anyway, I have seen some mast arms around in many places where the last signal head is not mounted to the end of the arm.  In New Jersey I have seen that too just as Jeff pointed out with that wasted arm as shorter mast arms could be used if some of it will hang further than it needs to be.

I've seen several intersections like that around here.

In Nevada, for new/reconstructed intersections, there is an overhead signal centered over every lane. The mast arms come in standard lengths. So if the street is an unusual width or the signal pole is at an odd location, a longer than necessary arm may be used with the last signal head being a few feet from the end of the signal pole.

One other scenario is that the full length pole is installed initially, but a left turn signal is not installed initially. In that case, there is leftover pole space reserved for future signal heads. Another scenario is that a road is not yet widened to its full width, but a signal is installed anyway. They will sometimes use the final length signal pole and modify the signal heads later, which can leave a good deal of unused length of pole in the interim.

[cl94]

Anyway, I have seen some mast arms around in many places where the last signal head is not mounted to the end of the arm.  In New Jersey I have seen that too just as Jeff pointed out with that wasted arm as shorter mast arms could be used if some of it will hang further than it needs to be.

I've seen several intersections like that around here.

Very common in Upstate New York for NYSDOT-installed signals. NYCDOT and Nassau County only mount at the ends due to design and Buffalo almost always has a signal at the end of their masts. Other than that, empty space at the end is not a rare sight and there are few masts here that don't have extra space.

[6a]

I'm quite sure this has been covered here at some point, but I still want to bitch about LED heads in the snow...

[jeffandnicole]

I'm quite sure this has been covered here at some point, but I still want to bitch about LED heads in the snow...

Yeah, like every winter.

[jakeroot]

n00b here: I'm guessing the LEDs don't get as hot? I must admit, and this is probably due to my locale, I have never seen snow stuck inside signal heads before. Usually the snow ends up on top of the head (though the snow being inside can obviously be attributed to the wind).

Would the cut-out lens covers (opposite of the completely round type, as seen above) make any difference? Just wondering.

[SignBridge]

It is a problem in snowy conditions. I'm surprised that traffic signal agencies aren't more concerned about this, but I guess their safety judgment was clouded by the prospect of saving so much money with LED's. Other than this issue, I like LED's.

[cl94]

Honestly, I never really noticed the snow problem when I lived in Buffalo. Maybe it's the cutout visors or the wind?

[Joe The Dragon]

It is a problem in snowy conditions. I'm surprised that traffic signal agencies aren't more concerned about this, but I guess their safety judgment was clouded by the prospect of saving so much money with LED's. Other than this issue, I like LED's.

also can they rake in photo red light tickets as well.

[PurdueBill]

Ticket revenue is one thing, but accidents are another matter entirely that require some attention.  LED signals seem to get snow-covered frequently in this neck of the woods and I don't know why it seems to be more than some places. 

[Rothman]

Huh.  When I first started at NYSDOT, they talked about having to install "warmers" on LED lights to keep the snow off (an engineer sneered that the warmers negated any power-saving benefit to using LEDs).  I guess it's not done regularly.

[PurdueBill]

At least the heaters could be used only part of the year, but indeed it would be interesting to know the cost of an incandescent head versus LED+heater.

[jeffandnicole]

Motorists seeing 3 white spots on a traffic light and just freely going seem to be the real issue.  Is this the same thing they would do if the light was completely out due to a power failure? 

And as one pointed out the news story of one or two accidents, we can post thousands of stories where people crashed simply driving thru a fully visible red light in optimal conditions. 

[Brandon]

Motorists seeing 3 white spots on a traffic light and just freely going seem to be the real issue.  Is this the same thing they would do if the light was completely out due to a power failure? 

From what I've seen around Chicagoland, yes, that is exactly what they do.  Came across one that almost everyone was blowing through a few weeks ago in Arlington Heights, on Euclid, by the racecourse.  Interestingly enough, it was just down the street from another signal that was out the same way that a cop was controlling.

[Bruce]

Seattle has replaced a few of their wire mounts with poles to help clear up some bike lane-related confusion:

http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2016/01/19/new-2nd-ave-traffic-signals-clear-up-confusion/

[Jet380]

Unusual 8-aspect signal at Wellington & Milligan St, Perth:


https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-31.9495363,115.8527268,3a,64y,211.67h,81.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sW1DBqDwh6aRCjcim3t6W-w!2e0!5s20140201T000000!7i13312!8i6656

[cl94]

Unusual 8-aspect signal at Wellington & Milligan St, Perth:


https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-31.9495363,115.8527268,3a,64y,211.67h,81.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sW1DBqDwh6aRCjcim3t6W-w!2e0!5s20140201T000000!7i13312!8i6656

I've seen DC's 6-aspect signals, but this is nuts. Can't use 3-4 and put stuff on a mast?

[Jet380]

I've seen DC's 6-aspect signals, but this is nuts. Can't use 3-4 and put stuff on a mast?

Mast arms are pretty rare here, only used where there are visibility problems. And 6-aspect signals are ubiquitous here!

[jakeroot]

Is a situation like this permitted? The right turn slip lane has a yield sign, but it approaches a signalized crosswalk. The crosswalk used to meet at the pork-chop island on the left, but was moved several years ago for no clear reason. I would think a better idea would be to signalize the slip lane with a right-facing FYA.

The lanes to the left of the island have left arrow faces, FWIW.

[NJ]

Is a situation like this permitted? The right turn slip lane has a yield sign, but it approaches a signalized crosswalk. The crosswalk used to meet at the pork-chop island on the left, but was moved several years ago for no clear reason. I would think a better idea would be to signalize the slip lane with a right-facing FYA.

The lanes to the left of the island have left arrow faces, FWIW.

Yes it is with accordance to MUTCD. Cars must yield or stop for pedestrian at every crosswalk. Yield sign is for cars.

[jakeroot]

Is a situation like this permitted? The right turn slip lane has a yield sign, but it approaches a signalized crosswalk. The crosswalk used to meet at the pork-chop island on the left, but was moved several years ago for no clear reason. I would think a better idea would be to signalize the slip lane with a right-facing FYA.

The lanes to the left of the island have left arrow faces, FWIW.

Yes it is with accordance to MUTCD. Cars must yield or stop for pedestrian at every crosswalk. Yield sign is for cars.

I understand that concept. But, in this case, if the pedestrian receives a 'walk' hand, it's understood that all potential movements have been halted (and that, at most, you'll have to deal with traffic with a solid green light or traffic turning on red). But I've never encountered a situation where the crosswalk has a signal and the road has a yield sign (my point being, signs and signals shouldn't mix).

[cl94]

Is a situation like this permitted? The right turn slip lane has a yield sign, but it approaches a signalized crosswalk. The crosswalk used to meet at the pork-chop island on the left, but was moved several years ago for no clear reason. I would think a better idea would be to signalize the slip lane with a right-facing FYA.

The lanes to the left of the island have left arrow faces, FWIW.

Yes it is with accordance to MUTCD. Cars must yield or stop for pedestrian at every crosswalk. Yield sign is for cars.

I understand that concept. But, in this case, if the pedestrian receives a 'walk' hand, it's understood that all potential movements have been halted (and that, at most, you'll have to deal with traffic with a solid green light or traffic turning on red). But I've never encountered a situation where the crosswalk has a signal and the road has a yield sign (my point being, signs and signals shouldn't mix).

It's quite iffy and a situation that should be avoided. IINM, the MUTCD recommends having a crosswalk onto the island to prevent this from occurring. Signage stating "yield to pedestrians" and'/or an FYA would be great here.

[Kacie Jane]

Seattle has replaced a few of their wire mounts with poles to help clear up some bike lane-related confusion:

http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2016/01/19/new-2nd-ave-traffic-signals-clear-up-confusion/

Minor nitpick: The old signals weren't wire mounts.  (If they were, there wouldn't be a problem.)  They were side signals with no overheads.  The confusion resulted from having the through (car) signal, the left turn signal, and the bike signal all on one pole.  Now that they're mounted overhead instead, there's less confusion as to which signal is for which lane.

[roadfro]

Is a situation like this permitted? The right turn slip lane has a yield sign, but it approaches a signalized crosswalk. The crosswalk used to meet at the pork-chop island on the left, but was moved several years ago for no clear reason. I would think a better idea would be to signalize the slip lane with a right-facing FYA.

The lanes to the left of the island have left arrow faces, FWIW.

Yes it is with accordance to MUTCD. Cars must yield or stop for pedestrian at every crosswalk. Yield sign is for cars.

I understand that concept. But, in this case, if the pedestrian receives a 'walk' hand, it's understood that all potential movements have been halted (and that, at most, you'll have to deal with traffic with a solid green light or traffic turning on red). But I've never encountered a situation where the crosswalk has a signal and the road has a yield sign (my point being, signs and signals shouldn't mix).

It's quite iffy and a situation that should be avoided. IINM, the MUTCD recommends having a crosswalk onto the island to prevent this from occurring. Signage stating "yield to pedestrians" and'/or an FYA would be great here.

The MUTCD doesn't govern the placement of a crosswalk, just the application of the crosswalk markings.

I don't think "yield to pedestrians" signage is necessary, due to the "yield" sign that currently exists. An FYA could be appropriate in certain circumstances, but the pork chop island design here would seem to promote a situation in which this right turn would be constantly flashing yellow and never need to turn to red (thus the yield is more appropriate, since it is effectively the same meaning).

I do, however, agree that this situation is not optimal and such designs should be avoided.

[steviep24]

One of the few remaining signals in Rochester, NY that's still all incandescent. Also, this signal still has WALK/DONT WALK ped signals. Rochester is over 90% converted to LED and man/hand ped signals for quite some time.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1543562,-77.6151187,3a,75y,157.76h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1strh3k3RwUsXsN1s6OIY8Ew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en