Traffic signal

[jakeroot]

Doesn't the MDC one actually look more normal than the Illinois one, even though the Illinois one is apparently right?

It does, although I still think the straight arrow should be on another signal head.

You'd end up with a single perma-green up arrow on a pole, which in my opinion, looks rather bizarre. I'd almost prefer a standard three head signal, where the yellow and red didn't operate.

IMO, both the MDC and Illinois installs look just fine (though a pedestrian signal might be better for the Illinois example, as discussed upthread by DaBigE and myself). Signals mounted in the center, visible from both the left and straight lanes, should contain information pertaining to both movements. This is why, in the IL example, the far left and far right signals aren't combo signals.

[US 89]

Doesn't the MDC one actually look more normal than the Illinois one, even though the Illinois one is apparently right?

It does, although I still think the straight arrow should be on another signal head.

You'd end up with a single perma-green up arrow on a pole, which in my opinion, looks rather bizarre. I'd almost prefer a standard three head signal, where the yellow and red didn't operate.

IMO, both the MDC and Illinois installs look just fine (though a pedestrian signal might be better for the Illinois example, as discussed upthread by DaBigE and myself). Signals mounted in the center, visible from both the left and straight lanes, should contain information pertaining to both movements. This is why, in the IL example, the far left and far right signals aren't combo signals.

The perma-green doesn't sound so bad to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought combo signals violated the MUTCD.

[jakeroot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought combo signals violated the MUTCD.

I believe something like this violates the MUTCD (2nd Ave, Seattle), but without overhead signals, you sometimes have to use combo signals due to a limited number of mounting places.

[US 89]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought combo signals violated the MUTCD.

I believe something like this violates the MUTCD (2nd Ave, Seattle), but without overhead signals, you sometimes have to use combo signals due to a limited number of mounting places.

That is indeed what I was thinking. I like the bike signal, though.

Which reminds me, there is a doghouse bike signal on South Jordan Parkway westbound at UT-85 north. Has anyone ever seen anything like that before?

[jakeroot]

Which reminds me, there is a doghouse bike signal on South Jordan Parkway westbound at UT-85 north. Has anyone ever seen anything like that before?

I've never heard of such a thing. I checked Street View, but it's not available on that section of roadway yet. Have you observed its operation? Bikes typically perform hook turns at intersections (crossing one leg at a time) so I'm curious to see what fills the five signals. Is it like a combo signal that combines bike and vehicle signals?

[US 89]

Which reminds me, there is a doghouse bike signal on South Jordan Parkway westbound at UT-85 north. Has anyone ever seen anything like that before?

I've never heard of such a thing. I checked Street View, but it's not available on that section of roadway yet. Have you observed its operation? Bikes typically perform hook turns at intersections (crossing one leg at a time) so I'm curious to see what fills the five signals. Is it like a combo signal that combines bike and vehicle signals?

I wasn't there long enough to see how it worked, since I was turning right. It was in the median on the opposite side of 85 north, facing westbound traffic. When the through light was red, the top light (which was a bicycle) of the doghouse was red.

All the cross streets to SR-85 use 2 intersections to cross it (going east, there is a light for southbound 85, and then a few hundred feet away, there is a separate light for 85 north. The lanes on that road now will be exits of a future freeway.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought combo signals violated the MUTCD.

I believe something like this violates the MUTCD (2nd Ave, Seattle), but without overhead signals, you sometimes have to use combo signals due to a limited number of mounting places.

That is indeed what I was thinking. I like the bike signal, though.

Which reminds me, there is a doghouse bike signal on South Jordan Parkway westbound at UT-85 north. Has anyone ever seen anything like that before?

That Bike sign is extremely small, it seems.

[US 89]

Here's a link to a photo of that sign.

[plain]

Here's a link to a photo of that sign.

I would love to see how that doghouse bike signal works. I've never seen anything like that. I wonder what the reasoning behind that design is

[jakeroot]

Here's a link to a photo of that sign.

I would love to see how that doghouse bike signal works. I've never seen anything like that. I wonder what the reasoning behind that design is

Looks like the bike lane is on the left, too. What the hell, Utah!?

The photo is great, but I think we need video now. 

[Revive 755]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought combo signals violated the MUTCD.

I believe something like this violates the MUTCD (2nd Ave, Seattle), but without overhead signals, you sometimes have to use combo signals due to a limited number of mounting places.

Or they could use longer and/or separate mounting brackets to get more separation.

[jakeroot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought combo signals violated the MUTCD.

I believe something like this violates the MUTCD (2nd Ave, Seattle), but without overhead signals, you sometimes have to use combo signals due to a limited number of mounting places.

http://i.imgur.com/yM93oyS.jpg

Or they could use longer and/or separate mounting brackets to get more separation.

The use of a single mounting bracket is a bit odd. In this sort of situation, you'd typically see the signals mounted on either side of the mast. The signals appear to be weighing down the mounting bracket.

Seattle's new solution was to go overhead. Seems like the obvious solution here, but I really hate to see post-mounted signals go.

Image (below) from Seattle Bike Blog (also this thread a dozen pages back). Note that the old post-mounted signals were a single, 6-aspect assembly, not two frankensteined together (like above).

[roadman65]

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7920071,-122.4092106,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbluzpIHMBNKiZOkgAO3ZMA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7921185,-122.409002,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soJh0rxuRM8Qg7rHbySltfg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7920071,-122.4092106,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbluzpIHMBNKiZOkgAO3ZMA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This signal at California and Powell Streets in SF is the strangest looking signal I have ever seen. No yellow or no green.

I take the booth on the corner the heads are sticking out of were once used for manual signal operations way back.

[jakeroot]

This signal at California and Powell Streets in SF is the strangest looking signal I have ever seen. No yellow or no green.

Judging by the mannerisms of the cars in Street View, it appears to be a four-way stop with no stop signs. Which is unusual.

[US 89]

This signal at California and Powell Streets in SF is the strangest looking signal I have ever seen. No yellow or no green.

Judging by the mannerisms of the cars in Street View, it appears to be a four-way stop with no stop signs. Which is unusual.

That would suck to get a ticket for not stopping at an implied stop sign.

[jakeroot]

This signal at California and Powell Streets in SF is the strangest looking signal I have ever seen. No yellow or no green.

Judging by the mannerisms of the cars in Street View, it appears to be a four-way stop with no stop signs. Which is unusual.

That would suck to get a ticket for not stopping at an implied stop sign.

Well, a flashing red light is still a stop sign. But me thinks a stop sign gets more attention than a flashing red. Maybe...

[Jet380]

If I remember right, those lights in SF can go to solid red to allow for cable car movements. Since a stop sign would contradict a red light, they probably can't install them here.

[roadman65]

Its against the MUTCD to not have a stop sign installed with a flashing red beacon.  Even in the NJ Shore back when the cities there were only summer time resorts, STOP signs had to be erected when signals were in flash mode from September to May and even in Kissimmee where three stop lights are permanently flashing.  The red flasher on the signals cannot be sole traffic control device.

In NYC they used to use two section lights lacking a yellow.  It was allowed as the MUTCD did grandfather them in like side mount signals in Washington, DC and here in San Fran. 

I will bet this has to do with the cable cars having total right of way through this here intersection, as all cable cars must coast across it due to the two cable lines meeting at grade with crisscrossing cables.  The grip would have to be removed from the cable to avoid tangling with the other cross cable so it would have to free flow for sure.

  I would think that Sebastian would know the answer to this one or some other local Bay Area road enthusiasts.  I am anxious to know what controls the traffic here being no standard traffic control devices at this intersection.

[jakeroot]

If I remember right, those lights in SF can go to solid red to allow for cable car movements. Since a stop sign would contradict a red light, they probably can't install them here.

Its against the MUTCD to not have a stop sign installed with a flashing red beacon.

If so, the flashing red beacons should go, four stop signs should go up, and an advisory "cable cars do not stop" sign should be placed facing the relevant directions.

Or, a normal signal with cable-car pre-emption should be installed.

[roadman65]

They might as well install a signal and have it set up like a regular railroad through the intersection.  When the cable cars reach the intersection it sets off a trip switch (like trains do approaching a grade crossing) that preempts the signal operation. 

In fact sooner or later SF is going to have to do that with all their preexisting signals as the side mounts are no longer approved by the MUTCD hence why DC has been installing mast arms as they once had all side mount signals within the district.

[jakeroot]

side mounts are no longer approved by the MUTCD hence why DC has been installing mast arms as they once had all side mount signals within the district.

Hang on, what? I didn't know about this.

[SignBridge]

Roadman65, where does the MUTCD say that side-mounts are not permitted?

[cl94]

Technically incorrect. The guidance is that pole-mounted signals should not be used by themselves. Guidance here is a number of overhead signals equal to the number of lanes minus 1, with a minimum of 1. MUTCD recommends having ALL primary faces overhead, with only supplementals pole-mounted. Primary faces governing turn movements should be always be overhead. See Table 4D-1 and the surrounding section. Basically, studies have shown that overhead signals are superior because they're harder to block.

[jakeroot]

Basically, studies have shown that overhead signals are superior because they're harder to block.

It still absolutely boggles my mind that both overhead and side-mounted signals, together, aren't a requirement. There are certainly scenarios where I think side-mount only works just fine, but overhead signals can easily be blocked by a tall vehicle. The MUTCD really needs to re-work the signals section to require both overhead and side-mounted signals. It just makes sense.

[US 89]

Basically, studies have shown that overhead signals are superior because they're harder to block.

It still absolutely boggles my mind that both overhead and side-mounted signals, together, aren't a requirement. There are certainly scenarios where I think side-mount only works just fine, but overhead signals can easily be blocked by a tall vehicle. The MUTCD really needs to re-work the signals section to require both overhead and side-mounted signals. It just makes sense.

There are very few side mounted signals in my area, and I agree that having more of them would greatly increase signal visibility. More than half the time I'm at a light more than a few cars back, I can't see the signals.