Traffic signal

[Amtrakprod]

^^
It's possible the signal isn't tied to the undercrossing.

I've been trying to figure it out, there seems to be no purpose

[jakeroot]

^^
It's possible the signal isn't tied to the undercrossing.

I've been trying to figure it out, there seems to be no purpose

Is there a cross street with a stop sign, or a crosswalk?

[Michael]

A few nights ago, I came across a temporary crosswalk on NY 38 with pedestrian signals at a bridge replacement north of Owego.  There's another crosswalk at the north end of the bridge too.  I've never seen temporary crosswalks at bridge replacements before, and it's not in a town or city, and there aren't even sidewalks!  I wonder why they put in crosswalks.

[Amtrakprod]

A few nights ago, I came across a temporary crosswalk on NY 38 with pedestrian signals at a bridge replacement north of Owego.  There's another crosswalk at the north end of the bridge too.  I've never seen temporary crosswalks at bridge replacements before, and it's not in a town or city, and there aren't even sidewalks!  I wonder why they put in crosswalks.

The light increases traffic in the area, even though some stop, it's more confusing, and there are houses nearby.

[kphoger]

A few nights ago, I came across a temporary crosswalk on NY 38 with pedestrian signals at a bridge replacement north of Owego.  There's another crosswalk at the north end of the bridge too.  I've never seen temporary crosswalks at bridge replacements before, and it's not in a town or city, and there aren't even sidewalks!  I wonder why they put in crosswalks.

I was so certain I had the answer.  I figured it's because pedestrians walking along one edge of the road have to cross to the other side at the bridge–then cross back over again once they're across.  But, now that I think about it more, that would mean either they were not facing traffic already or else they would have to not face traffic in the construction zone.  So now I don't know again.

[jakeroot]

I don't really see why a crosswalk shouldn't be included, even during construction. No sidewalks ≠ no pedestrians. If peds aren't allowed to cross the bridge, at the very least, there needs to be access to the side road from both edges of the main road.

[jeffandnicole]

Probably just part of the rules that all traffic lights must have pedestrian crossings, and no waiver was granted here.

The crosswalk is probably rarely if ever used.

[Amtrakprod]

Probably just part of the rules that all traffic lights must have pedestrian crossings, and no waiver was granted here.

The crosswalk is probably rarely if ever used.

Speaking of Portable signals, has anyone seen this in the "wild": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpBKW6bgJS4

[kphoger]

I don't really see why a crosswalk shouldn't be included, even during construction. No sidewalks ≠ no pedestrians. If peds aren't allowed to cross the bridge, at the very least, there needs to be access to the side road from both edges of the main road.

I don't see any signs anywhere prohibiting pedestrians on the bridge during construction.

Neither side of the bridge has any more room for walking than the other due to the barriers.

The southern crosswalk should be sufficient to provide walking access to/from the side street, no need for the northern one at all.

[Michael]

A few nights ago, I came across a temporary crosswalk on NY 38 with pedestrian signals at a bridge replacement north of Owego.  There's another crosswalk at the north end of the bridge too.  I've never seen temporary crosswalks at bridge replacements before, and it's not in a town or city, and there aren't even sidewalks!  I wonder why they put in crosswalks.

I was so certain I had the answer.  I figured it's because pedestrians walking along one edge of the road have to cross to the other side at the bridge–then cross back over again once they're across.  But, now that I think about it more, that would mean either they were not facing traffic already or else they would have to not face traffic in the construction zone.  So now I don't know again.

At first, I thought I saw a pair of Jersey barriers to make a walkway, but there's just a single barrier.

I don't really see why a crosswalk shouldn't be included, even during construction. No sidewalks ≠ no pedestrians. If peds aren't allowed to cross the bridge, at the very least, there needs to be access to the side road from both edges of the main road.

Why would they need to cross at the northern end of the bridge?  They could walk along either the guardrail or the the Jersey barrier and cross at the southern end. (I see that kphoger said the same thing as I was writing this post)

The light increases traffic in the area, even though some stop, it's more confusing, and there are houses nearby.

The last alternating one way setup I saw was at this bridge on NY 365A in Oneida, and I didn't see any crosswalks there.  There's sidewalks on both sides, nearby houses, and an AADT of 6791 as opposed to an AADT of 5467 on NY 38.

Probably just part of the rules that all traffic lights must have pedestrian crossings, and no waiver was granted here.

The crosswalk is probably rarely if ever used.

I looked at the NYSDOT Work Zone Traffic Control Manual, and there's no mention of crosswalks being required.

After reading all these comments, I guess I'll say that maybe it's just a Region 9 quirk.  The only other alternating one way setups I've seen were in Regions 2 and 3.

[jakeroot]

I don't really see why a crosswalk shouldn't be included, even during construction. No sidewalks ≠ no pedestrians. If peds aren't allowed to cross the bridge, at the very least, there needs to be access to the side road from both edges of the main road.

I don't see any signs anywhere prohibiting pedestrians on the bridge during construction.

Neither side of the bridge has any more room for walking than the other due to the barriers.

The southern crosswalk should be sufficient to provide walking access to/from the side street, no need for the northern one at all.

It would appear to be a crosswalk to get peds from one side of the bridge to the other. This would be ideal, as pedestrian traffic would likely be more comfortable crossing on the side of the bridge without work occurring. If there was no crosswalk, pedestrians on the work-zone side would have to walk between the work zone and traffic.

I don't really see why a crosswalk shouldn't be included, even during construction. No sidewalks ≠ no pedestrians. If peds aren't allowed to cross the bridge, at the very least, there needs to be access to the side road from both edges of the main road.

Why would they need to cross at the northern end of the bridge?  They could walk along either the guardrail or the the Jersey barrier and cross at the southern end. (I see that kphoger said the same thing as I was writing this post)

See my above response.

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

Would this doghouse be considered MUTCD compliant?

I think the bottom left is a bimodal arrow, and the middle left is a red arrow that lights up when the thru signal is not red and the protected left signals are red

https://goo.gl/maps/71KqSk4E71S2

[Revive 755]

Would this doghouse be considered MUTCD compliant?

I think the bottom left is a bimodal arrow, and the middle left is a red arrow that lights up when the thru signal is not red and the protected left signals are red

https://goo.gl/maps/71KqSk4E71S2

No - it runs afoul of MUTCD 4D.09, which does not allow a red indication to horizontally adjacent to an indication of a different color in the same signal head.  It also does not comply with MUTCD 4D.19 (even if that is not a red arrow and instead a yellow arrow), which only allows shared signal heads for protected only turning movements when the begin and end at the same time as the adjacent through movement.

It is also confusing, and would appear to contradict the signing and pavement marking by making the center lane appeared to be a shared thru-left instead of a left turn lane.

[mrsman]

Would this doghouse be considered MUTCD compliant?

I think the bottom left is a bimodal arrow, and the middle left is a red arrow that lights up when the thru signal is not red and the protected left signals are red

https://goo.gl/maps/71KqSk4E71S2

No - it runs afoul of MUTCD 4D.09, which does not allow a red indication to horizontally adjacent to an indication of a different color in the same signal head.  It also does not comply with MUTCD 4D.19 (even if that is not a red arrow and instead a yellow arrow), which only allows shared signal heads for protected only turning movements when the begin and end at the same time as the adjacent through movement.

It is also confusing, and would appear to contradict the signing and pavement marking by making the center lane appeared to be a shared thru-left instead of a left turn lane.

Not only is the doghouse illegal, it really serves no purpose.  There are three other RA-YA-GA signals to control the left turn.  The doghouse should be replaced with a standard RYG for the straight movement.

[plain]

Would this doghouse be considered MUTCD compliant?

I think the bottom left is a bimodal arrow, and the middle left is a red arrow that lights up when the thru signal is not red and the protected left signals are red

https://goo.gl/maps/71KqSk4E71S2

No - it runs afoul of MUTCD 4D.09, which does not allow a red indication to horizontally adjacent to an indication of a different color in the same signal head.  It also does not comply with MUTCD 4D.19 (even if that is not a red arrow and instead a yellow arrow), which only allows shared signal heads for protected only turning movements when the begin and end at the same time as the adjacent through movement.

It is also confusing, and would appear to contradict the signing and pavement marking by making the center lane appeared to be a shared thru-left instead of a left turn lane.

Not only is the doghouse illegal, it really serves no purpose.  There are three other RA-YA-GA signals to control the left turn.  The doghouse should be replaced with a standard RYG for the straight movement.

Agreed.

This is the absolute WORST!!! use of a doghouse I've ever seen. And of course, New Jersey 

[jamess]

It makes some sense.

There are two left turn lanes AND a protected left - both rare in NJ.

Hence the use of a trillion signals to make the point. You have two red left turn arrows facing the lanes - one per lane, ok. You have a near side left turn red, also required.

You need two through green arrows, but theres no near side pole, so they stuck another one up there.

[Brandon]

Would this doghouse be considered MUTCD compliant?

I think the bottom left is a bimodal arrow, and the middle left is a red arrow that lights up when the thru signal is not red and the protected left signals are red

https://goo.gl/maps/71KqSk4E71S2

No - it runs afoul of MUTCD 4D.09, which does not allow a red indication to horizontally adjacent to an indication of a different color in the same signal head.  It also does not comply with MUTCD 4D.19 (even if that is not a red arrow and instead a yellow arrow), which only allows shared signal heads for protected only turning movements when the begin and end at the same time as the adjacent through movement.

It is also confusing, and would appear to contradict the signing and pavement marking by making the center lane appeared to be a shared thru-left instead of a left turn lane.

Not only is the doghouse illegal, it really serves no purpose.  There are three other RA-YA-GA signals to control the left turn.  The doghouse should be replaced with a standard RYG for the straight movement.

Agreed.

This is the absolute WORST!!! use of a doghouse I've ever seen. And of course, New Jersey 

It ranks right up there with this: https://goo.gl/maps/Rbje6emQQVB2

[signalman]

There are two left turn lanes AND a protected left - both rare in NJ.

Uh, no they're not.  NJ has many intersections with two left turn lanes, all of which (to my knowledge) are protected only.  That doghouse is indeed bizarre and not allowed, but welcome to Newark.

[roadfro]

It makes some sense.

There are two left turn lanes AND a protected left - both rare in NJ.

Hence the use of a trillion signals to make the point. You have two red left turn arrows facing the lanes - one per lane, ok. You have a near side left turn red, also required.

You need two through green arrows, but theres no near side pole, so they stuck another one up there.

What would have made more sense in this instance (and would've been completely MUTCD compliant) would be a standard left turn signal head where the doghouse is, and adding a through signal on the far right mast pole.

[kc8yqq]

Here is an oddity for Michigan...an arrow for left on this type of traffic light fixture.  Normally it's a globe.  It's located in Leslie, Michigan, at the intersection of Bellevue Road and Hull Road.  The red arrow is for both directions of Bellevue Road and the standard globe is for both directions of Hull Road.  You can see both in this link and the traffic light is still like that today.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4511344,-84.4404173,3a,25.1y,77.33h,97.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss5nVcifsTnuxLymy-GAaGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[jakeroot]

Here is an oddity for Michigan...an arrow for left on this type of traffic light fixture.  Normally it's a globe.  It's located in Leslie, Michigan, at the intersection of Bellevue Road and Hull Road.  The red arrow is for both directions of Bellevue Road and the standard globe is for both directions of Hull Road.  You can see both in this link and the traffic light is still like that today.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4511344,-84.4404173,3a,25.1y,77.33h,97.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss5nVcifsTnuxLymy-GAaGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

As far as I know, even with a "LEFT" message above it, red orbs are no longer permitted for dedicated left turn signals. Places out west have been using red arrows for decades, so this seems like a fairly normal setup to me, minus the message above the signal (seems fairly obvious it's for left turns).

[Ian]

Here is an oddity for Michigan...an arrow for left on this type of traffic light fixture.  Normally it's a globe.  It's located in Leslie, Michigan, at the intersection of Bellevue Road and Hull Road.  The red arrow is for both directions of Bellevue Road and the standard globe is for both directions of Hull Road.  You can see both in this link and the traffic light is still like that today.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4511344,-84.4404173,3a,25.1y,77.33h,97.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss5nVcifsTnuxLymy-GAaGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

As far as I know, even with a "LEFT" message above it, red orbs are no longer permitted for dedicated left turn signals. Places out west have been using red arrows for decades, so this seems like a fairly normal setup to me, minus the message above the signal (seems fairly obvious it's for left turns).

Random question, but can anyone from Michigan tell me if they're still installing those internally lit case signs at their signal intersections? I've always been amazed by the sheer amount of them used around the state, but I'm curious if they're still being installed.

[jakeroot]

Here is an oddity for Michigan...an arrow for left on this type of traffic light fixture.  Normally it's a globe.  It's located in Leslie, Michigan, at the intersection of Bellevue Road and Hull Road.  The red arrow is for both directions of Bellevue Road and the standard globe is for both directions of Hull Road.  You can see both in this link and the traffic light is still like that today.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4511344,-84.4404173,3a,25.1y,77.33h,97.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss5nVcifsTnuxLymy-GAaGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

As far as I know, even with a "LEFT" message above it, red orbs are no longer permitted for dedicated left turn signals. Places out west have been using red arrows for decades, so this seems like a fairly normal setup to me, minus the message above the signal (seems fairly obvious it's for left turns).

Random question, but can anyone from Michigan tell me if they're still installing those internally lit case signs at their signal intersections? I've always been amazed by the sheer amount of them used around the state, but I'm curious if they're still being installed.

Actually, I've wondered this myself on several occasions. Looking around street view, it would appear that individual cities kind of do their own thing in regards to signals; Lansing specifically no longer uses any case signs, but I don't think MDOT does either. The new I-96/Cascade Road DDI in Grand Rapids does not use any case signs. It wouldn't need to, since there's no specific need for case signs with a DDI, but they use backplates now, and I don't think those work well with case signs.

As for the "ONE WAY" or "DO NOT ENTER" case signs, I bet they still use them, but I cannot be sure. The I-96/Cascade DDI uses regular post-mounted signs like other states.

[traffic light guy]

Look at the doghouse, it's color configurated into a three color left turn signal, due to road work:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1621444,-75.1237667,3a,30y,339.45h,110.05t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1s5SfcJEmlSti6WGlFCFB3Jw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5SfcJEmlSti6WGlFCFB3Jw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D77.37656%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100?hl=en&authuser=0

[Amtrakprod]

Look at the doghouse, it's color configurated into a three color left turn signal, due to road work:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1621444,-75.1237667,3a,30y,339.45h,110.05t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1s5SfcJEmlSti6WGlFCFB3Jw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5SfcJEmlSti6WGlFCFB3Jw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D77.37656%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100?hl=en&authuser=0

Very interesting, what I think PENNDOT could have done better is that they maybe should have thought about making the left lane a dedicated left turn lane for the time being, I would have either done that or prevent left turns and had signs instructing a U turn futher up.