Traffic signal

[roadfro]

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.

For these turning movements where they've installed standard all-arrow turn signal heads, a sign is not required, whether it be blankout or static...

I could potentially see using this with the five-section towers on the other approaches at this intersection. There's other areas in Chicago (some major street I don't recall) where five section towers are used with static "left turn on green arrow only" signs, which is a confusing and non-intuitive way to prohibit permissive left turns on circular green.

[Amtrakprod]

Bruh MA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4039225,-71.0078742,3a,15.3y,204.48h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqtHji-IZPYdVeE7kcSdDxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[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.

For these turning movements where they've installed standard all-arrow turn signal heads, a sign is not required, whether it be blankout or static...

I could potentially see using this with the five-section towers on the other approaches at this intersection. There's other areas in Chicago (some major street I don't recall) where five section towers are used with static "left turn on green arrow only" signs, which is a confusing and non-intuitive way to prohibit permissive left turns on circular green.

More than anything, I was posting this here to confirm that I wasn't losing my mind. I was a bit confused exactly why they would use these blankouts, since there is no obvious need (a red arrow is usually clear enough in its meaning). Guess it's still not quite obvious.

Most of those 5-section tower "green arrow only" signals in Chicago are downtown along Michigan Avenue, although there are others. Definitely not a wise call, although I think they were originally used to increase the number of through signals. That's just a hunch, though.

[mrsman]

"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.

Perhaps the left turners need to yield to the folks crossing at the crosswalk.  Do you know when those folks get the walk signal?  Is it at the same time as green ball on this approach.

If that is the case, I would prefer a more clear sign of the need to yield to pedestrians.  And given the geometry of the intersection it does not seem safe to allow the peds to cross at the same time as this green ball being on.

[mrsman]

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.

For these turning movements where they've installed standard all-arrow turn signal heads, a sign is not required, whether it be blankout or static...

I could potentially see using this with the five-section towers on the other approaches at this intersection. There's other areas in Chicago (some major street I don't recall) where five section towers are used with static "left turn on green arrow only" signs, which is a confusing and non-intuitive way to prohibit permissive left turns on circular green.

More than anything, I was posting this here to confirm that I wasn't losing my mind. I was a bit confused exactly why they would use these blankouts, since there is no obvious need (a red arrow is usually clear enough in its meaning). Guess it's still not quite obvious.

Most of those 5-section tower "green arrow only" signals in Chicago are downtown along Michigan Avenue, although there are others. Definitely not a wise call, although I think they were originally used to increase the number of through signals. That's just a hunch, though.

I agree that it seems superfluous.  The only justification I can see is perhaps the traffic operations changed "recently".  (GSV shows same operations as early as 2015, though so maybe I am mistaken).  If they used to allow permissive left turns here, the electronic sign can highlight the change in rules.  But once people get used to the new configuration, these signs should be removed. 

Occasionally, I see a signal ahead sign with a "new" banner to highlight new signals in my area.  Those are left for a while though and I believe if the sightlines are OK, both signs ("new" and "signal ahead") should be removed after being in place for 6 months.  There is no need for extra signage, in my opinion.

[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.

Perhaps the left turners need to yield to the folks crossing at the crosswalk.  Do you know when those folks get the walk signal?  Is it at the same time as green ball on this approach.

If that is the case, I would prefer a more clear sign of the need to yield to pedestrians.  And given the geometry of the intersection it does not seem safe to allow the peds to cross at the same time as this green ball being on.

A majority of the signals in New Hampshire use the "exclusive ped" phasing for pedestrians, which also includes Manchester as well.  My best guess of the purpose of the "yield on green" sign is for traffic turning into the fire station or making a U-turn onto the other direction.

[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.

For these turning movements where they've installed standard all-arrow turn signal heads, a sign is not required, whether it be blankout or static...

I could potentially see using this with the five-section towers on the other approaches at this intersection. There's other areas in Chicago (some major street I don't recall) where five section towers are used with static "left turn on green arrow only" signs, which is a confusing and non-intuitive way to prohibit permissive left turns on circular green.

More than anything, I was posting this here to confirm that I wasn't losing my mind. I was a bit confused exactly why they would use these blankouts, since there is no obvious need (a red arrow is usually clear enough in its meaning). Guess it's still not quite obvious.

Most of those 5-section tower "green arrow only" signals in Chicago are downtown along Michigan Avenue, although there are others. Definitely not a wise call, although I think they were originally used to increase the number of through signals. That's just a hunch, though.

I agree that it seems superfluous.  The only justification I can see is perhaps the traffic operations changed "recently".  (GSV shows same operations as early as 2015, though so maybe I am mistaken).  If they used to allow permissive left turns here, the electronic sign can highlight the change in rules.  But once people get used to the new configuration, these signs should be removed. 

Occasionally, I see a signal ahead sign with a "new" banner to highlight new signals in my area.  Those are left for a while though and I believe if the sightlines are OK, both signs ("new" and "signal ahead") should be removed after being in place for 6 months.  There is no need for extra signage, in my opinion.

The intersection is brand new, circa 2015. Brainard Ave used to turn north at Saginaw Ave, and traffic was forced to turn left to continue down E 130th St. This eliminated a nearby at-grade rail crossing, but necessitated an elevation lowering that we see here today. The double left turn, therefore, is brand new.

Part of me was wondering if, late at night, the double left turn operates with a permissive phase, and the sign changes to allow yielding on a flashing yellow or something. I think this is pretty unlikely, but Chicago does have other intersections that use dual left turns with permissive phasing, so it doesn't seem that insane of a possibility.

The other possibility that I'm considering, and it's probably a bit more likely, is that they wanted a lit version of the standard sign. There's no intention of ever turning off the blankout sign, or changing its message. It's only there for the illumination. As effective as retroreflective signage is, there is still something to be said about digital matrix displays. Not just at night, but also during the day.

[Amtrakprod]

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4016882,-71.04152,3a,61.9y,94.75h,98.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syK2Ij0QApwg2B_fGpLWX4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[STLmapboy]

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

Now if they could just get some damn backplates on...

[STLmapboy]

Bruh MA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4039225,-71.0078742,3a,15.3y,204.48h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqtHji-IZPYdVeE7kcSdDxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

There are so many things wrong here. The icing on the cake is the bridge that's been closed for 5 or so years. Guess that red left arrow's been red for a while.

[plain]

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4016882,-71.04152,3a,61.9y,94.75h,98.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syK2Ij0QApwg2B_fGpLWX4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Bruh MA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4039225,-71.0078742,3a,15.3y,204.48h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqtHji-IZPYdVeE7kcSdDxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Massachusetts has a very special way of installing signals. It's called IDGAF.

[jakeroot]

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

Now if they could just get some damn backplates on...

I don't know if it's necessary for pole-mounted signals. Illinois seems to require them overhead because of issues with sun glare, but not so much on posts since the sun is less often an issue that low. Plus, backplates on pole-mounted signals tend to make things a bit busy and crowded.

I think how they've installed the signals here is very clean, and not busy at all despite the added functionality of the extra post-mounted signals. Honestly, it's exactly how I'd setup an intersection if I were in charge of signalization.

[Amtrakprod]

Bruh MA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4039225,-71.0078742,3a,15.3y,204.48h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqtHji-IZPYdVeE7kcSdDxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

There are so many things wrong here. The icing on the cake is the bridge that's been closed for 5 or so years. Guess that red left arrow's been red for a while.

looks like someone was using it: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4035401,-71.0080116,3a,75y,27.63h,95.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sse8hGdsf6u6x8ZJ_16g8uA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Amtrakprod]

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4016882,-71.04152,3a,61.9y,94.75h,98.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syK2Ij0QApwg2B_fGpLWX4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Bruh MA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4039225,-71.0078742,3a,15.3y,204.48h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqtHji-IZPYdVeE7kcSdDxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Massachusetts has a very special way of installing signals. It's called IDGAF.

Good thing our new signals are nice!
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4038968,-71.0359086,3a,75y,230.91h,93.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQBdOkAZ7qiHXUoBkEF7xGA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[jakeroot]

Bruh MA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4039225,-71.0078742,3a,15.3y,204.48h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqtHji-IZPYdVeE7kcSdDxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

There are so many things wrong here. The icing on the cake is the bridge that's been closed for 5 or so years. Guess that red left arrow's been red for a while.

looks like someone was using it: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4035401,-71.0080116,3a,75y,27.63h,95.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sse8hGdsf6u6x8ZJ_16g8uA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm gonna guess that it's being used primarily for U-turns now? Going off the tire marks on the ground. There appears to be several driveways in the background, facing the street, where drivers would need to make a U-turn to head the other way. This basically being the perfect spot.

[jeffandnicole]

Similar to this light here. Often times the gate is closed so left turns aren't possible here into the closed property.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7AR5jwb31ASxQ6oNA

[Amtrakprod]

Bruh MA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4039225,-71.0078742,3a,15.3y,204.48h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqtHji-IZPYdVeE7kcSdDxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

There are so many things wrong here. The icing on the cake is the bridge that's been closed for 5 or so years. Guess that red left arrow's been red for a while.

looks like someone was using it: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4035401,-71.0080116,3a,75y,27.63h,95.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sse8hGdsf6u6x8ZJ_16g8uA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm gonna guess that it's being used primarily for U-turns now? Going off the tire marks on the ground. There appears to be several driveways in the background, facing the street, where drivers would need to make a U-turn to head the other way. This basically being the perfect spot.

It looks like that has been the primary use even when the bridge was open (or at least in 2007) when the bridge was a one way.

[mrsman]

Bruh MA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4039225,-71.0078742,3a,15.3y,204.48h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqtHji-IZPYdVeE7kcSdDxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

There are so many things wrong here. The icing on the cake is the bridge that's been closed for 5 or so years. Guess that red left arrow's been red for a while.

looks like someone was using it: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4035401,-71.0080116,3a,75y,27.63h,95.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sse8hGdsf6u6x8ZJ_16g8uA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm gonna guess that it's being used primarily for U-turns now? Going off the tire marks on the ground. There appears to be several driveways in the background, facing the street, where drivers would need to make a U-turn to head the other way. This basically being the perfect spot.

Despite all of this, I would still think that it would be a good practice at the point of the left turn lane to somehow put in a sign that says U-turn only.  For those who are unfamiliar, when you see a green arrow, they may very likely just go and make the left turn and it would be quite a surprise to either go the wrong way down the street or to hit a closed bridge.

There are many places with u-turn only left turn lanes and signals and this could be modified to accommodate that design as well.

[jeffandnicole]

Bruh MA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4039225,-71.0078742,3a,15.3y,204.48h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqtHji-IZPYdVeE7kcSdDxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

There are so many things wrong here. The icing on the cake is the bridge that's been closed for 5 or so years. Guess that red left arrow's been red for a while.

looks like someone was using it: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4035401,-71.0080116,3a,75y,27.63h,95.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sse8hGdsf6u6x8ZJ_16g8uA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm gonna guess that it's being used primarily for U-turns now? Going off the tire marks on the ground. There appears to be several driveways in the background, facing the street, where drivers would need to make a U-turn to head the other way. This basically being the perfect spot.

Despite all of this, I would still think that it would be a good practice at the point of the left turn lane to somehow put in a sign that says U-turn only.  For those who are unfamiliar, when you see a green arrow, they may very likely just go and make the left turn and it would be quite a surprise to either go the wrong way down the street or to hit a closed bridge.

There are many places with u-turn only left turn lanes and signals and this could be modified to accommodate that design as well.

If they're unfamiliar with the area, why would they feel the need to make a left turn in the first place?

This is also one of those things where i'll say it's exisited for over 5 years. Just because you leaned about is 5 minutes ago doesn't make it a dangerous condition.

[Amtrakprod]

Bruh MA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4039225,-71.0078742,3a,15.3y,204.48h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqtHji-IZPYdVeE7kcSdDxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

There are so many things wrong here. The icing on the cake is the bridge that's been closed for 5 or so years. Guess that red left arrow's been red for a while.

looks like someone was using it: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4035401,-71.0080116,3a,75y,27.63h,95.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sse8hGdsf6u6x8ZJ_16g8uA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm gonna guess that it's being used primarily for U-turns now? Going off the tire marks on the ground. There appears to be several driveways in the background, facing the street, where drivers would need to make a U-turn to head the other way. This basically being the perfect spot.

Despite all of this, I would still think that it would be a good practice at the point of the left turn lane to somehow put in a sign that says U-turn only.  For those who are unfamiliar, when you see a green arrow, they may very likely just go and make the left turn and it would be quite a surprise to either go the wrong way down the street or to hit a closed bridge.

There are many places with u-turn only left-turn lanes and signals and this could be modified to accommodate that design as well.

It could work, but I'm not sure if MassDOT feels the need.
I would like something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3069313,-71.2928574,3a,32.8y,243.46h,91.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqq6CQwnxnvwBqWpwjBYnjA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
See, MA new signals are really good!

[Amtrakprod]

Sadly not everything MassDOT even new is perfect.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4032614,-71.0564923,3a,29.8y,245.79h,92.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYIljREea17afs14Z8pYZVA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I wonder how no one noticed how dumb this was, on a signal with a right turn arrow.

[Amtrakprod]

Lots of MassDOT stuff from me today, but anyways looks like MassDOT has been upgrading signals to hit the signal per lane strategy:
Before: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4049591,-71.0814574,3a,65.2y,287.4h,86.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbdTgU_vXjDQcye94tSijTA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
After: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4049273,-71.0814629,3a,32.2y,283.96h,93.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz2ZGzEvr7T2_dR8jq9tYmg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Before:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4052521,-71.0823958,3a,75y,235.8h,93.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOoLBIvruElnTaApZE2qGpg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
After: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4052389,-71.0824034,3a,75y,232.62h,85.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUTonWz40CkX5ahFlGKfMzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And also adding in more lights for visibility:
Before: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4017054,-71.0681019,3a,75y,319.18h,88.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHKg5VAxfD_dZuOgXR5cP8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
After:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4017201,-71.0680557,3a,75y,319.18h,88.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbdTcP2C8seIdharjm-XQLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[fwydriver405]

Bruh MA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4039225,-71.0078742,3a,15.3y,204.48h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqtHji-IZPYdVeE7kcSdDxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

There are so many things wrong here. The icing on the cake is the bridge that's been closed for 5 or so years. Guess that red left arrow's been red for a while.

looks like someone was using it: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4035401,-71.0080116,3a,75y,27.63h,95.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sse8hGdsf6u6x8ZJ_16g8uA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm gonna guess that it's being used primarily for U-turns now? Going off the tire marks on the ground. There appears to be several driveways in the background, facing the street, where drivers would need to make a U-turn to head the other way. This basically being the perfect spot.

Despite all of this, I would still think that it would be a good practice at the point of the left turn lane to somehow put in a sign that says U-turn only.  For those who are unfamiliar, when you see a green arrow, they may very likely just go and make the left turn and it would be quite a surprise to either go the wrong way down the street or to hit a closed bridge.

There are many places with u-turn only left turn lanes and signals and this could be modified to accommodate that design as well.

If they're unfamiliar with the area, why would they feel the need to make a left turn in the first place?

This is also one of those things where i'll say it's exisited for over 5 years. Just because you leaned about is 5 minutes ago doesn't make it a dangerous condition.

My question is does the U-turn count under the "left on red (arrow) after stop" law that MA has, since it's a one way to another one way?
For turns on red, MA (and NH*) law does not differentiate between balls and arrows, despite the MUTCD saying red arrow = no turn on red:

At any intersection on ways, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, in which vehicular traffic is facing a steady red indication in a traffic control signal, the driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk or the near side of the intersections or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to such red or stop signal, may make either (1) a right turn or (2) if on a one-way street may make a left turn to another one-way street, but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at said intersection, except that a city or town, subject to section two of chapter eighty-five, by rules, orders, ordinances, or by-laws, and the department of highways on state highways or on ways at their intersections with a state highway, may prohibit any such turns against a red or stop signal at any such intersection, and such prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof. Any person who violates the provisions of this paragraph shall be punished by a fine of not less than thirty-five dollars.

*NH does not allow left on red, the right on red arrow law NH has is only for right turns.

EDIT: If you look at the GSV on reply 2219, you can see that there is a NO TURN ON RED sign for the U-turning traffic. Probably MassDOT is aware of the "left turn on red (arrow)" law as well?

[RobbieL2415]

"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 there for u-turners.  Incidentally I see a lot of drivers make U-turns on red balls and arrows.

[fwydriver405]

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4016882,-71.04152,3a,61.9y,94.75h,98.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syK2Ij0QApwg2B_fGpLWX4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The left turn arrow you linked in that direction is bimodal. Not sure how the phasing is or if the other side also has a bimodal arrow. Looks like it runs lead-lag phasing. Hopefully MassDOT (or whoever maintains these signals) gets these replaced like the one further upstream.

Sadly not everything MassDOT even new is perfect.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4032614,-71.0564923,3a,29.8y,245.79h,92.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYIljREea17afs14Z8pYZVA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I wonder how no one noticed how dumb this was, on a signal with a right turn arrow.

Based on experience, that new signal may have been there to replace a broken one and it's still probable that this intersection is still on the original controller. Not sure if the remaining signals are going to be modernised on the Revere Beach Parkway.