Traffic signal

[jakeroot]

It seems companies like McCain have an almost impossible to see the black border, compared to eagle: Eagle: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4155121,-71.1530432,3a,17.6y,297.45h,104.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYUGhtrtgTnsuo1nW1k3qWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
McCain: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3978246,-71.1411478,3a,15y,270.3h,98.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5BI8PguGUC9QZodbBaue3w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5BI8PguGUC9QZodbBaue3w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D228.62907%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

It appears to be a difference between the signal housings being painted, and not. The McCain's in your link have been painted silver, whereas the Eagle's are painted black. Beyond that, they have the same backplate size and same yellow border thickness.

[freebrickproductions]

And in Weehawken I don’t get the whole double red traffic light..

The second red indication is pretty much for extra visibility while adding a redundant indication should a red bulb go, especially if that's the only signal at the intersection.

[SignBridge]

Those are very old signals probably from the 1960's. I know they were around in 1972 when I had friends in some of those Hudson County cities.

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

Do you know of any specific jurisdictions that repaint their signals? Around here, most signals are a dull black or green color, so they aged quite gracefully. In fact, the only way for me to tell if a signal is old, is if it's an old manufacturer. Or, if the backplate is rusty or worn. Either way, no repainting around here that I'm aware of.

NYC does it, saw them painting signals in my neighborhood a month or two ago

[jay8g]

"Let's make sure to hang the signals, so they sit right behind the power lines".

:facepalm:

25 Ave W @ 164 St SW, Lynnwood, WA

This one's even worse! The signals are on spanwire that's connected to the same utility poles as the communications wiring, so there's very little separation between them and the wires hit the signal heads when it's windy, so they're missing several visors even though this is a relatively new installation.

[MikeCL]

Speaking of wires this is a good one

[jakeroot]

"Let's make sure to hang the signals, so they sit right behind the power lines".

:facepalm:

25 Ave W @ 164 St SW, Lynnwood, WA

This one's even worse! The signals are on spanwire that's connected to the same utility poles as the communications wiring, so there's very little separation between them and the wires hit the signal heads when it's windy, so they're missing several visors even though this is a relatively new installation.

I would say the one in Lynnwood is probably worse from a driver's perspective, since there's three wires running in front of the overhead signals, instead of one (although the signals on the masts prevent total blockage). But from a technical standpoint, that Roosevelt example is definitely worse considering how close the signals are to the wires.

SDOT is completely useless at signal placement these days. They almost never post anything on poles anymore. There are exceptions, such as the off-ramp from the southbound 5 collector lanes to Dearborn (Street View is out of date, otherwise I'd post a link), and this intersection of Republican (both approaches) at Fairview. But for the most part, it's "stuff them on the mast arm", even when there's only one straight-ahead lane (here for example), where there should be one on the mast (like here).

Your example would be a prime location for post-mounted signals, due to overhead wiring. But nope, they decided that two arrows right on top of each other, right behind a wire where they will eventually destroy themselves, was the best location It's hard to believe these even pass the "cone of vision" requirement.

I commented on the below tweet (posted by Dongho Chang, a very social SDOT engineer on Twitter), asking why SDOT put the signals so close together when there's two approach lanes. No response as usual. Any questions about cycle routes and sidewalks, and he's on it. Signals and signs? Good luck getting a response. They did a good job with 2nd; maybe that was a fluke.

https://twitter.com/dongho_chang/status/1016692564844412928

[jakeroot]

Odd approach angle at this intersection in SeaTac, WA necessitates one of the left turn signals to be to the right of the left-most primary through signal.

It's a limited-visibility 3M display, but only the red is usually hidden.

[roadfro]

Odd approach angle at this intersection in SeaTac, WA necessitates one of the left turn signals to be to the right of the left-most primary through signal.

It's a limited-visibility 3M display, but only the red is usually hidden.

Yeah, kinda bizarre. They could have gotten a bit more creative with the signal head placement than this. Perhaps the supplemental left signal could have been placed on the backside of the nearside mast arm?

[jakeroot]

Odd approach angle at this intersection in SeaTac, WA necessitates one of the left turn signals to be to the right of the left-most primary through signal.

It's a limited-visibility 3M display, but only the red is usually hidden.

https://i.imgur.com/2dfnYGJ.jpg

Yeah, kinda bizarre. They could have gotten a bit more creative with the signal head placement than this. Perhaps the supplemental left signal could have been placed on the backside of the nearside mast arm?

Certainly possible. It would remove the turn signal between the two through signals. I think how they've done it is acceptable, though unusual. At least they used limited visibility signals. Only the green and yellow arrows are visible from the through-movement stop line, so that helps. Red is only visible for a second as one passes through the turn lane's cone of vision.

I find this setup, especially with limited-visibility signals, to be less confusing than the far more common "near-side left corner" primary signal face used at curves. This is a requirement for curved intersections, however, since the signal is required to be a repeater of the primary signal face, it can be misleading for drivers who intend to turn (i.e. not through traffic). See this approach for example: https://goo.gl/3aSgdS.

I don't know if having another turn signal in the same location, or on the far-left corner, would improve the situation. But I feel like the situation in the link above in insufficient, even if it meets MUTCD requirements.

[jakeroot]

Do you guys think this signal approach is MUTCD-compliant?

According to a Seattle city traffic engineer, this signal is compliant because the primary movement is the slight right at this intersection. However, the MUTCD indicates that two primary signal faces are required for any through movement. My interpretation of "through movement" is not the same as "major movement" (hence why I believe that term was ultimately removed in 2009 -- compare ~4D.15 in the 2003 edition, to 4D.11 in the 2009 edition). AFAIK, a "through movement" is anything that isn't a left or right movement. Even if that means slight right, such as here, that would disqualify it from being considered a "through" movement.



Here's his latest tweet to me:

https://twitter.com/dongho_chang/status/1018910269467078656

[jeffandnicole]

Do you guys think this signal approach is MUTCD-compliant?

According to a Seattle city traffic engineer, this signal is compliant because the primary movement is the slight right at this intersection. However, the MUTCD indicates that two primary signal faces are required for any through movement. My interpretation of "through movement" is not the same as "major movement" (hence why I believe that term was ultimately removed in 2009 -- compare ~4D.15 in the 2003 edition, to 4D.11 in the 2009 edition). AFAIK, a "through movement" is anything that isn't a left or right movement. Even if that means slight right, such as here, that would disqualify it from being considered a "through" movement.



Here's his latest tweet to me:

https://twitter.com/dongho_chang/status/1018910269467078656

The usual way (say, in NJ) to make this work is to have at least 2 signals with RYG for the thru route overhead.  The right-most signal would also have a green arrow lens at the bottom, and there'll also be a 4 headed signal to the right with a green arrow as well.  Signage would state "Right Turn on Green Arrow Only".

Such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/F38WQSX538N2

[jakeroot]

Do you guys think this signal approach is MUTCD-compliant?

According to a Seattle city traffic engineer, this signal is compliant because the primary movement is the slight right at this intersection. However, the MUTCD indicates that two primary signal faces are required for any through movement. My interpretation of "through movement" is not the same as "major movement" (hence why I believe that term was ultimately removed in 2009 -- compare ~4D.15 in the 2003 edition, to 4D.11 in the 2009 edition). AFAIK, a "through movement" is anything that isn't a left or right movement. Even if that means slight right, such as here, that would disqualify it from being considered a "through" movement.

https://i.imgur.com/GQHWwJp.png

Here's his latest tweet to me:

https://twitter.com/dongho_chang/status/1018910269467078656

The usual way (say, in NJ) to make this work is to have at least 2 signals with RYG for the thru route overhead.  The right-most signal would also have a green arrow lens at the bottom, and there'll also be a 4 headed signal to the right with a green arrow as well.  Signage would state "Right Turn on Green Arrow Only".

Such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/F38WQSX538N2

That's actually what I suggested in my first tweet, but he wasn't having it. It would be an easy fix to the situation, but he doesn't believe the situation as-is to be non-compliant.

https://twitter.com/dongho_chang/status/1018780449705873408

[jeffandnicole]

Do you guys think this signal approach is MUTCD-compliant?

According to a Seattle city traffic engineer, this signal is compliant because the primary movement is the slight right at this intersection. However, the MUTCD indicates that two primary signal faces are required for any through movement. My interpretation of "through movement" is not the same as "major movement" (hence why I believe that term was ultimately removed in 2009 -- compare ~4D.15 in the 2003 edition, to 4D.11 in the 2009 edition). AFAIK, a "through movement" is anything that isn't a left or right movement. Even if that means slight right, such as here, that would disqualify it from being considered a "through" movement.

https://i.imgur.com/GQHWwJp.png

Here's his latest tweet to me:

https://twitter.com/dongho_chang/status/1018910269467078656

The usual way (say, in NJ) to make this work is to have at least 2 signals with RYG for the thru route overhead.  The right-most signal would also have a green arrow lens at the bottom, and there'll also be a 4 headed signal to the right with a green arrow as well.  Signage would state "Right Turn on Green Arrow Only".

Such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/F38WQSX538N2

That's actually what I suggested in my first tweet, but he wasn't having it. It would be an easy fix to the situation, but he doesn't believe the situation as-is to be non-compliant.

https://twitter.com/dongho_chang/status/1018780449705873408

Because of the lack of any real penalty, he and his department can do and say pretty much whatever they want.   

The only time it could be an issue would be in the case of a fatal accident, and even then many lawyers don't even really get the gist of the MUTCD.  If the signal was working in its present form, that's probably going to pass most smell tests.  They're not going to venture further into why there wasn't 2 identical signals.

[jakeroot]

The only previous time that I contacted a city (Renton, WA) about a missing through signal, they added one about a month later. I quoted the exact same section from the MUTCD.

Before -- After

You could argue that the "primary" movement at this intersection is the left turn onto Rainier Ave. But, both the engineer and myself agreed that the straight-ahead movement here still counts as the through movement, thus it requires two primary signal faces.

Here's my email:

Hello Mr Zimmerman,

I hope you are the right person to contact on this issue. I noticed a couple of days ago that the through movement along S/SW 7th St eastbound, as it crosses over Rainier Ave S, has only one through signal, mounted on the overhead mast arm. It is accompanied by an R3-5a sign ("straight only").

The relevant section of the MUTCD is ~4D.11 (Number of Signal Faces on an Approach). It states that "f a signalized through movement exists on an approach, a minimum of two primary signal faces shall be provided for the through movement."

My suggestion would be to install a new signal on the southeast mast (not overhead on the mast arm -- I feel an extra signal on the overhead mast arm would clutter the arm, and pole mounted signals present additional visibility for those who cannot see over the vehicle in front of them).

His response:

Dear Jacob Root:

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I am referring this to our Transportation Operations Section who will investigate the situation and provide a response to you in the coming days.

Sincerely,

Gregg A. Zimmerman, P.E.

City of Renton

Public Works Department Administrator

Final follow-up email:

Dear Mr. Jacob Root:

We appreciate you brought this to our attention. The lane configuration and signal phasing in the east-west direction were modified after the Rainier project completion in order to optimize the operations of the intersection. The eastbound approach was rechannelized from one left turn lane, one shared left-through lane, and one shared through-right lane to two left turn lanes and one shared through-right lane and the signal heads were revised without adding a second through lane signal head.  A work order has been created to install a supplemental three section signal head for the eastbound through movement on the signal pole located on the southeast corner of the intersection.

Thank you,

Flora Lee, PE, PTOE

^^
This was my experience with Renton. Quick responses, and quick action. They even put the signal in where I suggested! I did not expect Mr Chang to be as defensive as he was.

While they can do whatever they want, that doesn't mean that they should. My experience with this kind of stuff is that cities don't intentionally not follow the MUTCD, so I try to alert them when I spot something wrong. IMO, Seattle has not installed a compliant signal, so I let them know. I've talked to Dongho Chang via Twitter quite a lot in the last couple years. He's very responsive to issues, hence why he was my first contact. But, he also rides a bike to work, and many of the improvements that he shares on Twitter are of improvements for those on foot or on transit. This is very important in a city like Seattle, where many people don't drive to work, but that does not negate his commitment to the MUTCD being a "PE". I honestly believe that he doesn't care about this issue, and would rather defend the situation as is, then go through the process of fixing it. I fully intend to write someone else in the DOT, to see what they think.

[traffic light guy]

Those are very old signals probably from the 1960's. I know they were around in 1972 when I had friends in some of those Hudson County cities.

Back in the 70s, the signal housing was banana yellow instead of brown

[jakeroot]

Follow up from above. I pleaded to him in Vision-Zero speak, but no response

https://twitter.com/jakeroot/status/1018951550545227776

[SignBridge]

Interesting question whether the MUTCD's use of the word through vs. major was intended by FHWA to mean straight vs. a turning movement being the predominant movement at a signalized intersection.

One way to solve the whole issue would be for all traffic agencies to do what the whole state of California mostly does, that is to have two signal heads for virtually all signalized movements so there doesn't have to be any debate over which is the through or major movement. And that way the driving public is best served by high-quality installations.

Also, my old 1988 Manual uses the words through traffic in section 4B-12 requiring a minimum of two signal faces. So it would seem that the term major movement was only used in the 2003 Manual and the 2009 edition might be a correction of what the FHWA may have considered an error in their 2003 Manual.

[traffic light guy]

Follow up from above. I pleaded to him in Vision-Zero speak, but no response

https://twitter.com/jakeroot/status/1018951550545227776

Very true, especailly for doghouses, or 4 section heads, they should program the arrow to light up during each cycle

[jakeroot]

Interesting question whether the MUTCD's use of the word through vs. major was intended by FHWA to mean straight vs. a turning movement being the predominant movement at a signalized intersection.

Section 4D.25 does say the following:

A lane that is shared by left-turn and right-turn movements is sometimes provided on an approach that has no through movement, such as the stem of a T-intersection or where the opposite approach is a one-way roadway in the opposing direction.

Here, the terms "left", "right", and "through" are all exclusive terms. If the MUTCD wanted "through" to mean "most important" or "major", using the term "through" here would be inappropriate, since it's being used to differentiate between turn movements and those that are proceeding straight (not possible here due to the intersection being an effective "T").

One way to solve the whole issue would be for all traffic agencies to do what the whole state of California mostly does, that is to have two signal heads for virtually all signalized movements so there doesn't have to be any debate over which is the through or major movement. And that way the driving public is best served by high-quality installations.

Definitely. The MUTCD recognizes the benefits of using supplemental signal faces (~4D.11, 07-E); I wish they'd just go and make these "should" statements "shall". Why they've remained "should", I don't know. I know the MUTCD states that mast-arm signals are better at getting drivers' attention than just using pole-mounted signals, but they do state that secondary signals improve visibility for certain occasions, such as for those travelling behind large trucks.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

This signal in Cortlandt, NY baffles me. Google shows a bimodal right four-stack, it has since been replaced with a right doghouse. It's a right turn only exit and there's no conflicting marked crosswalk. When I drove through it it just showed a green ball. Am I going crazy? What's the point of the arrow?

[roadman65]

What is up with Ontario?  Not only does the province use two mast arms to do the job of one (as always is like NJ was with some and there with two arms on opposite side across from each other to mount both heads), but the backplates are all painted yellow.

Also they use 8 inch yellows and green lenses instead of all 12 like most states do.  Though the 12-8-8 is not bad as NJ used to have them around in many areas when I was growing up as well as Virginia they were very popular and some intersections in NYC use them as well.

Though the extra arm and all yellow backplates seem odd.

[MNHighwayMan]

Slightly interesting signal I came across in Grand Rapids, MN today:



First, the yellow backplates, which are quite rare in Minnesota. (Maybe starting to become a thing? Not sure.)
Second, they have the housings for FYAs installed, but currently have them set up as standard three section orb heads, with the flashing yellow section covered.

[SignBridge]

I guess they plan to set up the FYA in the near future. The backplates actually are dark color with reflective yellow borders which is becoming increasingly common nationwide. That's actually a good looking, efficient installation.

[jakeroot]

What is up with Ontario?  Not only does the province use two mast arms to do the job of one (as always is like NJ was with some and there with two arms on opposite side across from each other to mount both heads), but the backplates are all painted yellow.

Also they use 8 inch yellows and green lenses instead of all 12 like most states do.  Though the 12-8-8 is not bad as NJ used to have them around in many areas when I was growing up as well as Virginia they were very popular and some intersections in NYC use them as well.

Though the extra arm and all yellow backplates seem odd.

All yellow backplates are extremely common all across Canada. Black backplates are definitely in the minority. I think they're only found in the Prairies. No examples in BC that I know of.

I believe Ontario has switched over to all 300mm (12-inch) signals. BC seems to be the only province that still uses 200mm signals, using them for all (RYG) orbs, depending on location (overhead or pole, nearside or farside, etc). Red Deer, Alberta uses 200-200-200 right-side secondary signals at many intersections, but not sure if that's still normal.

Why double mast arms? No idea. Maybe wind load?

First, the yellow backplates, which are quite rare in Minnesota. (Maybe starting to become a thing? Not sure.)

Around here, they just popped up everywhere in the span of like two months. Only the city of Bellevue, WA still installs backplates without yellow tape.