News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Innovative, Unique, or Strange Lane Markings

Started by TEG24601, September 14, 2016, 11:25:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

jakeroot

#50
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 31, 2016, 04:56:53 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 26, 2016, 06:48:07 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 24, 2016, 03:33:50 PM
Several intersections along Speedway Blvd in Tucson, AZ have secondary "yield" lines for the left turns.

These are very common in other countries, but I've never seen them used before in the US. I quite like them, as it encourages traffic to wait past the stop line (helpful with leading lefts).

You're supposed to pull straight into the intersection.  That's a terrible angle to have people stop at.  It's more likely that one may get pushed into oncoming traffic at that angle if hit.

This.  Never wait to make a left turn with your car facing at a diagonal, in case someone hits you from behind.  And in response to more recent attempts at refutation:  Fender benders occur at a much greater incidence than some guy coming from the straight lane and hitting you at an angle.

I just can't go along with this. How often do people fly into a left turn lane, only to slam into the car waiting to turn? This implies that they were looking enough to enter the turn lane, but then stopped paying attention between that point, and colliding with the person waiting. And even if they were only just barely paying attention, they should know there was a signal ahead, and that they'd probably have to yield.

When I turn left, I position my car where I have the best visbility (I'd reckon turning blind into oncoming traffic produces more severe collisions). In the case of the Tucson junction above, I'd assume it's exactly where the waiting lines are (you couldn't really pull straight into that junction without blocking the oncoming left turn anyway).

If someone has some study that conclusively shows waiting at angle to be more dangerous, please bring it forward.


cbeach40

Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2016, 05:43:34 PM
I just can't go along with this. How often do people fly into a left turn lane, only to slam into the car waiting to turn?

More than none.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2016, 05:43:34 PM
This implies that they were looking enough to enter the turn lane, but then stopped paying attention between that point, and colliding with the person waiting. And even if they were only just barely paying attention, they should know there was a signal ahead, and that they'd probably have to yield.

Most drivers approaching signals don't think, "Oh I'll probably have to yield." they think, "Oh shit, I have to catch that light!"

There are two reasons why rear end collisions make up the majority of crashes at signalized intersections - one is that they didn't expect it at all, the other is that drivers become much more aggressive as they approach them.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2016, 05:43:34 PM
When I turn left, I position my car where I have the best visbility (I'd reckon turning blind into oncoming traffic produces more severe collisions). In the case of the Tucson junction above, I'd assume it's exactly where the waiting lines are (you couldn't really pull straight into that junction without blocking the oncoming left turn anyway).

Going back to my earlier statement, if they'd have half a bit of sense when they

Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2016, 01:43:05 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on October 26, 2016, 09:57:04 AM
Hey, gotta make up for their lousy median design somehow. Why not make it worse?   :banghead:

I would rather have the left turn lanes pointing at each other, but you gotta make do with what you got.

In this case, Tucson wants the cars to wait at that angle so opposing traffic has better visibility. If they waited at the stop line, oncoming cars might be blocked behind traffic waiting to turn left.

You don't have to make do with what you've got when given the crosswalks it was clearly designed this way. By narrowing/eliminating the median at the intersection, you put your opposing left turns on better sight lines, and you reduce your conflict on the turning radius between those turns.
And it's not like they don't know how to do it, there's a pile of intersections along that very same road where they got it right.

and waterrrrrrr!

vdeane

In NY, the first car in line can pull forward into the intersection to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic to make the turn.  If traffic is heavy and there isn't a left turn arrow, it might be the only way to make your turn.  This is encouraged by the NY drivers manual.  It's legal to exit the intersection in a red if you entered in a green (or yellow), regardless of whether it takes one movement or not.  Traffic is required to yield to vehicles already in the intersection.
https://dmv.ny.gov/about-dmv/chapter-5-intersections-and-turns#rgh-way
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

jakeroot

#53
Quote from: cbeach40 on November 02, 2016, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2016, 05:43:34 PM
I just can't go along with this. How often do people fly into a left turn lane, only to slam into the car waiting to turn?

More than none.

Well of course.

Quote from: cbeach40 on November 02, 2016, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2016, 05:43:34 PM
This implies that they were looking enough to enter the turn lane, but then stopped paying attention between that point, and colliding with the person waiting. And even if they were only just barely paying attention, they should know there was a signal ahead, and that they'd probably have to yield.

Most drivers approaching signals don't think, "Oh I'll probably have to yield." they think, "Oh shit, I have to catch that light!"

There are two reasons why rear end collisions make up the majority of crashes at signalized intersections - one is that they didn't expect it at all, the other is that drivers become much more aggressive as they approach them.

So "most" drivers are shit? It's funny to think that, but I don't think its accurate. Most drivers are trained that left turns are yield situations (unless there's an arrow). Whether they speed up approaching the left turn or not, slamming into a stopped car is not really connected to aggressive behaviour. It's connected to "not paying attention", which seems unlikely to me because most turn lanes are "pockets", and are fairly short. How exactly does one stop paying attention between entering the pocket and rear-ending someone turning left? Obviously said scenario is possible. If I said otherwise, I retract that statement. But such a collision would seem to be more of a theory than a reality. It just seems really, really unlikely.

Just as a random challenge (you don't have to accept it, because it's a little ridiculous), go ahead and find a video on Youtube of a rear-end crash in a left turn lane. I don't think I've ever seen one.

Quote from: cbeach40 on November 02, 2016, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2016, 05:43:34 PM
When I turn left, I position my car where I have the best visbility (I'd reckon turning blind into oncoming traffic produces more severe collisions). In the case of the Tucson junction above, I'd assume it's exactly where the waiting lines are (you couldn't really pull straight into that junction without blocking the oncoming left turn anyway).

Going back to my earlier statement, if they'd have half a bit of sense when they

Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2016, 01:43:05 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on October 26, 2016, 09:57:04 AM
Hey, gotta make up for their lousy median design somehow. Why not make it worse?   :banghead:

I would rather have the left turn lanes pointing at each other, but you gotta make do with what you got.

In this case, Tucson wants the cars to wait at that angle so opposing traffic has better visibility. If they waited at the stop line, oncoming cars might be blocked behind traffic waiting to turn left.

You don't have to make do with what you've got when given the crosswalks it was clearly designed this way. By narrowing/eliminating the median at the intersection, you put your opposing left turns on better sight lines, and you reduce your conflict on the turning radius between those turns.
And it's not like they don't know how to do it, there's a pile of intersections along that very same road where they got it right.

I won't disagree with this. I have always preferred left turn lanes to point at each other. But you would agree that the best waiting position at the current intersection is where the "yield" lines are now, right?

jakeroot

Quote from: cbeach40 on November 02, 2016, 02:54:43 PM
By narrowing/eliminating the median at the intersection, you put your opposing left turns on better sight lines, and you reduce your conflict on the turning radius between those turns.
And it's not like they don't know how to do it, there's a pile of intersections along that very same road where they got it right.

Just out of curiosity (after a week's thinking), do you think is there a better design for the numerous dual left turns that Tucson possesses? The waiting points for many of these dual turns is at an angle (note the cars in the photo below). The inside lane generally points straight, but the outside lane, for better or worse, has a waiting point that is at more of an angle than the inside turn.


riiga

Make them protected left turns, then you don't need traffic to wait in the intersection. Having them permissive like that looks like an accident waiting to happen.

jakeroot

#56
Quote from: riiga on November 11, 2016, 03:15:54 PM
Make them protected left turns, then you don't need traffic to wait in the intersection. Having them permissive like that looks like an accident waiting to happen.

As long as we're glazing over the fact that I have a strong bias towards dual permissive turns, Tucson has a very pro-permissive phasing agenda. They have almost no protected left turns anywhere. Just browse around Street View, and you'll see what I mean. If you do find one, it's either related to a military base, or it's outside the city's jurisdiction.

Tucson has been using dual permissive left turns since the 70s, and they continue to install them today. According to the FHWA, "the protected-permissive "offset" dual lefts are used on very high volume city streets (with ADTs exceeding 80,000). The capacity of the left-turn movement increases 75 to 80 percent and left-turn crashes increase only insignificantly with the protected-permissive phasing is implemented."

Also, from the city of Tucson website:

Quote from: City of Tucson website
Protected Left Turn Arrows
Protected left turn signals include a red arrow along with the normal green and amber arrow. They allow left turning drivers to proceed only on the green arrow. This turning method is very inefficient and generally not used in Tucson. Adding inefficiencies to signal timing reduces overall capacity and increases congestion. With increased congestion comes the potential for an increase in certain types of accidents.

Permitted/Protected Left Turn Arrows
This is the most common turning method used in Tucson at locations having left turn arrows. During the permitted "green ball" part of the cycle, vehicles are allowed to turn when there are adequate gaps in opposing traffic. This type of left turn phasing is designed to help minimize delay by eliminating the need for the red arrow and allowing vehicles to turn on the green ball after opposing traffic has cleared. By not having the red arrow, motorists do not have to sit and wait to turn left even when there is no opposing traffic, a situation that often occurs during periods of low traffic volumes. The signal still provides a green left turn arrow for those not able to turn during the permitted phase.

steviep24

NYSDOT has been painting arrows on freeway off ramps recently to help prevent wrong way drivers. I've seen them on one way streets as well.

riiga

Interesting approach indeed.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2016, 04:28:47 PM
By not having the red arrow, motorists do not have to sit and wait to turn left even when there is no opposing traffic, a situation that often occurs during periods of low traffic volumes. The signal still provides a green left turn arrow for those not able to turn during the permitted phase.

Wouldn't that be solvable by having dynamic phases? When traffic going straight clears the induction loop detects this and allow left turns, just like the last protected phase with the green arrow. I don't see anyone turning during the permissive phase with oncoming traffic anyway, and if traffic is light enough then the left turn should get priority dynamically by terminating the going straight phase early.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: riiga on November 12, 2016, 04:42:17 AM
Interesting approach indeed.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2016, 04:28:47 PM
By not having the red arrow, motorists do not have to sit and wait to turn left even when there is no opposing traffic, a situation that often occurs during periods of low traffic volumes. The signal still provides a green left turn arrow for those not able to turn during the permitted phase.

Wouldn't that be solvable by having dynamic phases? When traffic going straight clears the induction loop detects this and allow left turns, just like the last protected phase with the green arrow. I don't see anyone turning during the permissive phase with oncoming traffic anyway, and if traffic is light enough then the left turn should get priority dynamically by terminating the going straight phase early.

Sometimes the gaps are small. Just because there's time for a few cars to turn doesn't mean you stop all traffic because of that small gap.

jakeroot

Quote from: riiga on November 12, 2016, 04:42:17 AM
Interesting approach indeed.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2016, 04:28:47 PM
By not having the red arrow, motorists do not have to sit and wait to turn left even when there is no opposing traffic, a situation that often occurs during periods of low traffic volumes. The signal still provides a green left turn arrow for those not able to turn during the permitted phase.

Wouldn't that be solvable by having dynamic phases? When traffic going straight clears the induction loop detects this and allow left turns, just like the last protected phase with the green arrow. I don't see anyone turning during the permissive phase with oncoming traffic anyway, and if traffic is light enough then the left turn should get priority dynamically by terminating the going straight phase early.

You could do that. But I don't see the issue with dual turns having permissive phasing. It sounds like a worse idea than it is. Places that use it, quite like it. Places that don't have it are too scared to try it.

In a Virginia DOT guidebook from several years ago, several PEs from around the US commented on their dual turn phasing preferences (they all worked for various cities as traffic engineers). This PDF shows their responses. The vast majority mention permissive phasing at dual turns, and how they generally work just fine.

FWIW, Denmark has several dual permissive turns. Never seen any anywhere else in Europe, though.

KEVIN_224

I saw this in Philadelphia today. Two lanes were marked as such, as traffic went around City Hall in Center City. A right from these two lanes begins South Broad Street, a portion of PA Route 611.


jakeroot

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 02, 2016, 07:05:32 PM
I saw this in Philadelphia today. Two lanes were marked as such, as traffic went around City Hall in Center City. A right from these two lanes begins South Broad Street, a portion of PA Route 611.



Is it the route marker? These have been popping up across the US lately (unsure as to when exactly they started showing up, though).

Here's a recent thread that catalogs a whole bunch of them: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18955.0

KEVIN_224

Yes...Pennsylvania uses the keystone for their state roads. This was one block away from the other picture:


kphoger

How about this unusual striping for a transit lane in San Juan, PR?
How is this even allowed?  Is this part of PR's MUTCD supplement or just totally wacky?

https://goo.gl/maps/9jJLRqiK3S42
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Brandon

Quote from: kphoger on December 27, 2016, 04:13:10 PM
How about this unusual striping for a transit lane in San Juan, PR?
How is this even allowed?  Is this part of PR's MUTCD supplement or just totally wacky?

https://goo.gl/maps/9jJLRqiK3S42

It looks like a counterflow transit lane, not for general use.  Love the WisDOT style trombones though, even if the signals are hung FIB-wise.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

vdeane

Looks similar to this bike lane in Burlington, VT:
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

jakeroot

#67
Contraflow lanes are decently common in Seattle. Here's an example damn-near identical to the PR example above (also transit-exclusive, just as above):

Unique in the PR example is the dashed yellow line, though. Don't see that very often, except in rural areas where passing lanes have been constructed (and even then, only some states allow the single-lane direction to overtake in these stretches)


thenetwork

Colorado is starting to test in-pavement LED lights to denote lanes at night.  Usually one white LED between every 2-3 white stripes on the pavement.  Those LEDs were pretty bright.  They had them placed on a 1-2 mile stretch of EB I-70 just before you went up Floyd Hill.

Mr. Matté

Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 10, 2016, 12:41:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2016, 11:33:50 PM
Saw a picture of a local government entity in New Jersey that's painting a blue line between the two yellow stripes on their streets to show support for law enforcement.

Here's an article that goes into more detail on this new activity. Much to my surprise, there's more municipalities doing it than I thought (at the time of the OP, only Wayne and Oaklyn had announced their plans) and there are some counties (since they they have jurisdiction of the road in front of the police station in some cases) not allowing it. I thought at the first opposition of a county/NJDOT, all the NJ.com articles would be flooded with the "WHY DO YOU HATE THE POLICE BLUE/ALL LIVES MATTER" and the other unrelated racist comments I've known to expect from that site directed towards the respective highway agency.

Now the FHWA is starting to comment against these blue lines in front of police stations per this article. The dumbass NJ.com commenters that were not present in my quoted post are now in this article (because as you know, Ronald Thump's FHWA will not have bureaucrats commenting on nonstandard practices).

cl94

Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 08, 2017, 02:07:42 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 10, 2016, 12:41:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 24, 2016, 11:33:50 PM
Saw a picture of a local government entity in New Jersey that's painting a blue line between the two yellow stripes on their streets to show support for law enforcement.

Here's an article that goes into more detail on this new activity. Much to my surprise, there's more municipalities doing it than I thought (at the time of the OP, only Wayne and Oaklyn had announced their plans) and there are some counties (since they they have jurisdiction of the road in front of the police station in some cases) not allowing it. I thought at the first opposition of a county/NJDOT, all the NJ.com articles would be flooded with the "WHY DO YOU HATE THE POLICE BLUE/ALL LIVES MATTER" and the other unrelated racist comments I've known to expect from that site directed towards the respective highway agency.

Now the FHWA is starting to comment against these blue lines in front of police stations per this article. The dumbass NJ.com commenters that were not present in my quoted post are now in this article (because as you know, Ronald Thump's FHWA will not have bureaucrats commenting on nonstandard practices).

Both sides of the aisle are ignorant on transportation matters. I was arguing with fellow liberals about HOT lanes earlier. They didn't seem to get that a) there's a free alternative and b) you don't pay if you're an HOV.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

jakeroot

#71
File this under "inexperienced user error"...

WashDOT doesn't use edge extension markings very often; this is evidence. White dashed lines are supposed to be used to separate lanes going in the same direction. They must not have gotten the memo.

SR-12/Olympic Hwy at Clemons Road near Aberdeen



EDIT: Similar error up the road at Central Park Drive. You must cross the dashed yellow line to merge with traffic:



EDIT 2: Same junction as above...same issue:


kphoger

Not sure if this is the right thread or not...

We recently spent a weekend in Eureka Springs (AR), and I found out the streets upon which the red route trolley runs have their curbs painted red (GSV example here).  Is this even legal?
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

jakeroot

The right turn markings at this junction in Johannesburg, South Africa: https://goo.gl/mGNjmw

I guess lead/lag wasn't an option.


epzik8

On Route 17 past Wilmington, North Carolina on the way to Myrtle Beach, they have a plentiful amount of arrows directing drivers to proceed in the direction they're going.
From the land of red, white, yellow and black.
____________________________

My clinched highways: http://tm.teresco.org/user/?u=epzik8
My clinched counties: http://mob-rule.com/user-gifs/USA/epzik8.gif



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.