Double left turns with permissive phasing

[motorola870]

Found a double right turn FYA between Greensboro and High Point, NC on NC 68 at Penny Road.  The red signals are balls instead of arrows, implying right on red is permitted.

Ah yes, found it here: https://goo.gl/maps/pQVs2jFKQmtbMpXD8

I don't see any pedestrian signal heads or crosswalks, however, so I'm not sure what purpose the dual FYA serves. Dual right turns with permissive phasing, requiring two lanes of traffic to yield to crossing pedestrians, doesn't appear to be as taboo as left turns (thanks to one less conflict), though they're fairly rare anyways, at least outside of downtown areas. A new one was just installed in my area last year, though it uses 5-section towers (despite the city's recent attempts to use right-facing FYAs for pedestrian crossings at T-intersections).

Found another one around Biltmore Village outside Asheville that does appear to have a pedestrian crossing. Thru signal is green when the right turns have the FYA and the pedestrian signal is active.

We have double left FYAs now in Arlington Texas at a few of intersections one I think should not qualify as it is in a busy shopping area and it is in front of a chick fil a that is consistently packed and drive thru is usually bumper to bumper. We used to have a couple of solid green permissive 5 segment left on yield lights back in the 1990s on interstate 20 when they first opened a reconstructed bridge that went from 3 lanes to 8 lanes wide over time it was phased to two protected left turn lanes on each side of the bridge.

[MNHighwayMan]

[hard to read post]

Punctuation and complete sentences are your friends.

[jakeroot]

Found another one around Biltmore Village outside Asheville that does appear to have a pedestrian crossing. Thru signal is green when the right turns have the FYA and the pedestrian signal is active.

Any Google Maps link?

[MASTERNC]

Found another one around Biltmore Village outside Asheville that does appear to have a pedestrian crossing. Thru signal is green when the right turns have the FYA and the pedestrian signal is active.

Any Google Maps link?

https://goo.gl/maps/cLpjzYnQmNQUNup8A

[jakeroot]

Found another one around Biltmore Village outside Asheville that does appear to have a pedestrian crossing. Thru signal is green when the right turns have the FYA and the pedestrian signal is active.

Any Google Maps link?

https://goo.gl/maps/cLpjzYnQmNQUNup8A

Cheers. This one definitely has a crosswalk!

[jakeroot]

Found three new ones in Port Angeles, WA this afternoon. All are fully permissive, and are double left turns onto a one-way street from a two-way street with option lanes.

Historic imagery suggests that these have been in place since at least the turn of the century.

N Oak St @ W 1 St
N Race St @ E Front St (US-101)
N Lincoln St @ E Front St

(image below of the first link above)

[fwydriver405]

So you say that's one way of keeping track of when doing you left turn from a two way to a one way is by glancing at the through signal and letting that determine how you approached the intersection.  In my mind that is very counterintuitive.  Especially in the era of the fya, especially when they are used to prevent a yellow trap, we are taught that when making a left turn you need to focus solely on the left turn signal and ignore what the thru signal is doing.  To the extent that this is not being done, we have already discussed in the perceived yellow track threads.

It's acceptable to rely on the parallel through traffic in this instance, because there is no oncoming left turn that may preemptively end the parallel through phase. The next time they get a red, would be the next time that I also would need to finish my turn.

If you look at the video I made about this maneuver, you can see (at 0:46 when I first arrive at the left turn) that the parallel traffic has a red light. Because the cross-traffic is one-way, I know that it can't be red because of an oncoming left turn. I can also see traffic coming off the freeway from my right. Turning through a gap here might be unwise, so I wait for them to receive a red light. Because the double left here is lagging, the through traffic gets to go next, while the left turn onto the freeway must wait. Again, because there is no oncoming left turn, I need not be worried about the parallel through traffic receiving a red light while I'm waiting. Though to the point that it matters, I'm still legally allowed to turn on red, even if they somehow ended up with a red light. Not that that would make much sense.

In this video, however, I do make a left turn on red while the parallel traffic also has a red light. This situation is relatively uncommon, and I find it more acceptable when traffic is quiet. Skip to 0:27:

https://youtu.be/2Qa7vD0_TkY?t=46

Not sure if this counts, but I may have found an unusual case in Boston of a similar case where left on red arrow is permitted with "permissive phasing":

Atlantic and Congress St

In this case, Atlantic is one way, the Congress approach coming from Post Office Sq is one way and the Congress approach coming from S. Boston is two way. On Congress, when the Post Office Sq thru approach is green, and the S. Boston approach has green right arrows, the left-turning traffic from Congress to Atlantic gets a red-left arrow. Because no sign is posted saying NO TURN ON RED on the Post Office approach, MA law doesn't distinguish between red arrows and balls, and also allows left turns on red from a one way to a one way, could this technically be a double permissive left? The left turn here is lagging left by the way.

BTW (edited 2021-11-01, incorrect phasing initially posted, corrected): There is a ped phase after the right turning traffic phase ends. So in hindsight, the phasing goes: right turning traffic to Atlantic, pedestrian phase crossing Atlantic, then the left turns onto Atlantic proceed before Atlantic Ave traffic is served.

[jakeroot]

^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, I think that would count! Given Mass law, although it may not be a truly "permissive" turn (where no stop would be required), it operates exactly like one, and it's not any different than my WA video you quoted. So I'm counting it! These are almost like half examples, if you may.

For that intersection you posted, the oncoming right turn could operate with green arrows, but I think it might be better to operate with flashing yellow arrows during the the WALK phase, with the double left operating with its own exclusive phase after that. Right now it seems to be a three-phase intersection.

I'm actually a bit surprised that there's an NTOR sign for that double right, but not the double left. I get the feeling that the city of Boston may have forgotten about the law.

[deathtopumpkins]

If we're counting LTOR between one-ways as "permissive" (which it isn't), then there are more examples all along the Greenway in Boston.

Sudbury St @ Cross St: https://goo.gl/maps/sArJSpC1nUEs2Zs37
Milk St @ Atlantic Ave: https://goo.gl/maps/sArJSpC1nUEs2Zs37
India St @ Surface Rd: https://goo.gl/maps/2vLLz357WL8SRXEx5
High St @ Atlantic Ave: https://goo.gl/maps/HDR84m6ynSXYDAM5A
Pearl St @ Purchase St: https://goo.gl/maps/ZV1NYtBFa1qHm597A

And elsewhere in the city:
Albany St @ Traveler St: https://goo.gl/maps/djqoMivVe89FKoWm8
Dartmouth St @ Huntington Ave: https://goo.gl/maps/enTmFGUsrog2E7KH9
Arlington St @ Boylston St: https://goo.gl/maps/ug4gTjVZLEPcz4GE8

The odds of anyone actually turning left on red at any of these is slim to none though, as no one around here seems to actually know it's legal (a coworker of mine even got pulled over for it once).

[jakeroot]

If we're counting LTOR between one-ways as "permissive" (which it isn't), then there are more examples all along the Greenway in Boston.

I don't think a turn counts as fully protected, unless you have to wait for a green arrow. If these double left turns in Boston do not require you to wait for a green arrow, then I don't see why they wouldn't count as a double permissive left turn. Besides that, it's my thread, and I make the rules. So there.

[roadfro]

If we're counting LTOR between one-ways as "permissive" (which it isn't), then there are more examples all along the Greenway in Boston.

I don't think a turn counts as fully protected, unless you have to wait for a green arrow. If these double left turns in Boston do not require you to wait for a green arrow, then I don't see why they wouldn't count as a double permissive left turn. Besides that, it's my thread, and I make the rules. So there.

In practice, protected and permitted turning modes are referring to the phase of the traffic signal in which vehicles can make a left turn, and how that phase interact with other active phases. It's really only describing the operation of the green or flashing yellow/red intervals that allow the turn manuever–legal turns made during the red interval after a stop doesn't make a particular turning movement permitted.

[jakeroot]

If we're counting LTOR between one-ways as "permissive" (which it isn't), then there are more examples all along the Greenway in Boston.

I don't think a turn counts as fully protected, unless you have to wait for a green arrow. If these double left turns in Boston do not require you to wait for a green arrow, then I don't see why they wouldn't count as a double permissive left turn. Besides that, it's my thread, and I make the rules. So there.

In practice, protected and permitted turning modes are referring to the phase of the traffic signal in which vehicles can make a left turn, and how that phase interact with other active phases. It's really only describing the operation of the green or flashing yellow/red intervals that allow the turn manuever–legal turns made during the red interval after a stop doesn't make a particular turning movement permitted.

I'm not sure I would agree with that. If you are legally permitted to turn against a red signal, I don't see how that turn could be considered "protected". In the traditional sense, yes, red arrow/green arrow = protected only, and green ball/FYA = permitted turn, but a red light that permits turns on red is not only "permissive", it's more permissive than traditional left turns, because turns can be made no matter what the display is.

For example, this left turn can be made during the "yield on green" phase, the green left arrow phase, and the red orb phase. Obviously permissive. But what about with dedicated signals w/o a "permissive" (read: green orb/FYA) phase? At these types of intersections, you can still turn during the red phase, as it's onto a one-way street. And, of course, you also turn during the green arrow phase. Because left turns can still be made at a driver's discretion, in a sense, it's still a permissive turn.

Pretty much every right turn is a permissive turn, as you don't need to wait for a green light. I think you would agree that a fully-protected right turn would be one where you must wait for a green arrow. I don't see how that's any different than left turns that can be made on red: in neither case must a driver wait for a green light.

[fwydriver405]

If we're counting LTOR between one-ways as "permissive" (which it isn't), then there are more examples all along the Greenway in Boston.

Sudbury St @ Cross St: https://goo.gl/maps/sArJSpC1nUEs2Zs37
Milk St @ Atlantic Ave: https://goo.gl/maps/sArJSpC1nUEs2Zs37
India St @ Surface Rd: https://goo.gl/maps/2vLLz357WL8SRXEx5
High St @ Atlantic Ave: https://goo.gl/maps/HDR84m6ynSXYDAM5A
Pearl St @ Purchase St: https://goo.gl/maps/ZV1NYtBFa1qHm597A

And elsewhere in the city:
Albany St @ Traveler St: https://goo.gl/maps/djqoMivVe89FKoWm8
Dartmouth St @ Huntington Ave: https://goo.gl/maps/enTmFGUsrog2E7KH9
Arlington St @ Boylston St: https://goo.gl/maps/ug4gTjVZLEPcz4GE8

The odds of anyone actually turning left on red at any of these is slim to none though, as no one around here seems to actually know it's legal (a coworker of mine even got pulled over for it once).

And two more in Somerville as well:

Main and Beacham Street (new installation): Streetview


Medford St and MA 28: Streetview

[jakeroot]

Actually, I think I may need back up a bit. Ideally, these double left turns would need to have either something in front of them to yield to, or something to the left. If it's just "pull up, look right, and go", maybe it's permissive in my book, but it doesn't really fit the idea of this thread. Which was more to highlight double left turns that have to yield to something coming towards them, not necessarily something coming from the right.

Sorry for the late clarification.

[roadfro]

I don't think a turn counts as fully protected, unless you have to wait for a green arrow. If these double left turns in Boston do not require you to wait for a green arrow, then I don't see why they wouldn't count as a double permissive left turn. Besides that, it's my thread, and I make the rules. So there.

In practice, protected and permitted turning modes are referring to the phase of the traffic signal in which vehicles can make a left turn, and how that phase interact with other active phases. It's really only describing the operation of the green or flashing yellow/red intervals that allow the turn manuever–legal turns made during the red interval after a stop doesn't make a particular turning movement permitted.

I'm not sure I would agree with that. If you are legally permitted to turn against a red signal, I don't see how that turn could be considered "protected". In the traditional sense, yes, red arrow/green arrow = protected only, and green ball/FYA = permitted turn, but a red light that permits turns on red is not only "permissive", it's more permissive than traditional left turns, because turns can be made no matter what the display is.

For example, this left turn can be made during the "yield on green" phase, the green left arrow phase, and the red orb phase. Obviously permissive. But what about with dedicated signals w/o a "permissive" (read: green orb/FYA) phase? At these types of intersections, you can still turn during the red phase, as it's onto a one-way street. And, of course, you also turn during the green arrow phase. Because left turns can still be made at a driver's discretion, in a sense, it's still a permissive turn.

Pretty much every right turn is a permissive turn, as you don't need to wait for a green light. I think you would agree that a fully-protected right turn would be one where you must wait for a green arrow. I don't see how that's any different than left turns that can be made on red: in neither case must a driver wait for a green light.

Jake, you're mixing terms of traffic signal control with what the law allows drivers to do on certain indications.

For reference, here's MUTCD definitions from section 1A.13:

144. Permissive Mode–a mode of traffic control signal operation in which left or right turns are permitted to be made after yielding to pedestrians, if any, and/or opposing traffic, if any. When a CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication is displayed, both left and right turns are permitted unless otherwise prohibited by another traffic control device. When a flashing YELLOW ARROW or flashing RED ARROW signal indication is displayed, the turn indicated by the arrow is permitted.
160. Protected Mode–a mode of traffic control signal operation in which left or right turns are permitted to be made when a left or right GREEN ARROW signal indication is displayed.

Another reference, the first version of the Traffic Signal Timing Manual on FHWA's website. Chapter 4.3 discusses left turn operation:

4.3.1 Permissive Only Left-Turn Phasing
Permissive only operation requires left-turning drivers to yield to the conflicting vehicle and pedestrian traffic streams before completing the turn. In the permissive mode, the left-turn movement is served concurrently with the adjacent through movement. Both the left turn and the opposing through movements are presented with a circular green indication. Thus, in this left turn display option, a green arrow is never provided. ...
4.3.2 Protected Only Left-Turn Phasing
Protected only operation assigns the right-of-way to drivers turning left at the intersection and allows turns to be made only on a green arrow display. This operation provides for efficient left-turn movement service; however, the added left-turn phase increases the lost time within the cycle length and may increase delay to the other movements. An exclusive left-turn lane is typically provided with this phasing as shown in Figure 4-7. The left-turn phase is indicated by a green arrow signal indication. This type operation is recognized to provide the safest left-turn operation. ...

A protected movement is one where the signal has assigned right of way to that movement, "protecting" it (in a sense) from conflicts with other movements in the intersection. Permitted turns are made during an adjacent circular green phase that has right of way, after yielding to other traffic/pedestrians that also have right of way. So a NB protected left turn is assigned the right of way during its signal phase, protecting it from conflicting oncoming and cross traffic (as well as conflicting pedestrian crossings)–but a SB right turn on red at the same time is not considered a permitted movement (even though it may be legal to do so) because SB traffic does not have right of way during that phase.

[stevashe]

I think you've identified some key issues about implementing some of these suggestions I had made.  I never suggested changing the effect of the laws onto the PNW (or onto the very restrictive northeastern states) would be easy or cheap, it's just that it is so important that the driving laws be made uniform, with exceptions signed on an intersection by intersection basis.

Of course, the best course of action would be replacement with the 4 aspect FYA signal - which generally seem to be capable of signalling for multiple scenarios.

What I haven't considered is the possibility of alerting local authorities to this law. I genuinely believe that engineers, locally, don't realize how liberal left turn laws actually are around here. Perhaps I could encourage WSDOT to study the possibility of using flashing red arrows at some on-ramps? Not sure how receptive they might be to that, but it beats the law changing without any modification to the traffic control infrastructure.

So I was aware that left turns on red were allowed from two-way streets in Washington and a few other states before finding this forum, but I hadn't considered the possibility that freeway ramps could count as a "one-way street". When I saw people discussing such a possibility on the forum, I remained a bit dubious since that seemed equivalent to arguing that turning left on red to a divided highway (with a large median) would be allowed if you were waiting at a light in the median, which I'm fairly sure would not count. I also had never seen anyone perform this movement, which made me question the idea further.

However, after paying specific attention at on-ramps, I did manage to see someone do it at the exit nearest my house, so I decided to see if I could research a definitive answer to this. I came up with this article, where the answer to the reporter's inquiry to the Washington State Patrol was that left turns onto freeway on-ramps are not allowed. So regardless of what the intent of the law is, WSP's interpretation seems to be that such movements are not allowed.

Although, the quote in the article also states "freeway on-ramps are not considered one-way streets unless marked as such" which just makes me then wonder what such a marking would be? If it's only one-way signs, then many ramps would still qualify as lots of ramps do have them.

[jakeroot]

I think you've identified some key issues about implementing some of these suggestions I had made.  I never suggested changing the effect of the laws onto the PNW (or onto the very restrictive northeastern states) would be easy or cheap, it's just that it is so important that the driving laws be made uniform, with exceptions signed on an intersection by intersection basis.

Of course, the best course of action would be replacement with the 4 aspect FYA signal - which generally seem to be capable of signalling for multiple scenarios.

What I haven't considered is the possibility of alerting local authorities to this law. I genuinely believe that engineers, locally, don't realize how liberal left turn laws actually are around here. Perhaps I could encourage WSDOT to study the possibility of using flashing red arrows at some on-ramps? Not sure how receptive they might be to that, but it beats the law changing without any modification to the traffic control infrastructure.

So I was aware that left turns on red were allowed from two-way streets in Washington and a few other states before finding this forum, but I hadn't considered the possibility that freeway ramps could count as a "one-way street". When I saw people discussing such a possibility on the forum, I remained a bit dubious since that seemed equivalent to arguing that turning left on red to a divided highway (with a large median) would be allowed if you were waiting at a light in the median, which I'm fairly sure would not count. I also had never seen anyone perform this movement, which made me question the idea further.

However, after paying specific attention at on-ramps, I did manage to see someone do it at the exit nearest my house, so I decided to see if I could research a definitive answer to this. I came up with this article, where the answer to the reporter's inquiry to the Washington State Patrol was that left turns onto freeway on-ramps are not allowed. So regardless of what the intent of the law is, WSP's interpretation seems to be that such movements are not allowed.

Although, the quote in the article also states "freeway on-ramps are not considered one-way streets unless marked as such" which just makes me then wonder what such a marking would be? If it's only one-way signs, then many ramps would still qualify as lots of ramps do have them.

As the article states, that is simply one of several interpretations that I've seen over the years. For every article that comes out against the maneuver, there's another that comes out in favor.

My instinct is that the law does not reasonably differ between "streets" and other types of roadways for any ticket to stick. For the record, I have performed the maneuver around police, mostly to test my interpretation, and have not been pulled over. RCW 47.04.010 provides the definition of "highways": "Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns". Because those smaller, individual terms are not defined elsewhere in the RCW, any reference to those rights-of-way should be considered "highways" (so streets = highways, boulevards = highways, etc).

According to that article, "An on-ramp is considered a designated part of the freeway". But what part of the RCW supports that assertion? I see no indication in the law that would prohibit the movement onto any one-way roads just because they're part of a "highway" or "freeway". Plus there is no reference to the term "freeway" except as defined for use on signage (WAC 468-70-020). She says that "on-ramps do not fit under the RCW 46.61.055 (section 3-c) that allows drivers to take a left after stopping at a light onto a one-way street". Yet, there is no indication in that RCW that there would be any situations where it would not apply, except when "a sign posted by competent authority prohibits such movement". I don't even see the term "on ramp" in the RCW, so how would drivers be able to assume that any one-way stretch of pavement is anything but a "one way street"?

Yeah, I'm going to keep doing it. RCW 46.61.135, which defines one-way streets, indicates that it must be marked by "official traffic control device", which include "all signs, signals, markings and devices" (RCW 46.04.611). If the markings make it clear that it's a one-way street, I don't need a sign to make it legal.

[jeffandnicole]

I think you've identified some key issues about implementing some of these suggestions I had made.  I never suggested changing the effect of the laws onto the PNW (or onto the very restrictive northeastern states) would be easy or cheap, it's just that it is so important that the driving laws be made uniform, with exceptions signed on an intersection by intersection basis.

Of course, the best course of action would be replacement with the 4 aspect FYA signal - which generally seem to be capable of signalling for multiple scenarios.

What I haven't considered is the possibility of alerting local authorities to this law. I genuinely believe that engineers, locally, don't realize how liberal left turn laws actually are around here. Perhaps I could encourage WSDOT to study the possibility of using flashing red arrows at some on-ramps? Not sure how receptive they might be to that, but it beats the law changing without any modification to the traffic control infrastructure.

So I was aware that left turns on red were allowed from two-way streets in Washington and a few other states before finding this forum, but I hadn't considered the possibility that freeway ramps could count as a "one-way street". When I saw people discussing such a possibility on the forum, I remained a bit dubious since that seemed equivalent to arguing that turning left on red to a divided highway (with a large median) would be allowed if you were waiting at a light in the median, which I'm fairly sure would not count. I also had never seen anyone perform this movement, which made me question the idea further.

However, after paying specific attention at on-ramps, I did manage to see someone do it at the exit nearest my house, so I decided to see if I could research a definitive answer to this. I came up with this article, where the answer to the reporter's inquiry to the Washington State Patrol was that left turns onto freeway on-ramps are not allowed. So regardless of what the intent of the law is, WSP's interpretation seems to be that such movements are not allowed.

Although, the quote in the article also states "freeway on-ramps are not considered one-way streets unless marked as such" which just makes me then wonder what such a marking would be? If it's only one-way signs, then many ramps would still qualify as lots of ramps do have them.

Never take an article written by some journalist who barely rolls out of bed to write their stories as fact (no, seriously - they will sit at home and write up their story on their iPhone while making a few phone calls.  That's being a journalist today).

Check out this line within the article: "They said they would pull a drive over if they saw this," .  How does someone pull over a drive?  This hack of a reporter is what you're basing your opinion on?

The only real source of the law, believe it or not, isn't the State Police.  It's the judges who make the decisions, and the lawmakers who wrote the law.  This newspaper didn't even use the State Police.  They used a communications CONSULTANT to the state police.  Basically, they talked to someone who works with numerous different companies on any given day, and probably had very little knowledge of police policies and the intent of the law.  Or, very likely, they talked to a high school friend that had some sort of job that sounded like it was important and knowledgeable.

Heck, even the journalist said that he read another source that contradicted his own source, but overruled it himself based on that there was no source listed.  Couldn't even be bothered to contact his media friends to locate the source.

I would ignore this communications consultant's theory on what is a one way street.  Later today, she'll probably be a communications consultant on which Halloween candy to buy that has fewer calories. 

[stevashe]

Never take an article written by some journalist who barely rolls out of bed to write their stories as fact (no, seriously - they will sit at home and write up their story on their iPhone while making a few phone calls.  That's being a journalist today).

You Clearly haven't done a very close reading of the article from what you've said here.

Check out this line within the article: "They said they would pull a drive over if they saw this," .  How does someone pull over a drive?  This hack of a reporter is what you're basing your opinion on?

It's a one letter typo, come on. And it's quote from a reader question, so it probably wasn't even written by the reporter. Sure the reporter could have fixed the reader's typo I guess but I still don't think that says anything about the reporter's skills!

The only real source of the law, believe it or not, isn't the State Police.  It's the judges who make the decisions, and the lawmakers who wrote the law.  This newspaper didn't even use the State Police.  They used a communications CONSULTANT to the state police.  Basically, they talked to someone who works with numerous different companies on any given day, and probably had very little knowledge of police policies and the intent of the law.  Or, very likely, they talked to a high school friend that had some sort of job that sounded like it was important and knowledgeable.

Again you seem not to have read the article very closely. The reporter reached out to a contact at WSP, and they got back to him through a communications consultant. If you're upset about such a consultant being used, you should be mad at WSP, not the reporter.

And you are correct that the judge would be the ultimate authority to interpret the law, but it is the police who actually enforce it, my main point is that you should expect to potentially be pulled over.

Heck, even the journalist said that he read another source that contradicted his own source, but overruled it himself based on that there was no source listed.  Couldn't even be bothered to contact his media friends to locate the source.

Again you've missed something. He actually contacted his source again because of the contradiction, and that source "kicked it up to headquarters", who then got back to him through the communications consultant.

Also Jake, I'd advise against bringing this up to WSDOT. From my limited interactions with them I'd expect them to sooner put up "No Turn on Red" signs at every on-ramp in the state than put in any red flashing arrows. They made a big fuss over us putting in a curb on the centerline of Lake City Way (we were working for SDOT) which technically reduced the lane width 6 inches below their standard (even though it takes up the exact same space as the double yellow line already there, and it's not like that's typically driven on). They just wouldn't let it go and got almost hysterical at any rational arguments for it, it was a bit strange.

[jakeroot]

Alright, here's further evidence that the story needs to be ignored:

1) The RCW on "Traffic control signal legends" (46.61.055) uses the term "street" in all references to left and right turns on red. So is it also not legal to turn right on red, onto any sort of highway infrastructure, because they're not "streets"?? fuck off...

vehicle operators facing a steady circular red/steady red arrow signal may, after stopping proceed to make a right turn from a one-way or two-way street into a two-way street or into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn; or a left turn from a one-way or two-way street into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn

If LTOR isn't legal onto an on-ramp, then, by the book, neither are right turns.

2) This left turn in Vancouver, onto an on-ramp, is marked with "no turn on red" signs, implying that the maneuver would be legal without the signs. Why would WSDOT install this sign, if the turn is illegal anyways?

Also Jake, I'd advise against bringing this up to WSDOT. From my limited interactions with them I'd expect them to sooner put up "No Turn on Red" signs at every on-ramp in the state than put in any red flashing arrows.

Based on my above image, I think WSDOT may be well-aware of the law. They just keep quiet about it.

[US 89]

2) This left turn in Vancouver, onto an on-ramp, is marked with "no turn on red" signs, implying that the maneuver would be legal without the signs. Why would WSDOT install this sign, if the turn is illegal anyways?

That by itself doesn't mean a whole lot to me - WSDOT could just be playing it safe. As another example of this practice: in Utah you can't turn right at a red arrow, but almost all the red right arrows I know of are accompanied by a redundant NTOR sign, probably for the benefit of those who aren't aware that the movement is illegal anyway.

[jakeroot]

2) This left turn in Vancouver, onto an on-ramp, is marked with "no turn on red" signs, implying that the maneuver would be legal without the signs. Why would WSDOT install this sign, if the turn is illegal anyways?

That by itself doesn't mean a whole lot to me - WSDOT could just be playing it safe. As another example of this practice: in Utah you can't turn right at a red arrow, but almost all the red right arrows I know of are accompanied by a redundant NTOR sign, probably for the benefit of those who aren't aware that the movement is illegal anyway.

But remember that it would be legal without the sign. The sign is not redundant, even if WSDOT thought [momentarily] that it was. There's also no other examples of this sign, in this kind of situation (left turn onto a freeway ramp) anywhere else in the state, that I can recall. Or probably anywhere else in the country, that I can recall anyways. If they wanted to be redundant here, why not anywhere else?

[doorknob60]

2) This left turn in Vancouver, onto an on-ramp, is marked with "no turn on red" signs, implying that the maneuver would be legal without the signs. Why would WSDOT install this sign, if the turn is illegal anyways?

That by itself doesn’t mean a whole lot to me - WSDOT could just be playing it safe. As another example of this practice: in Utah you can’t turn right at a red arrow, but almost all the red right arrows I know of are accompanied by a redundant NTOR sign, probably for the benefit of those who aren’t aware that the movement is illegal anyway.

But remember that it would be legal without the sign. The sign is not redundant, even if WSDOT thought [momentarily] that it was. There's also no other examples of this sign, in this kind of situation (left turn onto a freeway ramp) anywhere else in the state, that I can recall. Or probably anywhere else in the country, that I can recall anyways. If they wanted to be redundant here, why not anywhere else?

I agree with everything you're saying and agree with your interpretation of the law, but I did find a redundant "no left on red" sign, from a two way street (though at its end at a T, and not a freeway ramp, for what it's worth), in Boise, ID. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6199959,-116.2265304,3a,75y,160.97h,86.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdy6V6BkaGQ0KjaXjxgQfJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It used to be allowed there (signal on the left lane was a red ball; the turn was actually banned from the right lane, see here), then they changed it to all red arrows (which bans the movement in Idaho, I'm aware it doesn't ban it in WA and OR) and later put up the signs, which are technically redundant. Though Idaho usually puts up signs in addition when red arrows are banning otherwise allowed turns (usually right turn on red).

[fwydriver405]

Would this count as a permissive double left turn? Found this in Brunswick ME driving back from Orono yesterday...

Maine Street to US-1 North on-ramp in Brunswick, Maine

Flashing red arrows for the double left turns, and flashing yellow balls for the thru directions. There is no stop bar at this intersection and the left turning drivers treat it like a flashing yellow arrow...

[kphoger]

Would this count as a permissive double left turn? Found this in Brunswick ME driving back from Orono yesterday...

Maine Street to US-1 North on-ramp in Brunswick, Maine

Flashing red arrows for the double left turns, and flashing yellow balls for the thru directions. There is no stop bar at this intersection and the left turning drivers treat it like a flashing yellow arrow...

That is weeeeeeeeird!