Has the flashing yellow left turn signal made it to your state?

[jakeroot]

Actually jakeroot, we're probably thinking of the same one at Exit-43 on the L.I.E. It's on S. Oyster Bay Rd. northbound right on top of the Expressway overpass controlling left turns from S.O.B. Rd. into the westbound Expwy. Service Road. I can't recall any others off hand but that one still exists. And BTW, that was installed by Nassau County DPW, not NYS DOT. As a general rule, NCDPW more commonly uses protected/permitted than NYS DOT does.

Ahh, yes, thank you. That's the famous one.

There's some more permissive double left action at the LIE and Kissena Blvd, although it involves an option lane plus a 4-section lagging green arrow (as far as I can tell). Still cool!

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

Actually jakeroot, we're probably thinking of the same one at Exit-43 on the L.I.E. It's on S. Oyster Bay Rd. northbound right on top of the Expressway overpass controlling left turns from S.O.B. Rd. into the westbound Expwy. Service Road. I can't recall any others off hand but that one still exists. And BTW, that was installed by Nassau County DPW, not NYS DOT. As a general rule, NCDPW more commonly uses protected/permitted than NYS DOT does.

Ahh, yes, thank you. That's the famous one.

There's some more permissive double left action at the LIE and Kissena Blvd, although it involves an option lane plus a 4-section lagging green arrow (as far as I can tell). Still cool!

There is the same setup at the LIE and 108th St; one left turn lane, one option lane, and one thru lane in each direction. Except that lagging FYAs (full FYAs, not a 3 section) replaced the 4-stacks previously used.

[mrsman]

Actually jakeroot, we're probably thinking of the same one at Exit-43 on the L.I.E. It's on S. Oyster Bay Rd. northbound right on top of the Expressway overpass controlling left turns from S.O.B. Rd. into the westbound Expwy. Service Road. I can't recall any others off hand but that one still exists. And BTW, that was installed by Nassau County DPW, not NYS DOT. As a general rule, NCDPW more commonly uses protected/permitted than NYS DOT does.

Ahh, yes, thank you. That's the famous one.

There's some more permissive double left action at the LIE and Kissena Blvd, although it involves an option lane plus a 4-section lagging green arrow (as far as I can tell). Still cool!

There is the same setup at the LIE and 108th St; one left turn lane, one option lane, and one thru lane in each direction. Except that lagging FYAs (full FYAs, not a 3 section) replaced the 4-stacks previously used.

Those examples in Queens are ingenious.  There is no reason to prohibit the permissive double left, because the opposing traffic cannot turn left.  Opposing lefts usually pose a block in visibility, but they are not present here because of the one-way on-ramps.

Also, given the lefts, that lack opposing lefts, it is also safe (and preferred) to use lagging lefts, since no yellow trap would be present.  Left turns from both lanes can filter during green orb and get a protected signal at the end of the cycle.  It is especially important when using the option lane as any straight traffic behind a left turner would be able to go at the end of the cycle to clear the intersection.

And I also give credit for NYC for choosing to implement the option lane in the first place.  As this is a tight diamond interchange, it would be common that there are many cars turning left onto the freeway from both directions.  The single left turn lane is not enough, and if that were implemented there would be a long line of cars that would block the thru lane anyway.  By doing it this way, they can improve the throughput to allow two lanes onto the on-ramp (or the frontage road as in this particular case), fewer vehicles blocking the flow of traffic.

I think something like this would be a boon to anyplace with tight diamonds (or tight implementation of parclo b4s and other interchanges that rely heavily on opposing left turns) and should be implemented more broadly, whenever traffic routinely exceeds the capacity of the left turn pockets.

[jakeroot]

Actually jakeroot, we're probably thinking of the same one at Exit-43 on the L.I.E. It's on S. Oyster Bay Rd. northbound right on top of the Expressway overpass controlling left turns from S.O.B. Rd. into the westbound Expwy. Service Road. I can't recall any others off hand but that one still exists. And BTW, that was installed by Nassau County DPW, not NYS DOT. As a general rule, NCDPW more commonly uses protected/permitted than NYS DOT does.

Ahh, yes, thank you. That's the famous one.

There's some more permissive double left action at the LIE and Kissena Blvd, although it involves an option lane plus a 4-section lagging green arrow (as far as I can tell). Still cool!

There is the same setup at the LIE and 108th St; one left turn lane, one option lane, and one thru lane in each direction. Except that lagging FYAs (full FYAs, not a 3 section) replaced the 4-stacks previously used.

interesting. Flashing yellow arrows are usually supposed to be reserved for dedicated turn lanes. That said, I have seen them used for option lanes, as part of a 5-section display. I think it was Minnesota or Wisconsin that first did that. Do you happen to have any photos of the set-up? I can see it's not on street view.

[Big John]

interesting. Flashing yellow arrows are usually supposed to be reserved for dedicated turn lanes. That said, I have seen them used for option lanes, as part of a 5-section display. I think it was Minnesota or Wisconsin that first did that.

It was Minnesota who first did that.

[jakeroot]

interesting. Flashing yellow arrows are usually supposed to be reserved for dedicated turn lanes. That said, I have seen them used for option lanes, as part of a 5-section display. I think it was Minnesota or Wisconsin that first did that.

It was Minnesota who first did that.

I was thinking that. This one in Eden Prairie, IIRC.

There are some older ones in Eau Claire, WI as well. This one at Farwell & Galloway, for instance. Though unlike the Minnesota example, this one does not have two left turn lanes.

This double left in Seattle has two regular flashing yellow arrow displays, next to two green orb displays. Not exactly a great setup, but the FYA does lag so there's no bizarre interim red phase that may create a conflict.

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

There is the same setup at the LIE and 108th St; one left turn lane, one option lane, and one thru lane in each direction. Except that lagging FYAs (full FYAs, not a 3 section) replaced the 4-stacks previously used.

interesting. Flashing yellow arrows are usually supposed to be reserved for dedicated turn lanes. That said, I have seen them used for option lanes, as part of a 5-section display. I think it was Minnesota or Wisconsin that first did that. Do you happen to have any photos of the set-up? I can see it's not on street view.

It was put in earlier this year, so it is not yet on streetview. The setup looks like the streetview example linked below, except the pole mounted FYA is on the farside of the intersection. The hung FYA is over the left lane and not the option lane.

I think FYAs were put in as replacements due to high pedestrian traffic and proximity to a school, along with the high volumes of turning traffic vs thru traffic. Quite often the option lane is used only for left turns.

Example of a similar but bidirectional setup on Staten Island with no option lane and a true lagging operation
https://maps.app.goo.gl/u6D4EwZ4RHs4ehA56

https://youtu.be/x9w5iwcZGJg

[fwydriver405]

A newly installed Flashing Yellow Arrow doghouse in San Jose, California was installed at the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Henry Avenue intersection in September 2018.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/04/san-jose-testing-first-flashing-yellow-left-turn-signals-roadshow/

[jakeroot]

It was put in earlier this year, so it is not yet on streetview. The setup looks like the streetview example linked below, except the pole mounted FYA is on the farside of the intersection. The hung FYA is over the left lane and not the option lane.

I think FYAs were put in as replacements due to high pedestrian traffic and proximity to a school, along with the high volumes of turning traffic vs thru traffic. Quite often the option lane is used only for left turns.

Example of a similar but bidirectional setup on Staten Island with no option lane and a true lagging operation
https://maps.app.goo.gl/u6D4EwZ4RHs4ehA56

https://youtu.be/x9w5iwcZGJg

Thank you for the link. Those NYC flashing yellow arrows are so...boutique!

A newly installed Flashing Yellow Arrow doghouse in San Jose, California was installed at the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Henry Avenue intersection in September 2018.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/04/san-jose-testing-first-flashing-yellow-left-turn-signals-roadshow/

Street View: https://goo.gl/maps/bfmf1oqxET7Wy2RK9

As far as I can tell, the left turns have to yield to traffic turning right, who is also yielding to the crosswalk (so they're kind of a way off to the right). I guess that's how it should be, but for some reason, it seems like a strange setup. I would have assumed that left turns would have a green orb, with right turns having to yield to everyone (peds & cars), but I guess that's actually more unusual.

OT: really remarkable how conservative some Bay Area cities are with left turn phasing. San Jose is apparently looking at this left turn as a study, to see if it will work anywhere else. Yet, aren't there (probably) hundreds of existing studies from other cities? I don't see why they need to do their own study. There are other cities in CA that have more widely adopted the flashing yellow arrow. They should talk to them about their experiences. IMO, they should install like 10 at various types of intersections, and see how they compare. I feel like a study of one intersection doesn't allow for individual nuances.

[mrsman]

A newly installed Flashing Yellow Arrow doghouse in San Jose, California was installed at the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Henry Avenue intersection in September 2018.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/04/san-jose-testing-first-flashing-yellow-left-turn-signals-roadshow/

Street View: https://goo.gl/maps/bfmf1oqxET7Wy2RK9

As far as I can tell, the left turns have to yield to traffic turning right, who is also yielding to the crosswalk (so they're kind of a way off to the right). I guess that's how it should be, but for some reason, it seems like a strange setup. I would have assumed that left turns would have a green orb, with right turns having to yield to everyone (peds & cars), but I guess that's actually more unusual.

OT: really remarkable how conservative some Bay Area cities are with left turn phasing. San Jose is apparently looking at this left turn as a study, to see if it will work anywhere else. Yet, aren't there (probably) hundreds of existing studies from other cities? I don't see why they need to do their own study. There are other cities in CA that have more widely adopted the flashing yellow arrow. They should talk to them about their experiences. IMO, they should install like 10 at various types of intersections, and see how they compare. I feel like a study of one intersection doesn't allow for individual nuances.

The signal in San Jose if fairly new as GSV in 2018 shows that the minor street was controlled by stop signs.

This intersection in San Jose is an intersection at a "broken grid".  For whatever reason, it is fairly common in Los Angeles.  Essentially, a minor street has a slight jog as it crosses the bigger street.  To some extent, it is almost like having two very closely spaced intersections with one minor street going north and one minor street going south.

There are several ways of signalling a broken grid jog.  One possibility is that this is a decent candidate for split-phasing.  IMO, that would be the safest signallization for something like this.

It seems that traffic on Henry must turn onto SC.  They should make that more clear with a "no straight" sign.  Not sure if it's legal in California, but the sign is helfpul as shown here (Georgia/Bonifant in Silver Spring, MD):

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9934146,-77.0266341,3a,75y,240.9h,90.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-uYfvbaX85b_He4ecNHCkw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Another possibility is to give protected lefts at the same time as pedestrian crossings.  Look at this intersection, Linden Dr & Wilshire Blvd in Beverly Hills, CA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.06696,-118.407862,3a,75y,7.37h,81.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKktQ5SnO_gRDR3i2H5H-3A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

At the beginning of the cycle, both directions of Linden see a green left arrow at the same time as pedestrians can cross.  The left turns do not interfere with each other nor do they interfere at all with the pedestrians. Then a yellow arrow and then green orbs, while the pedestrians are still crossing.  Like other green signals, right turns must yield to peds.  Due to the islands in the street, there is no possibility for any traffic to go straight across, which would be bad since they'd go straight across the line of pedestrians as well.

RTOR is permitted here, so right turns can occur at all times, yielding to Wilshire traffic for most of the cycle, yielding to peds and left turners during the green arrow, and yielding only to peds during green orb.

So to address Henry/SC, I'd do something similar. 
Green left arrows, red orb, ped walk
Yellow left arrows, red orb, ped walk
Flashing yellow left arrows, flashing yellow right arrows, FDW*
Solid yellow left arrow, solid yellow right arrow, steady don't walk
Red left arrow, flashing red right arrow.

* During this phase, I hope that it is clear that the left turners are to yield to right turners, to the extant that they conflict.  [Since it follows the protected left, it may be a signal to them that they do not have the ROW, even though there is no apparent conflict.]  Right turners do not have the ROW (they must yield to peds present) but they have priority over the left turners.  Of course, as said by others, in the European system, no conflict as the left turners turn into left lane and right turners turn into right lane, and SC is three lanes wide in each direction here.

[Amtrakprod]

A newly installed Flashing Yellow Arrow doghouse in San Jose, California was installed at the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Henry Avenue intersection in September 2018.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/04/san-jose-testing-first-flashing-yellow-left-turn-signals-roadshow/

I love flashing yellow arrows more than JakeRoot lmao, but that's not a spot for them IMO, the odd angles of that intersection where you can barely see oncoming traffic is a spot that needs split phasing. I know split phasing is very unpopular in this group overall but it only makes sense here IMO.


iPhone

[roadfro]

A newly installed Flashing Yellow Arrow doghouse in San Jose, California was installed at the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Henry Avenue intersection in September 2018.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/04/san-jose-testing-first-flashing-yellow-left-turn-signals-roadshow/

I love flashing yellow arrows more than JakeRoot lmao, but that's not a spot for them IMO, the odd angles of that intersection where you can barely see oncoming traffic is a spot that needs split phasing. I know split phasing is very unpopular in this group overall but it only makes sense here IMO.

I'm thinking split phasing was not used and the FYA works here because the intersection is relatively low volume. The south leg of Henry Ave is a dead-end street, so there's not a whole lot of traffic coming from that direction. The north leg connects to residential streets, with the neighborhood having several other exits to major streets. I'd almost think the signal is there more for a pedestrian crossing than side street access.

[jakeroot]

A newly installed Flashing Yellow Arrow doghouse in San Jose, California was installed at the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Henry Avenue intersection in September 2018.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/04/san-jose-testing-first-flashing-yellow-left-turn-signals-roadshow/

I love flashing yellow arrows more than JakeRoot lmao, but that's not a spot for them IMO, the odd angles of that intersection where you can barely see oncoming traffic is a spot that needs split phasing. I know split phasing is very unpopular in this group overall but it only makes sense here IMO.

I'm thinking split phasing was not used and the FYA works here because the intersection is relatively low volume. The south leg of Henry Ave is a dead-end street, so there's not a whole lot of traffic coming from that direction. The north leg connects to residential streets, with the neighborhood having several other exits to major streets. I'd almost think the signal is there more for a pedestrian crossing than side street access.

Oh, without any doubt. The old intersection was two stop signs, on either side of a massive (certainly unsafe) zebra crossing. The new intersection is built entirely around that crossing. I think it works perfectly well, as unusual as the setup may be. Since there is no "through" traffic (everyone must turn), there's only two vehicular conflict points (where left turns must yield to traffic turning right across the crosswalk). Should be perfectly fine.

A version of this crosswalk that permits through movements is in use in Seattle, at Queen Anne Ave & Roy St. Queen Anne Ave is fully permissive, but Roy Street has a rather unusual movement. During the crossing phase, the left turns can proceed, but the right turns have red arrows (and NTOR blankout signs). After the crossing phase ends, the right turns can proceed while the left turns have red arrows (to allow traffic to then turn left immediately, to follow along Roy). Three phase intersection; very efficient, in my experience.

Another possibility is to give protected lefts at the same time as pedestrian crossings.  Look at this intersection, Linden Dr & Wilshire Blvd in Beverly Hills, CA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.06696,-118.407862,3a,75y,7.37h,81.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKktQ5SnO_gRDR3i2H5H-3A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

At the beginning of the cycle, both directions of Linden see a green left arrow at the same time as pedestrians can cross.  The left turns do not interfere with each other nor do they interfere at all with the pedestrians. Then a yellow arrow and then green orbs, while the pedestrians are still crossing.  Like other green signals, right turns must yield to peds.  Due to the islands in the street, there is no possibility for any traffic to go straight across, which would be bad since they'd go straight across the line of pedestrians as well.

RTOR is permitted here, so right turns can occur at all times, yielding to Wilshire traffic for most of the cycle, yielding to peds and left turners during the green arrow, and yielding only to peds during green orb.

The signal I posted above (in Seattle) is very similar to this, although it does not allow right turns to yield to pedestrians. This setup seems perfectly adequate, though.

Flashing yellow left arrows, flashing yellow right arrows, FDW*

* During this phase, I hope that it is clear that the left turners are to yield to right turners, to the extant that they conflict.  [Since it follows the protected left, it may be a signal to them that they do not have the ROW, even though there is no apparent conflict.]  Right turners do not have the ROW (they must yield to peds present) but they have priority over the left turners.  Of course, as said by others, in the European system, no conflict as the left turners turn into left lane and right turners turn into right lane, and SC is three lanes wide in each direction here.

(sorry to clip...trying to shorten my post)...What you describe as the "European system" is actually the system utilized by most US states. WA for example. Many Canadian provinces as well (if not all). I think when you take into account the low traffic volumes, and the number of lanes along Stevens Creek, I think both the left and right turns can proceed simultaneously without much of any conflict, assuming traffic at least attempts to stay in their lane. My one reservation with that suggestion, would be how far the median injects itself into the intersection. Sharper turns seem to result in more cars turning into the middle or right lanes, because the nearest lane is an uncomfortably-sharp maneuver. If they pulled the median back, that may encourage more cars to turn into the near lane (even if it's not the law).

[mrsman]

Flashing yellow left arrows, flashing yellow right arrows, FDW*

* During this phase, I hope that it is clear that the left turners are to yield to right turners, to the extant that they conflict.  [Since it follows the protected left, it may be a signal to them that they do not have the ROW, even though there is no apparent conflict.]  Right turners do not have the ROW (they must yield to peds present) but they have priority over the left turners.  Of course, as said by others, in the European system, no conflict as the left turners turn into left lane and right turners turn into right lane, and SC is three lanes wide in each direction here.

(sorry to clip...trying to shorten my post)...What you describe as the "European system" is actually the system utilized by most US states. WA for example. Many Canadian provinces as well (if not all). I think when you take into account the low traffic volumes, and the number of lanes along Stevens Creek, I think both the left and right turns can proceed simultaneously without much of any conflict, assuming traffic at least attempts to stay in their lane. My one reservation with that suggestion, would be how far the median injects itself into the intersection. Sharper turns seem to result in more cars turning into the middle or right lanes, because the nearest lane is an uncomfortably-sharp maneuver. If they pulled the median back, that may encourage more cars to turn into the near lane (even if it's not the law).

As with many fine points of driving that we discuss here, especially in Traffic Control, we know that with 50 states, the rules aren't always the same from state to state.  [e.g. right turn on red arrow, LTOR onto one-way streets]

https://driversed.com/driving-information/driving-techniques/making-right-and-left-turns.aspx


While it is probably a good idea to require turning into the closest lane practical (to allow left turns and opposing right turns to turn onto multi-lane streets without conflict), that is not universally the law.  In particular, AFAIK based on taking the CA driving test 25 years ago, CA requires right turns into the closest lane, but doesn't require left turns into the closest lane.  The left turn and the right turn would thus be in conflict with each other here, even if it's possible for the cars to easily avoid each other, given the width of Stevens Creek Blvd.  This is why the left turns do not see a green arrow.  It is not a protected left turn, given the potential for conflict with the opposing right turn.

In jurisdictions where turns must be completed into the closest lane, and the cross street is sufficiently wide, it is not unheard of to see a protected green left arrow opposite a protected green right arrow - although admittedly the situation would be really rare (and may not be a good idea because some cars may be encouraged to turn wide given they have a protected turn as signified with the green arrow.)  I know of two examples of this.

1) Union Turnpike and Queens Blvd in Kew Gardens, Queens, NY:  While I haven't been able to capture a GSV with the left turn and right turn at the same time, I know this can happen.*  Given NYC's no RTOR law, the large number of peds crossing here (right on top of a subway station), and rampant jaywalking that NYC is famous for, there is a lot to keep track of here.  Essentially, a driver should treat the right turn green arrow as only providing priority over the conflicting ped crossing, and no other protection.  The right turn needs to be made extremely carefully, and no assumptions that they could make a merger to the left.  The opposing left is a double left.  The UT service road is 3 lanes that quickly comes down to 2 lanes (and it is usually even quicker given the rampant illegal standing/stopping/parking in the curb lane).  The UT service road also leads pretty quickly to on-ramps for I-278 and the Grand Central Parkway, so a lot of lane changing is common on this stretch as well.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7141735,-73.8302637,3a,75y,307.08h,81.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn5MuWX_oi94Zs-BmkOezTA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

2) I-290 @ Harlem Ave in Oak Park, IL:  (and its twin at I-290 @ Austin) A diamond interchange where on-ramps and off-ramps off the freeway's left.  It means there is one intersection on exit, instead of two.  A heavy WB off-ramp left at the same time as a heave EB off-ramp right (and vice versa) show that both directions have left and right green arrows at the same time.  I hope IL drivers strictly follow the turn into closest lane rule.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8736351,-87.804351,3a,75y,280.82h,79.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s37kklOPvx9Y6844wlsj_Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


* This is an area that I frequented a lot when I briefly lived in the area about 20 years ago.  I am hoping given the GSV that maybe they adjusted the timing so that the right and left green arrows are not simultaneous.  If that is the case, there could be other problems, as ped confusion for crossing against right turns and left turns at different parts of the cycle.  From the GSV, it seems that you get a DW against the right turn ramp, but a W against the left turn ramp.  Since the porkchop island is quite small, it seems that peds are supposed to wait there for the next phase to complete their crossing, but i don't know how many do it.

[kphoger]

As with many fine points of driving that we discuss here, especially in Traffic Control, we know that with 50 states, the rules aren't always the same from state to state.  [e.g. right turn on red arrow, LTOR onto one-way streets]

https://driversed.com/driving-information/driving-techniques/making-right-and-left-turns.aspx


While it is probably a good idea to require turning into the closest lane practical (to allow left turns and opposing right turns to turn onto multi-lane streets without conflict), that is not universally the law.  In particular, AFAIK based on taking the CA driving test 25 years ago, CA requires right turns into the closest lane, but doesn't require left turns into the closest lane. 

Last I checked, it's the same way in Texas.

[fwydriver405]

As with many fine points of driving that we discuss here, especially in Traffic Control, we know that with 50 states, the rules aren't always the same from state to state.  [e.g. right turn on red arrow, LTOR onto one-way streets]

https://driversed.com/driving-information/driving-techniques/making-right-and-left-turns.aspx


While it is probably a good idea to require turning into the closest lane practical (to allow left turns and opposing right turns to turn onto multi-lane streets without conflict), that is not universally the law.  In particular, AFAIK based on taking the CA driving test 25 years ago, CA requires right turns into the closest lane, but doesn't require left turns into the closest lane. 

Last I checked, it's the same way in Texas.

AFAIK from taking the Maine driver's test in 2017, Maine requires right and left hand turns into the closest lane. I believe New Hampshire is the same way and maybe Massachusetts as well.

[fwydriver405]

Here's another bizarre application of FYA usage in option lanes up in Skowhegan, Maine, not sure if this is permitted in the MUTCD:

Old 5-section "doghouse" PPLT setup:
US-201 and Pleasant/High St with standard 5-section PPLT signal (2007)

New FYA 3 and 4 section setup:
SB US-201 and Pleasant/High St with 4-section FYA (2011/2018)
NB US-201 and Pleasant/High St with 3-section permissive-only FYA (2011/2018)

The interesting thing about this intersection is NB US-201's 3-section permissive-only FYA isn't tied to the oncoming thru signals (SB US-201), so whenever SB US-201 gets a leading protected left turn, it doesn't flash a yellow arrow and just stays red arrow. This also means that when phase skip occurs on SB US-201 to go back to its leading left turn, a yellow trap is created on NB US-201 as it cycles to steady yellow arrow to red arrow even though SB US-201 still has a green for the thru direction.

Also thought you can't have a right turn filter arrow if the lane is shared thru/right, seems to be the case at this intersection and a few other Maine intersections as well.

Would a properly configured FYA doghouse work at this intersection?

[MNHighwayMan]

Would a properly configured FYA doghouse work at this intersection?

For both directions of US-201, since they appear to be shared left/thru lanes, absolutely they would work. The only issue is that you can't have a protected left phase with the FYA doghouse setup, and obviously I don't know how much the existing protected left phase matters to SB 201.

[jakeroot]

That is perhaps the most bizarre flashing yellow arrow installation I've yet seen. It's functionally identical to the old setup, but, as far as I know, it's no longer compliant. Dedicated all-arrow signals are, supposedly, reserved for dedicated turn-only lanes, with 4/5-section combo arrow/orb signals being reserved for option lanes (or dedicated turn-only lanes).

[fwydriver405]

Would a properly configured FYA doghouse work at this intersection?

For both directions of US-201, since they appear to be shared left/thru lanes, absolutely they would work. The only issue is that you can't have a protected left phase with the FYA doghouse setup, and obviously I don't know how much the existing protected left phase matters to SB 201.

I think when they installed the new signals, whoever installed them didn't wire the FYA's to the oncoming thru green and check to be sure a yellow trap condition didn't exist... if a FYA doghouse was used there, the green arrow in both directions would be bimodal as shown here:

Flashing Yellow Arrow Doghouse by Wisconsin Sirens & Signals

[jakeroot]

Flashing Yellow Arrow Doghouse by Wisconsin Sirens & Signals

This video was recorded by a user here: JMAN Wis&S

We've talked about the signal before, and I think my main issue was the FYA signal on the left side of the intersection. It displays a red arrow that the overhead signal does not. Both signals should be 5-section, if the left-side mast-mounted signal is to be supplemental to the overhead signal.

[mrsman]

That is perhaps the most bizarre flashing yellow arrow installation I've yet seen. It's functionally identical to the old setup, but, as far as I know, it's no longer compliant. Dedicated all-arrow signals are, supposedly, reserved for dedicated turn-only lanes, with 4/5-section combo arrow/orb signals being reserved for option lanes (or dedicated turn-only lanes).

I agree.  I don't understand the point of putting in a FYA there.  it would seem that leaving the old signal arrangement would be superior.

I believe it is a rule that a straight/right option lane cannot have a right turn green arrow, but I disagree with the rule.  There are many instances, as it appears in the Maine intersection discussed above, where the right turn is a heavy movement, even though cars can technically go straight as well.  Having the right arrow is helpful for the majority of circumstances where the cars are turning right, even though there will be cases where right turns cannot proceed since there is a car waiting to go straight and is stuck with a red orb/green arrow situation.

I know that straight/left option lanes are allowed to have red orb/green arrow signalization, even though straight cars may block turning cars, at times.  I have seen this at several intersections.

[roadfro]

That is perhaps the most bizarre flashing yellow arrow installation I've yet seen. It's functionally identical to the old setup, but, as far as I know, it's no longer compliant. Dedicated all-arrow signals are, supposedly, reserved for dedicated turn-only lanes, with 4/5-section combo arrow/orb signals being reserved for option lanes (or dedicated turn-only lanes).

I agree.  I don't understand the point of putting in a FYA there.  it would seem that leaving the old signal arrangement would be superior.

I believe it is a rule that a straight/right option lane cannot have a right turn green arrow, but I disagree with the rule.  There are many instances, as it appears in the Maine intersection discussed above, where the right turn is a heavy movement, even though cars can technically go straight as well.  Having the right arrow is helpful for the majority of circumstances where the cars are turning right, even though there will be cases where right turns cannot proceed since there is a car waiting to go straight and is stuck with a red orb/green arrow situation.

I know that straight/left option lanes are allowed to have red orb/green arrow signalization, even though straight cars may block turning cars, at times.  I have seen this at several intersections.

Per the standard in 2009 MUTCD 4D.17p06: A protected only mode left-turn movement that does not begin and terminate at the same time as the adjacent through movement shall not be provided on an approach unless an exclusive left-turn lane exists.

This means that straight/left option lanes are not allowed to have separate indications active for straight and left turn movements, such as displaying circular red with green arrow. To have a protected left turn in an option lane would require having an exclusive left turn lane to the left of it. So it sounds like the left turn operation seen by mrsman at several intersections is in violation of the MUTCD.


A similar provision exists for right turns, in 2009 MUTCD 4D.21p05: A protected only mode right-turn movement that does not begin and terminate at the same time as the adjacent through movement shall not be provided on an approach unless an exclusive right-turn lane exists.

This means that a straight/right option lane is allowed to show a green arrow so long as it is a protected movement. (However, the geometry would need to be such that there is an exclusive right turn lane next to the option straight/right lane.) And you could not have a circular red with green arrow for the option lane.

[jakeroot]

Per the standard in 2009 MUTCD 4D.17p06: A protected only mode left-turn movement that does not begin and terminate at the same time as the adjacent through movement shall not be provided on an approach unless an exclusive left-turn lane exists.

This means that straight/left option lanes are not allowed to have separate indications active for straight and left turn movements, such as displaying circular red with green arrow. To have a protected left turn in an option lane would require having an exclusive left turn lane to the left of it. So it sounds like the left turn operation seen by mrsman at several intersections is in violation of the MUTCD.

Wait, hold up. I thought that section applied only to "protected only" signals (as in, all arrow signals)? I can think many situations where a green arrow (protected) movement may need to be provided for a left turn, where there is also a straight-ahead movement: a busy left turn from one-way to one-way, where a pedestrian signal doesn't last the whole cycle (example in Seattle), or a protected lagging left provided for one direction where there is no left turn lane (also in Seattle).

My understanding has always been that protected-only signals are never to be used over a lane that can go more than one direction, but it's pretty normal to provide a doghouse/tower signal over an option lane for various reasons.

[roadfro]

Per the standard in 2009 MUTCD 4D.17p06: A protected only mode left-turn movement that does not begin and terminate at the same time as the adjacent through movement shall not be provided on an approach unless an exclusive left-turn lane exists.

This means that straight/left option lanes are not allowed to have separate indications active for straight and left turn movements, such as displaying circular red with green arrow. To have a protected left turn in an option lane would require having an exclusive left turn lane to the left of it. So it sounds like the left turn operation seen by mrsman at several intersections is in violation of the MUTCD.

Wait, hold up. I thought that section applied only to "protected only" signals (as in, all arrow signals)? I can think many situations where a green arrow (protected) movement may need to be provided for a left turn, where there is also a straight-ahead movement: a busy left turn from one-way to one-way, where a pedestrian signal doesn't last the whole cycle (example in Seattle), or a protected lagging left provided for one direction where there is no left turn lane (also in Seattle).

My understanding has always been that protected-only signals are never to be used over a lane that can go more than one direction, but it's pretty normal to provide a doghouse/tower signal over an option lane for various reasons.

The section title there is "Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements - General" (4D.18 is more detail about permitted only operation; 4D.19 protected only; and 4D.20 PPLT). and the statement is discussing "protected only mode", so it's referring to any type of protected left turn movement regardless of lane type. At least, that was my interpretation.


However, I'm reading a bit further and can potentially see where the examples you posted have some wiggle room:

4D.17p08: If the operating mode changes among the protected only mode and/or the protected/permissive mode and/or the permissive only mode during different periods of the day or as traffic conditions change, the requirements in Sections 4D.18 through 4D.20 that are appropriate to that mode of operation shall be met, subject to the following: (basically no simultaneous G+Y or GA+YA).

Now look more closely at PPLT operations

Section 4D.20 Signal Indications for Protected/Permissive Mode Left-Turn Movements

Standard:
01 If a shared signal face is provided for a protected/permissive mode left turn, it shall meet the following requirements (see Figure 4D-11):

A.  It shall be capable of displaying the following signal indications: steady CIRCULAR RED, steady CIRCULAR YELLOW, CIRCULAR green, steady left-turn YELLOW ARROW, and left-turn GREEN ARROW. Only one of the three circular indications shall be displayed at any given time. Only one of the two arrow indications shall be displayed at any given time. If the left-turn GREEN ARROW signal indication and the CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication(s) for the adjacent through movement are always terminated together, the steady left-turn YELLOW ARROW signal indication shall not be required.
B.  During the protected left-turn movement, the shared signal face shall simultaneously display a left-turn GREEN ARROW signal indication and a circular signal indication that is the same color as the signal indication for the adjacent through lane on the same approach as the protected left turn.
C.  A steady left-turn YELLOW ARROW signal indication shall be displayed following the left-turn GREEN ARROW signal indication, unless the left-turn GREEN ARROW signal indication and the CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication(s) for the adjacent through movement are being terminated together. When the left-turn GREEN ARROW and CIRCULAR GREEN signal indications are being terminated together, the required display following the left-turn GREEN ARROW signal indication shall be either the display of a CIRCULAR YELLOW signal indication alone or the simultaneous display of the CIRCULAR YELLOW and left-turn YELLOW ARROW signal indications.

Consider that the operating mode changes from permitted to protected mid-phase "as traffic conditions change" (e.g. pedestrian phase terminates early, or opposing through phase gaps out). In this scenario, having the protected green arrow come on for an option lane would be more acceptable. The caveat here is that the protected mode comes at the end of the phase, so that the circular green and green arrow can terminate together without need for a yellow arrow.

However, the MUTCD doesn't show a typical mounting location for a R-Y-G-GA signal head (or any signal head styles, for that matter) with a shared left/through as the only left turn lane. I assume this goes back to the original standard about exclusive left turn lanes. But if you disregard that, then everything else in these two R-Y-G-GA examples makes sense.