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

[jakeroot]

Jakeroot and mrsman, I think there is another factor you're overlooking as to why Los Angeles is using HAWKs. The cost factor. Wasn't the original idea for the HAWK signal concept supposed to be cost savings as compared to the cost of installing conventional signals? When in doubt follow the money. Cost is almost always the issue.

I've never seen cost touted as a reason to install a HAWK. Usually if money is an issue, you go for RRFBs.

RRFB's?

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons  . I despise these signals, here's an example: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4183696,-71.1574578,3a,32.4y,33.21h,91.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smkmDu6kNqdDRCed_76_YEw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Yeah, "rectangular rapid flashing beacons". Sorry!

I definitely don't mind RRFBs, although some people seem to mindlessly activate them even there are no cars coming. There are probably 200 RRFBs in Washington State for every HAWK.

More than likely, these RRFBs are installed because they are cheaper than the next alternative (full signal or HAWK), but not much more expensive than just signs and markings, but they do provide a marked improvement in driver compliance and they really aren't confusing like the HAWK.

Still trying to wrap my head around how a HAWK could be more expensive than a regular RYG signal. Same number of signal heads, same number of lenses. Only real difference is the layout of the lenses (so long as we aren't looking at how they operate). The only real cost advantage to a HAWK might be cost savings from not having it on 24/7 like a regular RYG signal. But that's kind of its achilles heel, since dark signals are otherwise so unusual.

[mrsman]

Jakeroot and mrsman, I think there is another factor you're overlooking as to why Los Angeles is using HAWKs. The cost factor. Wasn't the original idea for the HAWK signal concept supposed to be cost savings as compared to the cost of installing conventional signals? When in doubt follow the money. Cost is almost always the issue.

I've never seen cost touted as a reason to install a HAWK. Usually if money is an issue, you go for RRFBs.

RRFB's?

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons  . I despise these signals, here's an example: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4183696,-71.1574578,3a,32.4y,33.21h,91.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smkmDu6kNqdDRCed_76_YEw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Yeah, "rectangular rapid flashing beacons". Sorry!

I definitely don't mind RRFBs, although some people seem to mindlessly activate them even there are no cars coming. There are probably 200 RRFBs in Washington State for every HAWK.

More than likely, these RRFBs are installed because they are cheaper than the next alternative (full signal or HAWK), but not much more expensive than just signs and markings, but they do provide a marked improvement in driver compliance and they really aren't confusing like the HAWK.

Still trying to wrap my head around how a HAWK could be more expensive than a regular RYG signal. Same number of signal heads, same number of lenses. Only real difference is the layout of the lenses (so long as we aren't looking at how they operate). The only real cost advantage to a HAWK might be cost savings from not having it on 24/7 like a regular RYG signal. But that's kind of its achilles heel, since dark signals are otherwise so unusual.

I think the electricity savings is the main cost savings, but as you say it is relatively minor.

The real issue is that they are put in place where a traffic signal is not otherwise warranted.  As we know how difficult it is to properly coordinate signals, putting in a new regular signal could very easily screw up the timing of the corridor.  But a HAWK signal will only come on to address a pedestrian who pushes the button.  And the flashing red feature means that if the ped is quick and gets out of the way quickly (because he walks faster that 3 ft/sec), cars aren't stuck there when the coast is clear.  So the delay would be equivalent to yielding to a pedestrian who crosses mid-block without a signal, but with the added protection of a brief red light to (ostensibly) get cars to stop.

The problem is that there is still some level of misunderstanding in the signal.

I believe the LA signal properly finesses that issue.  A regular signal as far as drivers are concerned.  A flashing red feature to clear traffic when the peds get out of the way.  To the extent that there is misunderstanding, it is fail-safe (the cars will wait on flashing red as opposed to proceeding - not a safety issue, just a congestion issue).  IMO, it is the best way to address mid-block crossings to the extent that a county is willing to pay for signal infrastructure.  (If they are not, then you deal with RRFBs or other flashing yellows that in my experience are largely ignored and not nearly as safe.)

[fwydriver405]

This is for a right turn signal that I proposed for my city to improve pedestrian safety downtown in Sanford:



In my proposal, I am incorporating an LPI for the right turn on Washington Ave. Note that in Maine, all turns on a red arrow is prohibited. The left turn has no conflict with pedestrians, and the right turn does. In my proposal, when a pedestrian presses the button to cross Main St, the left turn would proceed normally, but the right turn would be held with a red ball during the WALK phase. It would then go to FYA during the flashing "DON'T WALK" phase. If no one presses the button, it would go straight to a green arrow.

I left it as a ball to permit right turn on red on this movement. On my proposal I have a similar thing going on northbound Main St, but I am using a red arrow instead.

Based on the intersection and what I have said above, is a "Right Turn Signal" required in this situation if the left turn lane can proceed, but the right turn lane is held for a few seconds with a red? This is a T intersection...

[mrsman]

This is for a right turn signal that I proposed for my city to improve pedestrian safety downtown in Sanford:



In my proposal, I am incorporating an LPI for the right turn on Washington Ave. Note that in Maine, all turns on a red arrow is prohibited. The left turn has no conflict with pedestrians, and the right turn does. In my proposal, when a pedestrian presses the button to cross Main St, the left turn would proceed normally, but the right turn would be held with a red ball during the WALK phase. It would then go to FYA during the flashing "DON'T WALK" phase. If no one presses the button, it would go straight to a green arrow.

I left it as a ball to permit right turn on red on this movement. On my proposal I have a similar thing going on northbound Main St, but I am using a red arrow instead.

Based on the intersection and what I have said above, is a "Right Turn Signal" required in this situation if the left turn lane can proceed, but the right turn lane is held for a few seconds with a red? This is a T intersection...

Really interesting idea.

I would think that if the left turns are controlled by left turn arrow signals (RA-YA-GA), then there is no need to state that the right turn is controlled by the other signal.  A red ball light basically stops straight and left traffic (unless there is a green left arrow) and allows right turns after a complete stop (like a stop sign).

The more interesting question though is why should you allow a turn on red during the protected pedestrian phase?  Obviously, I understand that you want the ability for cars to turn on red when cross traffic has green, but the best benefit of an LPI is to prohibit turning during the LPI.

I have seen this (allowing right on red, but not during the initial part of the parallel pedestrian phase) done in three ways:

1) An electronic "no turn on red" sign that lights up only during the pedestrian phase.
2) An additional red arrow that comes on only during the pedestrian phase.
3) A solid red arrow during pedestrian phase, but a flashing red arrow during normal turn on red operation

The trick, though, is that even with safety improvements in mind, many drivers will not notice them.  I am familiar with the #1 approach as it exists at a corner near me.  (In that case it precedes a Barnes dance all pedestrian phase, not just a simple LPI -- but the concept should be equivalent.)  As drivers are so focused on turning and waiting for a gap in traffic to make their right turn, they often are unaware when the electronic sign comes up that prohibits their turn during the pedestrian phase.  While most of the time drivers are compliant, especially if they are familiar with the intersection, many times I have to wave and shout to be sure that they stop and yield during the all-ped phase.

#3 might be improved with a yellow phase between flashing red and solid red.  If the left turn from Main to Washington is lagging, then it is even easier as the right turn arrow can mimic the left turn arrow (GA then YA then a solid RA when peds cross, flashing yellow arrow when peds have a FDW).

EDITED TO ADD:

For your intersection, I would favor keeping the left turn signals as is, with putting in 4 section FYAs for the right signal.  Green arrow for protected rights, during the corresponding lefts and when no peds are present.  Solid yellow arrow to terminate a green or flashing yellow arrow.  Flashing yellow arrow during the pedestrian FDW.  Solid red arrow during the LPI.  Flashing red arrow when cross traffic has a green.

Assuming the left turn is lagging, the right turn arrow would have the following signalization pattern:

1) Flashing red arrow, while cross traffic is green or yellow
2) Green arrow, during the concurrent left turn
3) Yellow arrow, during the concurrent yellow phase on the turn (only if a pedestrian pushed the button)
4) Red arrow, during the pedestrian walk phase (only if a pedestrian pushed the button)
5) FYA, during the pedestrian FDW phase (only if a pedestrian pushed the button)
6) Yellow arrow (terminating either a green arrow or a FYA)
7) Back to 1

Phases 3-5 are skipped if the ped doesn't push the button. 


A similar approach, similar to your original idea, was employed at Venice/Robertson in L.A.

https://la.streetsblog.org/2015/07/06/dangerous-intersection-of-venice-and-robertson-gets-a-flashing-yellow-signal/

[Revive 755]

Based on the intersection and what I have said above, is a "Right Turn Signal" required in this situation if the left turn lane can proceed, but the right turn lane is held for a few seconds with a red? This is a T intersection...

I would lean towards yes.  Per MUTCD 4D.24 Paragraph 03:

A. It shall be capable of displaying one of the following sets of signal indications:

1. Steady right-turn RED ARROW, steady right-turn YELLOW ARROW, flashing right-turn YELLOW ARROW, and right-turn GREEN ARROW. Only one of the four indications shall be displayed at any given time.

2. Steady CIRCULAR RED, steady right-turn YELLOW ARROW, flashing right-turn YELLOW ARROW, and right-turn GREEN ARROW. Only one of the four indications shall be displayed at any given time. If the CIRCULAR RED signal indication is sometimes displayed when the signal faces for the adjacent through lane(s) are not displaying a CIRCULAR RED signal indication, a RIGHT TURN SIGNAL (R10-10R) sign (see Figure 2B-27) shall be used unless the CIRCULAR RED signal indication in the separate right-turn signal face is shielded, hooded, louvered, positioned, or designed such that it is not readily visible to drivers in the through lane(s).

The second note (with two asterisks) for MUTCD Figure 4D-19 has similar language but does not mention through lanes:

** These faces would be used if it is intended that a right turn on red after stop be permitted; a RIGHT TURN SIGNAL (R10-10R) sign shall be used with these faces if the red indication is not visibility limited

I am hoping the next edition of the MUTCD takes another look at signals for T-intersections.  IMHO the restrictions on arrow locations for T-intersections in 4D.05 Paragraph 08 should also be reevaluated.

[jakeroot]

Seems to me that those states without red arrow restrictions have the best setups. I would lean towards flashing red arrows in those states that do not permit RTOR(arrow)

I recorded a video several years ago showing off a T-junction with flashing yellow arrows. Normally, only red and green arrows activate, but the FYA does activate when the pedestrian call button is pushed (real intersection here):

https://youtu.be/Yk4m574Bi-o

In this instance, there are crosswalks across both legs.

I would think that RTOR should be acceptable during the early phases of a leading pedestrian interval. We seem to be going ape-shit over, what, a few seconds? WA is a huge user of LPIs, and I don't know any that use blankout signs nor any other right/left turn on red restrictions. Not saying we have a perfect safety record, but I don't think it's necessary to prevent movement during an LPI.

[roadfro]

Based on the intersection and what I have said above, is a "Right Turn Signal" required in this situation if the left turn lane can proceed, but the right turn lane is held for a few seconds with a red? This is a T intersection...

I would lean towards yes.  Per MUTCD 4D.24 Paragraph 03:

A. It shall be capable of displaying one of the following sets of signal indications:

1. Steady right-turn RED ARROW, steady right-turn YELLOW ARROW, flashing right-turn YELLOW ARROW, and right-turn GREEN ARROW. Only one of the four indications shall be displayed at any given time.

2. Steady CIRCULAR RED, steady right-turn YELLOW ARROW, flashing right-turn YELLOW ARROW, and right-turn GREEN ARROW. Only one of the four indications shall be displayed at any given time. If the CIRCULAR RED signal indication is sometimes displayed when the signal faces for the adjacent through lane(s) are not displaying a CIRCULAR RED signal indication, a RIGHT TURN SIGNAL (R10-10R) sign (see Figure 2B-27) shall be used unless the CIRCULAR RED signal indication in the separate right-turn signal face is shielded, hooded, louvered, positioned, or designed such that it is not readily visible to drivers in the through lane(s).

The second note (with two asterisks) for MUTCD Figure 4D-19 has similar language but does not mention through lanes:

** These faces would be used if it is intended that a right turn on red after stop be permitted; a RIGHT TURN SIGNAL (R10-10R) sign shall be used with these faces if the red indication is not visibility limited

Normally, I'd agree. However, the "visibility limited" provision in 4D.24p03 specifically addresses shielding the circular red from through lanes. In this scenario where there are no through lanes, and left turn lanes are controlled with red arrows, I could interpret that the "right turn signal" sign would not be required.

I am hoping the next edition of the MUTCD takes another look at signals for T-intersections.  IMHO the restrictions on arrow locations for T-intersections in 4D.05 Paragraph 08 should also be reevaluated.

I don't know... Why would a left turn arrow mounted on the right side of the roadway be needed, even at a T intersection?

[roadfro]

Seems to me that those states without red arrow restrictions have the best setups. I would lean towards flashing red arrows in those states that do not permit RTOR(arrow)

I recorded a video several years ago showing off a T-junction with flashing yellow arrows. Normally, only red and green arrows activate, but the FYA does activate when the pedestrian call button is pushed (real intersection here):

https://youtu.be/Yk4m574Bi-o

I really like this setup. It's ped friendly, as many jurisdictions in this situation would just use circular greens (maybe a green left arrow) and only have one crosswalk across the right-turning traffic.

I would think that RTOR should be acceptable during the early phases of a leading pedestrian interval. We seem to be going ape-shit over, what, a few seconds? WA is a huge user of LPIs, and I don't know any that use blankout signs nor any other right/left turn on red restrictions. Not saying we have a perfect safety record, but I don't think it's necessary to prevent movement during an LPI.

I was gonna disagree on this–but in thinking about it, I think I'm generally in agreement with you for most LPI applications. With a leading pedestrian interval, the main goal is to get the right turning driver to wait while the pedestrians take a head start on the crossing and provide them an extra bit of protection and visibility from drivers. If there's no pedestrians crossing on from the near side adjacent to the right turning vehicle, and the pedestrian coming from the far side still has several seconds to go before entering the near half of the cross street, there isn't a reason why the first right turn can't proceed safely.

[fwydriver405]

For the record, I had other alternate plans as I believe one of the poles may be removed on the right of my original post. The first image is the same signal heads from the original, just in different places. The second one is loosely similar to what the MUTCD prescribes for this kind of situation:


These are what I also proposed for Main Street as well. The second image is unchanged planwise although I would propose adding a post mounted FYA to the left:

The more interesting question though is why should you allow a turn on red during the protected pedestrian phase?  Obviously, I understand that you want the ability for cars to turn on red when cross traffic has green, but the best benefit of an LPI is to prohibit turning during the LPI.

I would think that RTOR should be acceptable during the early phases of a leading pedestrian interval. We seem to be going ape-shit over, what, a few seconds? WA is a huge user of LPIs, and I don't know any that use blankout signs nor any other right/left turn on red restrictions. Not saying we have a perfect safety record, but I don't think it's necessary to prevent movement during an LPI.

The reason why I left the right turn a red ball was because the right turn, according to the 2016 plans, shows that the left turn is the "primary" movement while there are very little right-turning vehicles. As part of the Sanford Planning Partnership Initiative (PPI), they are considering on shortening the right turn lane on Washington due to the low volumes. Also, I believe one of the poles on the right is also being removed, so if a blackout "NO RIGHT TURN/TURN ON RED" were to be used, I am not sure where to put it. See the diagram below (horizontal is Main St, vertical Washington):

#3 might be improved with a yellow phase between flashing red and solid red.  If the left turn from Main to Washington is lagging, then it is even easier as the right turn arrow can mimic the left turn arrow (GA then YA then a solid RA when peds cross, flashing yellow arrow when peds have a FDW).

EDITED TO ADD:

For your intersection, I would favor keeping the left turn signals as is, with putting in 4 section FYAs for the right signal.  Green arrow for protected rights, during the corresponding lefts and when no peds are present.  Solid yellow arrow to terminate a green or flashing yellow arrow.  Flashing yellow arrow during the pedestrian FDW.  Solid red arrow during the LPI.  Flashing red arrow when cross traffic has a green.

Assuming the left turn is lagging, the right turn arrow would have the following signalization pattern:

1) Flashing red arrow, while cross traffic is green or yellow
2) Green arrow, during the concurrent left turn
3) Yellow arrow, during the concurrent yellow phase on the turn (only if a pedestrian pushed the button)
4) Red arrow, during the pedestrian walk phase (only if a pedestrian pushed the button)
5) FYA, during the pedestrian FDW phase (only if a pedestrian pushed the button)
6) Yellow arrow (terminating either a green arrow or a FYA)
7) Back to 1

Phases 3-5 are skipped if the ped doesn't push the button.


A similar approach, similar to your original idea, was employed at Venice/Robertson in L.A.

https://la.streetsblog.org/2015/07/06/dangerous-intersection-of-venice-and-robertson-gets-a-flashing-yellow-signal/

On Washington, the current intersection just has two standard RYG heads. For the record, the left turn from SB Main to EB Washington are lagging left turns and will stay when new signals are in place in 2021-22. As part of a BUILD grant, I believe many of the intersections are getting new traffic signals and equipment, which include FYA conversions at some intersections, and this one is no exception. Unfortunately, due to MaineDOT policy, some of the intersections (1, 2) are being converted from PPLT to 24/7 protected only, because they say any left turn that crosses 2 or more opposing through lanes must be set to protected only...

[mrsman]

I was gonna disagree on this–but in thinking about it, I think I'm generally in agreement with you for most LPI applications. With a leading pedestrian interval, the main goal is to get the right turning driver to wait while the pedestrians take a head start on the crossing and provide them an extra bit of protection and visibility from drivers. If there's no pedestrians crossing on from the near side adjacent to the right turning vehicle, and the pedestrian coming from the far side still has several seconds to go before entering the near half of the cross street, there isn't a reason why the first right turn can't proceed safely.

My response to this is that the whole purpose of LPI is that there are existing issues with trusting right turners against pedestrians.  When the light is green ball, pedestrians are allowed to cross and drivers are required to yield to the pedestrians.  Yet at enough intersections this is not happening safely which is why the LPI was instituted in the first place.

The "first generation" LPI occurred with a pedestrian WALK signal occurring prior to the red orb turning green.  In most cases, this was only a few seconds but there were a lot of inefficiencies.  First, it required all traffic to stop, even straight through traffic that would not interfere with the pedestrians. It also depended upon either NTOR or straight traffic blocking right turns to be totally effective.

By utilizing a special signal for the right turn movement (the FYA signal), things are a lot more controlled and safer, but it must be implemented correctly.  By implementing a flashing red arrow during the cross traffic phase, but a solid red arrow during the beginning of the pedestrian crossing phase would hopefully address the issues that the LPI was actually designed to address.  The added FYA during the FDW would also highlight the need to yield.

[mrsman]

On Washington, the current intersection just has two standard RYG heads. For the record, the left turn from SB Main to EB Washington are lagging left turns and will stay when new signals are in place in 2021-22. As part of a BUILD grant, I believe many of the intersections are getting new traffic signals and equipment, which include FYA conversions at some intersections, and this one is no exception. Unfortunately, due to MaineDOT policy, some of the intersections (1, 2) are being converted from PPLT to 24/7 protected only, because they say any left turn that crosses 2 or more opposing through lanes must be set to protected only...

Sounds like they are following a Caltrans policy.  A big mistake in my opinion as many lefts over two or even three lanes are perfectly safe as permissive, with the proper sight lines.

[SignBridge]

I agree that two lanes can be protected/permissive, but three or more lanes to be crossed gets a little dicey and should be protected only.

[Amtrakprod]

One thing about LPIs I would do there, for the pedestrian phase either do:
W|RR
3 sec
W|FYR
4 sec
FDW|FYR
wait(clearance timing-3.5)
FDW|YR
3.5 sec
DW| RR

Or you could end the phase with a protected right arrow.


iPhone

[Scott5114]

Still trying to wrap my head around how a HAWK could be more expensive than a regular RYG signal. Same number of signal heads, same number of lenses. Only real difference is the layout of the lenses (so long as we aren't looking at how they operate). The only real cost advantage to a HAWK might be cost savings from not having it on 24/7 like a regular RYG signal. But that's kind of its achilles heel, since dark signals are otherwise so unusual.

Economies of scale. McCain or whoever probably churns out thousands of identical 3-section signal housings every month. They would make considerably fewer HAWK housings. So the overhead gets split between fewer units than it would be on RYG signal housings.

[Revive 755]

I agree that two lanes can be protected/permissive, but three or more lanes to be crossed gets a little dicey and should be protected only.

Depends on sight distance, available gaps in traffic, and other factors IMHO (one of which is how far back from the intersection the third lane extends). 

[mrsman]

I agree that two lanes can be protected/permissive, but three or more lanes to be crossed gets a little dicey and should be protected only.

Depends on sight distance, available gaps in traffic, and other factors IMHO (one of which is how far back from the intersection the third lane extends).

Right.  More lanes can be a factor in requiring a protected turn, but it should not be determinative on that basis alone.  What is astounding is that Maine seems to want to retrofit old working intersections with protected lefts, even (apparently) without any specific incidents at the intersection to warrant being so restrictive.  (I can see imposing red turn arrows at new installations, even though I don't agree, but why mess up existing signalized intersections that are shown by accident data to be safe enough as is?)

[jeffandnicole]

Still trying to wrap my head around how a HAWK could be more expensive than a regular RYG signal. Same number of signal heads, same number of lenses. Only real difference is the layout of the lenses (so long as we aren't looking at how they operate). The only real cost advantage to a HAWK might be cost savings from not having it on 24/7 like a regular RYG signal. But that's kind of its achilles heel, since dark signals are otherwise so unusual.

Economies of scale. McCain or whoever probably churns out thousands of identical 3-section signal housings every month. They would make considerably fewer HAWK housings. So the overhead gets split between fewer units than it would be on RYG signal housings.

It's not even that. Traffic signals are simply a sum of the parts needed. Each signal is just numerous signal heads attached together with a threaded connector piece for wiring to go thru.  I could make a 7 head light if I wanted to; all I have to do is attach 7 signal heads with 6 connectors.

For a Hawk signal, the additional expenses are: Different connectors needed (basically, pipes) to connect the heads together. And the computer software required to operate the signal.

[Revive 755]

For a Hawk signal, the additional expenses are: Different connectors needed (basically, pipes) to connect the heads together. And the computer software required to operate the signal.

A Hawk signal would really just be an upside down doghouse with one of the rows removed.  The more unique back plate might cost more.
Backside of a doghouse signal
Backside of a HAWK signal

Then there are those states that used T-shaped signals for left turns or occasionally for through movements, which would be even closer to a HAWK signal.
Example in South Carolina


I would also be curious about the controller cost, given the odd railroad intersections, DDI setups and other intersections that would require non-standard programming.

[Amtrakprod]

Great job PennDOT! You've managed to incorrectly program Flashing Yellow Arrow signals!!!!
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3771051,-76.3124894,3a,75y,11.98h,83.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLb2gFCXgAk4p7NtOz1id5A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
If you check out this intersection in Myerstown PA, while one side has the advanced green, the opposing side with a 3 section FYA doesn't show a flashing yellow arrow with a red ball! That's the whole point of the FYA!! Maybe they were using Arlington Phasing, but I just think PennDOT doesn't understand the FYA.

[Amtrakprod]

Stop and then turn if safe - flashing red arrow

Transition from one of the above to red arrow - yellow arrow

Might this prove problematic? If the FRA means "stop then go", a yellow arrow would briefly permit non-stop movements.

Sorry I sent this so late, but I just read this topic from start to finish so I could see the progression.
A bit late, but I filmed a FRA, in Texas! This one was weird, for many reasons. The weirdest being the fact that the light ends its phase by going FRA, Yellow Arrow, and then Red Arrow. In the 15 minutes I stayed there, only one car actually used the FRA, some others did go on the ending yellow though. There are also 2 right turn FYAs here, and an Australian walk sound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLbjscwkFe0

[Roadsguy]

Great job PennDOT! You've managed to incorrectly program Flashing Yellow Arrow signals!!!!
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3771051,-76.3124894,3a,75y,11.98h,83.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLb2gFCXgAk4p7NtOz1id5A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
If you check out this intersection in Myerstown PA, while one side has the advanced green, the opposing side with a 3 section FYA doesn't show a flashing yellow arrow with a red ball! That's the whole point of the FYA!! Maybe they were using Arlington Phasing, but I just think PennDOT doesn't understand the FYA.

I don't know why the flashing yellow wasn't active in this shot, but I've definitely seen Dallas Phasing used at this intersection before, since that's the entire point of the three-section signal. I've also seen Dallas Phasing at some of PennDOT's other FYA intersections, particularly US 422 at Ramona Road just west of Myerstown (installed a few years ago) and PA 72 at Rocherty Road south of Lebanon (in the process of being upgraded with FYAs recently installed).

[Amtrakprod]

Great job PennDOT! You've managed to incorrectly program Flashing Yellow Arrow signals!!!!
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3771051,-76.3124894,3a,75y,11.98h,83.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLb2gFCXgAk4p7NtOz1id5A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
If you check out this intersection in Myerstown PA, while one side has the advanced green, the opposing side with a 3 section FYA doesn't show a flashing yellow arrow with a red ball! That's the whole point of the FYA!! Maybe they were using Arlington Phasing, but I just think PennDOT doesn't understand the FYA.

I don't know why the flashing yellow wasn't active in this shot, but I've definitely seen Dallas Phasing used at this intersection before, since that's the entire point of the three-section signal. I've also seen Dallas Phasing at some of PennDOT's other FYA intersections, particularly US 422 at Ramona Road just west of Myerstown (installed a few years ago) and PA 72 at Rocherty Road south of Lebanon (in the process of being upgraded with FYAs recently installed).

Sounds like PennDOT is using Arlington phasing. Which is kinda like Dallas Phasing but the lead interval shows without a permissive lag. I'll be going through here this summer on a road trip and I'll make sure to see the timing.


iPhone

[Roadsguy]

Great job PennDOT! You've managed to incorrectly program Flashing Yellow Arrow signals!!!!
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3771051,-76.3124894,3a,75y,11.98h,83.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLb2gFCXgAk4p7NtOz1id5A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
If you check out this intersection in Myerstown PA, while one side has the advanced green, the opposing side with a 3 section FYA doesn't show a flashing yellow arrow with a red ball! That's the whole point of the FYA!! Maybe they were using Arlington Phasing, but I just think PennDOT doesn't understand the FYA.

I don't know why the flashing yellow wasn't active in this shot, but I've definitely seen Dallas Phasing used at this intersection before, since that's the entire point of the three-section signal. I've also seen Dallas Phasing at some of PennDOT's other FYA intersections, particularly US 422 at Ramona Road just west of Myerstown (installed a few years ago) and PA 72 at Rocherty Road south of Lebanon (in the process of being upgraded with FYAs recently installed).

Sounds like PennDOT is using Arlington phasing. Which is kinda like Dallas Phasing but the lead interval shows without a permissive lag. I'll be going through here this summer on a road trip and I'll make sure to see the timing.

I may be using the term "Dallas phasing" incorrectly since I had assumed it to refer to any situation where you have a permissive left and red thru in one direction while the other direction has a protected left and green thru, which PennDOT definitely does do with FYAs. I hadn't heard the term Arlington phasing before your first post and I still don't quite have all the signal phasing terminology straight since I'm used to PennDOT's relatively simple phasing (at least anywhere I've been) with almost always leading left turns. Protected left turns at the end of a phase (lagging left turns?) are rare; I can only remember noticing them in one place in the past few years.

[jakeroot]

Stop and then turn if safe - flashing red arrow

Transition from one of the above to red arrow - yellow arrow

Might this prove problematic? If the FRA means "stop then go", a yellow arrow would briefly permit non-stop movements.

Sorry I sent this so late, but I just read this topic from start to finish so I could see the progression.
A bit late, but I filmed a FRA, in Texas! This one was weird, for many reasons. The weirdest being the fact that the light ends its phase by going FRA, Yellow Arrow, and then Red Arrow. In the 15 minutes I stayed there, only one car actually used the FRA, some others did go on the ending yellow though. There are also 2 right turn FYAs here, and an Australian walk sound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLbjscwkFe0

Ahhh, very nice find. Definitely answers my question then. On the yellow arrow, traffic is basically permitted to floor it through the intersection as a platoon (at least in those states that use permissive yellow laws, such as WA -- not sure about TX). This seems really odd to me, but I don't know of any other way to end that FRA phase, so...hmm.

Good catch with the pedestrian sound. Didn't know that was Australian, but it was not a sound I've heard elsewhere.

Side-note: why do some drivers sit behind the line and then floor it on yellow? Just pull forward, dickweed. Makes it way less awkward.

[Amtrakprod]

Stop and then turn if safe - flashing red arrow

Transition from one of the above to red arrow - yellow arrow

Might this prove problematic? If the FRA means "stop then go", a yellow arrow would briefly permit non-stop movements.

Sorry I sent this so late, but I just read this topic from start to finish so I could see the progression.
A bit late, but I filmed a FRA, in Texas! This one was weird, for many reasons. The weirdest being the fact that the light ends its phase by going FRA, Yellow Arrow, and then Red Arrow. In the 15 minutes I stayed there, only one car actually used the FRA, some others did go on the ending yellow though. There are also 2 right turn FYAs here, and an Australian walk sound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLbjscwkFe0

Ahhh, very nice find. Definitely answers my question then. On the yellow arrow, traffic is basically permitted to floor it through the intersection as a platoon (at least in those states that use permissive yellow laws, such as WA -- not sure about TX). This seems really odd to me, but I don't know of any other way to end that FRA phase, so...hmm.

Good catch with the pedestrian sound. Didn't know that was Australian, but it was not a sound I've heard elsewhere.

Side-note: why do some drivers sit behind the line and then floor it on yellow? Just pull forward, dickweed. Makes it way less awkward.

I observed that intersection for 15 minutes! And only 1 car actually took initiative to go on the FRA. To be fair traffic was really heavy in the oncoming direction. About how to end the FRA phase, IMO, I think that they need to end the phase with a lagging left turn every time they have one.

Btw I have more videos from this light from both other directions and the crosswalk button that I'll send when I finish. It's certainly an oddity.

Last note; We've hit 1500 posts on this topic!!!


iPhone