California Traffic signal are most interest In the USA. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170807/dc22dc66a7f8e529e499e6e7324cbce7.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170807/5be69d54aaa7d1697429e241a9f22ed3.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170807/d66fc65e2fcf5697450440f338ce23fa.jpg)
LGMS210
Quote from: blue.cable82 on August 07, 2017, 02:45:23 AM
California Traffic signal are most interest In the USA
Most interesting word arrangement, comrade!
California has some excellent signals. They've been on the backplate bandwagon for seemingly longer than anyone else. And no corner of an intersection is left untouched by secondary signals. Here in Washington, I could easily pull the "I didn't see the signal, officer" excuse. Not in California!
I do think it's strange that so many of their left turn signals are hung from the top, whereas the rest of the signals are mast-arm mounted somewhere between the top-middle and/or middle.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 07, 2017, 03:30:09 AM
Quote from: blue.cable82 on August 07, 2017, 02:45:23 AM
California Traffic signal are most interest In the USA
Most interesting word arrangement, comrade!
California has some excellent signals. They've been on the backplate bandwagon for seemingly longer than anyone else. And no corner of an intersection is left untouched by secondary signals. Here in Washington, I could easily pull the "I didn't see the signal, officer" excuse. Not in California!
I do think it's strange that so many of their left turn signals are hung from the top, whereas the rest of the signals are mast-arm mounted somewhere between the top-middle and/or middle.
For the most part, it looks like they're attempting to keep the signals more or less in a straight horizontal line -- and since the cantilevered mast is usually at a higher point near the center of the street, the hanging option would be utilized to keep the left-turn signal in line with the others situated along the mast. In the Sacramento area there are numerous interchanges with mast-arms fully extending across the street, anchored on both sides; these are invariably horizontally oriented, which obviates the need to vary the mounting techniques to achieve a straight line. Having signals arrayed in such a straight line minimizes the need for motorists to "hunt" for the signal they need; all that is necessary is to scan across a particular part of the field of vision.
Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2017, 12:56:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 07, 2017, 03:30:09 AM
I do think it's strange that so many of their left turn signals are hung from the top, whereas the rest of the signals are mast-arm mounted somewhere between the top-middle and/or middle.
For the most part, it looks like they're attempting to keep the signals more or less in a straight horizontal line -- and since the cantilevered mast is usually at a higher point near the center of the street, the hanging option would be utilized to keep the left-turn signal in line with the others situated along the mast. In the Sacramento area there are numerous interchanges with mast-arms fully extending across the street, anchored on both sides; these are invariably horizontally oriented, which obviates the need to vary the mounting techniques to achieve a straight line. Having signals arrayed in such a straight line minimizes the need for motorists to "hunt" for the signal they need; all that is necessary is to scan across a particular part of the field of vision.
It can be higher, but not by several feet, I don't think?
In the example images above, the left turn signal (the Hwy 67 intersection) is clearly lower than the through signal several feet over. Although the mast-arm is cantilevered, the part of the mast-arm that has the left-most signals mounted to it is flat. They could have been placed level to each other.
With that in mind, why would California use the cantilevered mast-arm if they want drivers to minimize vertical scanning? They could just use (nearly) level mast-arms, like these (Federal Way, WA). No need to look up or down. Everything is right in line:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiuoqREm.png&hash=2eaaf69250eaab4098d64313b3580158c83bf191)
Quote from: jakeroot on August 07, 2017, 03:30:09 AM
I do think it's strange that so many of their left turn signals are hung from the top, whereas the rest of the signals are mast-arm mounted somewhere between the top-middle and/or middle.
From what I saw when I was out there last summer, I think California is moving away from hanging their outermost signal heads from the top. All of the new overheads I saw now have the plumbizer (http://www.sentineltraffic.com/assets/img_signalsign1.png) mounted between the amber and red sections. Here's a newer example in Dana Point...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2948/32805053304_3ee7d9e075_z.jpg)
Quote from: jakeroot on August 07, 2017, 01:57:28 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2017, 12:56:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 07, 2017, 03:30:09 AM
I do think it's strange that so many of their left turn signals are hung from the top, whereas the rest of the signals are mast-arm mounted somewhere between the top-middle and/or middle.
For the most part, it looks like they're attempting to keep the signals more or less in a straight horizontal line -- and since the cantilevered mast is usually at a higher point near the center of the street, the hanging option would be utilized to keep the left-turn signal in line with the others situated along the mast. In the Sacramento area there are numerous interchanges with mast-arms fully extending across the street, anchored on both sides; these are invariably horizontally oriented, which obviates the need to vary the mounting techniques to achieve a straight line. Having signals arrayed in such a straight line minimizes the need for motorists to "hunt" for the signal they need; all that is necessary is to scan across a particular part of the field of vision.
It can be higher, but not by several feet, I don't think?
In the example images above, the left turn signal (the Hwy 67 intersection) is clearly lower than the through signal several feet over. Although the mast-arm is cantilevered, the part of the mast-arm that has the left-most signals mounted to it is flat. They could have been placed level to each other.
With that in mind, why would California use the cantilevered mast-arm if they want drivers to minimize vertical scanning? They could just use (nearly) level mast-arms, like these (Federal Way, WA). No need to look up or down. Everything is right in line:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiuoqREm.png&hash=2eaaf69250eaab4098d64313b3580158c83bf191)
That one on the CA 67 cross-street is indeed a bit strange: the left-turn and the rightmost signal assemblies are more or less in line, while the center one is raised on the arm-mast. Why that was done is perplexing; since this assembly is along a state highway, maybe D11 might be able to shed light on the choice. As to why CA elects to use angled mast-arms rather than straight -- maybe (a) they have a shitload of them stashed in various corporation yards or (b) it what their contractors utilize. Next time I'm in SoCal, I'll have to keep an eye out for various mast configurations -- if indeed a straight mast (otherwise than a full-span horizontal arm) would be optimal for vertical-scan minimization (and the older my eyes get, the more I appreciate such things), it might be interesting to see if they happen to show up in newer installations.
Come to think of it -- in now
very old installations featuring thin curved mast arms with support beams or cables, any separate left-turn signal was usually placed on a ground-mounted pole and set approximately the height of pole-mounted signals at the intersection corner -- always considerably lower than the overhead assembly. Perhaps the lowered left-turn signal --
if replacing an older installation, is an attempt to duplicate the historic location of the signals as much as possible.
Quote from: Ian on August 07, 2017, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 07, 2017, 03:30:09 AM
I do think it's strange that so many of their left turn signals are hung from the top, whereas the rest of the signals are mast-arm mounted somewhere between the top-middle and/or middle.
From what I saw when I was out there last summer, I think California is moving away from hanging their outermost signal heads from the top. All of the new overheads I saw now have the plumbizer (http://www.sentineltraffic.com/assets/img_signalsign1.png) mounted between the amber and red sections. Here's a newer example in Dana Point...
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2948/32805053304_3ee7d9e075_z.jpg
Thanks for the name help, there. I had no idea what those things were called (otherwise I would have used the term in my post, obviously).
They definitely have been moving away from it. They seem to be mostly prevalent in pre-mid-2000s install. I have also seen the "hanging left turn signal" in Oregon. I'm sure I've seen it in Washington too, but I can't remember where.
I do really enjoy California's curved mast arms. When I was a small child, I fell in love with the curved mast arms that DuPage County used to use, and I wished every agency would use them. It's nice to see them used all over California and in some adjacent states as well (looking at you, Arizona).
^^
Pierce County, WA also used those curved mast arms, oh-so-prevalent in California, for several years. But their most recent installations have been of the straight style. The few intersections that have them seem to be only curved mast arms in Western Washington (I think Spokane has quite a few).
What I like about CA is that even on wide intersections they install mast arms where here in FL, the engineers claim that they cannot be installed as you will find many wide intersections using span wire even where the norm is mast arms.
CA also uses 12 inch signal head back plates for 8 inch signal heads which no other state uses. I do not even think that they will let a signal go without em (except SF) like in FL if one gets damaged they will remove it completely and not replace it usually.
I like when states, like California and Illinois, for example, install traffic signals in a number of locations in the intersection -- mounted/hung above the intersection, side pole or pedestal mounted, and near-side mounted. Then, again, I also like how, traditionally, Virginia's VDOT (except Northern Virginia in the last 20-ish years), mounts a signal above each lane. I think a mixture of these installation methods would be best.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2017, 03:07:49 AM
What I like about CA is that even on wide intersections they install mast arms where here in FL, the engineers claim that they cannot be installed as you will find many wide intersections using span wire even where the norm is mast arms.
CA also uses 12 inch signal head back plates for 8 inch signal heads which no other state uses. I do not even think that they will let a signal go without em (except SF) like in FL if one gets damaged they will remove it completely and not replace it usually.
To be fair, I don't think outside of Orange County (or Central Florida at least) thats normal either. I don't think I've ever seen that in any of South Florida that didn't get repaired within a few months. I hate just about everything about how Orange County hangs and runs their signals.
Quote from: UCFKnights on August 13, 2017, 09:32:55 PM
To be fair, I don't think outside of Orange County (or Central Florida at least) thats normal either. I don't think I've ever seen that in any of South Florida that didn't get repaired within a few months. I hate just about everything about how Orange County hangs and runs their signals.
California's signal style very consistent all over the state. Orange and Seminole Counties in Florida are a big mish-mash of designs, and they are all mostly ugly.
Yes, blue.cable, CA's stoplights are very funk, er, interesting. Thanks, Hollywood. :cool:
ixnay
I also find California signal configurations the most interesting. I especially like the curved mast-arms and the combination of overhead and post/pole mounted signals. It is the best of all worlds. Though sometimes I find Calif. a little overwhelming at major intersections where there are heads all over the place pointing all different ways.
Coming from New York where almost all signals are overhead, it took me some time to get used to Calif's signals on my first trip out there years ago. I even went thru a red light (!!!!!) one time when I was looking for an overhead that wasn't there and didn't see the (then) 8 inch pole mounted heads on either side. Friggin' scary; almost had an accident. But after I'd been there a week I was sold on Calif's system.
Anaheim area has a few straight mast arms. They are becoming more rare these days, but in the 90s there were a bunch of installations that utilized straight mast arms in Anaheim around the Knott's Berry Farm area.
8500 S Knott Ave at Crescent.
https://goo.gl/maps/jZMTKVwM5A62
I feel CA does an excellent job of positioning the signals. Since they are generally at different heights and positions, it is very unlikely that your view of them will be blocked by a truck. And generally, this is done pretty efficiently, 3 signal faces per approach, even on very wide streets.
And backplates are absolutely necessary when driving into the sun. I can't beleive that other states haven't figured out how important these are. There are very few backplates in the area of suburban MD.
Most definitely. Born and raised in California myself, when I travel out of state I'm pretty surprised other stares do not follow their model, especially in states like New Mexico, which I currently reside in, which utilize a signals mounted in medians, specifically the Albuquerque area. I've been pretty spoiled also in California with protected left turns at the greater majority of intersections, for the most part with decent programming, detection and calibration of the detection systems, especially in the late evenings, when you pull up and can get a green arrow almost instantaneously. Lastly I really enjoy the structures used, from soft curving poles to much more angular ones. A lot of variation within a standard design. I love it
Quote from: calsignalfan85 on November 09, 2017, 04:20:21 AM
Anaheim area has a few straight mast arms. They are becoming more rare these days, but in the 90s there were a bunch of installations that utilized straight mast arms in Anaheim around the Knott's Berry Farm area.
8500 S Knott Ave at Crescent.
https://goo.gl/maps/jZMTKVwM5A62
I noticed these a few weeks ago, but I didn't
realize it until seeing this post. Something looked funny about those signals, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
Quote from: mrsman on November 10, 2017, 10:41:31 AM
I feel CA does an excellent job of positioning the signals. Since they are generally at different heights and positions, it is very unlikely that your view of them will be blocked by a truck. And generally, this is done pretty efficiently, 3 signal faces per approach, even on very wide streets.
And backplates are absolutely necessary when driving into the sun. I can't beleive that other states haven't figured out how important these are. There are very few backplates in the area of suburban MD.
Come to Illinois. Outside of the City of Chicago, backplates are always found on the overhead signals, and some IDOT districts use them on all signals (such as District 3).
Quote from: Brandon on November 10, 2017, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 10, 2017, 10:41:31 AM
I feel CA does an excellent job of positioning the signals. Since they are generally at different heights and positions, it is very unlikely that your view of them will be blocked by a truck. And generally, this is done pretty efficiently, 3 signal faces per approach, even on very wide streets.
And backplates are absolutely necessary when driving into the sun. I can't beleive that other states haven't figured out how important these are. There are very few backplates in the area of suburban MD.
Come to Illinois. Outside of the City of Chicago, backplates are always found on the overhead signals, and some IDOT districts use them on all signals (such as District 3).
I do find it rather interesting that Illinois, in addition to Colorado and British Columbia (and the city of Spokane, WA), generally only use backplates on overhead signals. Truthfully, backplates are really only necessary on overhead signals because that's where the sun is located. But as a matter of practice, most other areas that use post-/mast-mounted signals at all intersections (CA, AZ, NV, WI, MN, etc) use backplates with these signals. I guess I'm more surprised that a state's "signal design manual" (or whatever it's called) is that specific.
California and other jurisdictions are wise to use backplates on post/pole mounted signals. They are necessary due to background lighting, particularly storefront lighting and lighted advertising signs in commercial areas. My county hardly uses backplates ever, and I remember one pole-mount on the high side of a T-intersection that was almost invisible at night, viewed against a bright yellow lighted awning on a storefront.
Quote from: Brandon on November 10, 2017, 05:13:00 PM
Come to Illinois. Outside of the City of Chicago, backplates are always found on the overhead signals, and some IDOT districts use them on all signals (such as District 3).
When I was a kid, I was appalled by the lack of backplates on overhead signals when I'd leave the state, especially to go to points east. District 3 and District 2 are both insistent on using backplates on every single signal head. Overall, signal quality increases as you go west (highly general statement with obvious exceptions). And what state is farthest west?
My only gripe about California's signals is that their signal heads aren't as abundant as they could be at some intersections. I know the MUTCD specifies that there should always be at least two green balls for thru traffic, and I'm not aware of anything specifically requesting multiple signal heads for turning traffic. But it still bothers me when I only see one signal head with left arrows, even if there's only one left turn lane. Same goes for right arrows. There should be a backup signal head for all movements in case one dies out, in my opinion. I also think there should be one signal head for each thru lane...There are places in CA where I'll still only see two green balls for three lanes of thru traffic.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 10, 2017, 07:57:16 PM
And what state is farthest west?
Even ignoring Alaska and Hawaii, Washington and Oregon are both farther west than California, whether you determine it by westernmost point, geographical center, or center of population.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 10, 2017, 07:57:16 PM
My only gripe about California's signals is that their signal heads aren't as abundant as they could be at some intersections. I know the MUTCD specifies that there should always be at least two green balls for thru traffic, and I'm not aware of anything specifically requesting multiple signal heads for turning traffic. But it still bothers me when I only see one signal head with left arrows, even if there's only one left turn lane. Same goes for right arrows. There should be a backup signal head for all movements in case one dies out, in my opinion. I also think there should be one signal head for each thru lane...There are places in CA where I'll still only see two green balls for three lanes of thru traffic.
I need some clarification here. California, evidently, requires a pole-mounted signal head for each movement, and a minimum of two signals per movement. A typical setup, assuming three through lanes, two left turn lanes (no u-turn permitted), and one right turn lane, would be to have one left turn signal overhead, one left turn signal mast/pole mounted on the far left, one or two through signals mounted overhead, and two 5-section towers mounted on the far-right and near-right side of the intersection (the near-side being pole mounted and the far side being attached to the mast usually). California does not prescribe to the signal-per-lane philosophy, instead opting for signals in other areas, such as in corners, and attached to poles or masts. It's not unusual to see one overhead signal (left or straight movement) for three lanes, with additional supplementary signals in the corners of the intersection.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 10, 2017, 07:57:16 PM
There are places in CA where I'll still only see two green balls for three lanes of thru traffic.
Heh. You wouldn't like driving in NJ then. It wasn't unusual to find situations like this: One overhead signal beyond the stop line for FOUR lanes of traffic! https://goo.gl/maps/n8gJJK4Bif92 (Well, the unusual thing would be finding a road with 4 lanes in one direction to begin with! But a single overhead signal like shown above was quite common no matter how many lanes existed)
That is being phased out though. The GSV linked above is from 2013. The more recent ones show the traffic lights were upgraded to the standard one-per-lane.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 10, 2017, 10:59:13 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 10, 2017, 07:57:16 PM
There are places in CA where I'll still only see two green balls for three lanes of thru traffic.
Heh. You wouldn't like driving in NJ then. It wasn't unusual to find situations like this: One overhead signal beyond the stop line for FOUR lanes of traffic! https://goo.gl/maps/n8gJJK4Bif92 (Well, the unusual thing would be finding a road with 4 lanes in one direction to begin with! But a single overhead signal like shown above was quite common no matter how many lanes existed)
That is being phased out though. The GSV linked above is from 2013. The more recent ones show the traffic lights were upgraded to the standard one-per-lane.
Technically, there was two.
As jakeroot pointed out above, California uses their older configuration of a combination of post and overhead signal heads, not the current MUTCD recommendation of one overhead signal per lane.
We need to emphasize that is only a suggestion in the Manual. The actual standard still reads the same as it has for many years. Only one signal head is required in the driver's cone-of-vision; the second head is preferred in the cone, but not required. So California's configuration still meets Manual standards, and in my opinion is the better way to go. I've always thought that Calif's combination of post and overhead mounts gave the best visibility to all approaching traffic, especially when you're behind a large truck that blocks your view of the signals over the lanes. There is still a lot to be said for eye-level pole mounted heads.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 10, 2017, 05:27:02 PM
Truthfully, backplates are really only necessary on overhead signals because that's where the sun is located.
Strongly disagree - a backplate can be a necessity on eastbound and westbound signals if there are no buildings or other permanent obstructions to the sun - deciduous trees don't count during the winter months. Sunrise and sunset can be a problem for non-overhead mounted signal heads. Backplates can also become necessary if the bracket mounted/post mounted heads are mounted high enough, mounted in front of a drop off, or mounted in front of a highly reflective building.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 11, 2017, 07:47:08 PM
As jakeroot pointed out above, California uses their older configuration of a combination of post and overhead signal heads, not the current MUTCD recommendation of one overhead signal per lane.
We need to emphasize that is only a suggestion in the Manual. The actual standard still reads the same as it has for many years. Only one signal head is required in the driver's cone-of-vision; the second head is preferred in the cone, but not required. So California's configuration still meets Manual standards, and in my opinion is the better way to go. I've always thought that Calif's combination of post and overhead mounts gave the best visibility to all approaching traffic, especially when you're behind a large truck that blocks your view of the signals over the lanes. There is still a lot to be said for eye-level pole mounted heads.
I'm curious how that plays out in the courts in California. Given how much some places try to obey all of the "should" statements in the MUTCD, I have to wonder if they lost in court for not following a "should" statement without adequate justification.
There are also Paragraphs 01 and 02 in 4D.12 to consider, from it which it may be possible to argue for better visibility than the minimum required by Figure 4D-4.
Quote from: The primary consideration in signal face placement, aiming, and adjustment shall be to optimize the visibility of signal indications to approaching traffic.
Road users approaching a signalized intersection or other signalized area, such as a midblock crosswalk, shall be given a clear and unmistakable indication of their right-of-way assignment.
Not all drivers approaching an intersection have the same cone of vision. You can assume the front cars can see all signals, except near-side signals. Cars behind them, assuming they can't see over the front cars (quite common for me, driving a small hatchback), rely on near-side and corner signals to see. California, along with other states that I previously mentioned (AZ, NV, MN, WI, IL, CO, plus other states and several Canadian provinces) are the only places that really have the whole "cone of vision" thing down for more than just the drivers up front. Too many states place signals just overhead. Which is fine, if you're in the front. But it's no good for everyone else, especially if the car up front is tall.
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 11, 2017, 08:18:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 10, 2017, 05:27:02 PM
Truthfully, backplates are really only necessary on overhead signals because that's where the sun is located.
Strongly disagree - a backplate can be a necessity on eastbound and westbound signals if there are no buildings or other permanent obstructions to the sun - deciduous trees don't count during the winter months. Sunrise and sunset can be a problem for non-overhead mounted signal heads. Backplates can also become necessary if the bracket mounted/post mounted heads are mounted high enough, mounted in front of a drop off, or mounted in front of a highly reflective building.
Fair points. From my experience driving in BC (where, for the most part, secondary signals do not have backplates), I've never struggled to see post-mounted signals. When the sun was an issue, I generally just looked at the signal that was easier to see (sun near horizon?...overhead; sun overhead?...post-mounted). If only one type of signal was provided, certainly backplates would be necessary, because there would be times where none of the signals would be visible, for various reasons. But when both overhead and side/post mounted signals are provided, I'm generally fine with only using backplates overhead, because during most of the day (assuming the sun is out), they are the harder of the signals to see. There's also a crowding issue, where closely spaced post-mounted signals sometimes can't have backplates because they are placed too close together.
Jakeroot, many of your points are well taken. But the "cone-of-vision" that we speak about in the Manual is very specific. If you look at the MUTCD on the FHWA website, there is a detailed diagram in Sec. 4D-13, Fig. 4D-4, that shows all the distances, angles, etc.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 11, 2017, 09:48:38 PM
Jakeroot, many of your points are well taken. But the "cone-of-vision" that we speak about in the Manual is very specific. If you look at the MUTCD on the FHWA website, there is a detailed diagram in Sec. 4D-13, Fig. 4D-4, that shows all the distances, angles, etc.
I see. Judging by the diagram, a mast-mounted through signal, in addition to one overhead signal, should satisfy the requirements, assuming the road isn't too wide...
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig4d_04.gif)
Quote from: jakeroot on November 10, 2017, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 10, 2017, 07:57:16 PM
My only gripe about California's signals is that their signal heads aren't as abundant as they could be at some intersections. I know the MUTCD specifies that there should always be at least two green balls for thru traffic, and I'm not aware of anything specifically requesting multiple signal heads for turning traffic. But it still bothers me when I only see one signal head with left arrows, even if there's only one left turn lane. Same goes for right arrows. There should be a backup signal head for all movements in case one dies out, in my opinion. I also think there should be one signal head for each thru lane...There are places in CA where I'll still only see two green balls for three lanes of thru traffic.
I need some clarification here. California, evidently, requires a pole-mounted signal head for each movement, and a minimum of two signals per movement. A typical setup, assuming three through lanes, two left turn lanes (no u-turn permitted), and one right turn lane, would be to have one left turn signal overhead, one left turn signal mast/pole mounted on the far left, one or two through signals mounted overhead, and two 5-section towers mounted on the far-right and near-right side of the intersection (the near-side being pole mounted and the far side being attached to the mast usually). California does not prescribe to the signal-per-lane philosophy, instead opting for signals in other areas, such as in corners, and attached to poles or masts. It's not unusual to see one overhead signal (left or straight movement) for three lanes, with additional supplementary signals in the corners of the intersection.
Maybe you can provide an example. As jakeroot mentioned: Every traffic signal with left turn arrows that I've come across in CA has the arrows facing traffic in at least two places. Left turn signals are generally found on the mast arm, the far left corner on a pole, the far median, or the near-side median. Every left turn that I can think of has the left signal on two of these places. Right turn signals, which are a great help to keep traffic moving while the complementary left (u-turn prohibited) is in a protected phase, are almost always both on the near-side right corner and the far-side right corner. I am struggling to think of any situation where a turning arrow is only shown once.
Quote from: Ian on August 07, 2017, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 07, 2017, 03:30:09 AM
I do think it's strange that so many of their left turn signals are hung from the top, whereas the rest of the signals are mast-arm mounted somewhere between the top-middle and/or middle.
From what I saw when I was out there last summer, I think California is moving away from hanging their outermost signal heads from the top. All of the new overheads I saw now have the plumbizer (http://www.sentineltraffic.com/assets/img_signalsign1.png) mounted between the amber and red sections. Here's a newer example in Dana Point...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2948/32805053304_3ee7d9e075_z.jpg)
Protected Left turn signals have been mounted between the red and amber lights for decades, I mean from the 70s to present. They are mounted how ever the installer feels. I've seen them mounted from the top on one block and on the next block they are mounted between the red and amber. It can vary.
Quote from: calsignalfan85 on April 05, 2018, 10:32:24 PM
Quote from: Ian on August 07, 2017, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 07, 2017, 03:30:09 AM
I do think it's strange that so many of their left turn signals are hung from the top, whereas the rest of the signals are mast-arm mounted somewhere between the top-middle and/or middle.
From what I saw when I was out there last summer, I think California is moving away from hanging their outermost signal heads from the top. All of the new overheads I saw now have the plumbizer (http://www.sentineltraffic.com/assets/img_signalsign1.png) mounted between the amber and red sections. Here's a newer example in Dana Point...
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2948/32805053304_3ee7d9e075_z.jpg
Protected Left turn signals have been mounted between the red and amber lights for decades, I mean from the 70s to present. They are mounted how ever the installer feels. I've seen them mounted from the top on one block and on the next block they are mounted between the red and amber. It can vary.
But, specifically, why is it that the left turn signal is/can be hung from the top, but never the through signal? I can't recall ever seeing a through signal hung from the top, except for visibility (see here (https://goo.gl/Pg2A3y)). If the installer chose to hang the left turn signal, why did he mount the through signal with the "plumbizer" attached between the red and amber orbs (as is standard practice for most signal heads, except when those secondary half-inch-wide poles (https://goo.gl/EQt7FP) are attached in between the signal and the mast arm)?
Quote from: jakeroot on April 06, 2018, 09:18:17 PM
Quote from: calsignalfan85 on April 05, 2018, 10:32:24 PM
Quote from: Ian on August 07, 2017, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 07, 2017, 03:30:09 AM
I do think it's strange that so many of their left turn signals are hung from the top, whereas the rest of the signals are mast-arm mounted somewhere between the top-middle and/or middle.
From what I saw when I was out there last summer, I think California is moving away from hanging their outermost signal heads from the top. All of the new overheads I saw now have the plumbizer (http://www.sentineltraffic.com/assets/img_signalsign1.png) mounted between the amber and red sections. Here's a newer example in Dana Point...
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2948/32805053304_3ee7d9e075_z.jpg
Protected Left turn signals have been mounted between the red and amber lights for decades, I mean from the 70s to present. They are mounted how ever the installer feels. I've seen them mounted from the top on one block and on the next block they are mounted between the red and amber. It can vary.
But, specifically, why is it that the left turn signal is/can be hung from the top, but never the through signal? I can't recall ever seeing a through signal hung from the top, except for visibility (see here (https://goo.gl/Pg2A3y)). If the installer chose to hang the left turn signal, why did he mount the through signal with the "plumbizer" attached between the red and amber orbs (as is standard practice for most signal heads, except when those secondary half-inch-wide poles (https://goo.gl/EQt7FP) are attached in between the signal and the mast arm)?
Ultimately, I think it probably has just come down to agency preference or parts available.
One scenario I can think of is that perhaps a protected left turn was installed where originally there was a permitted left using a standard 3-section circular display. In this instance, maybe the agency installed the left turn signal hanging from the top to provide a visual distinction that the traffic control had changed. Just a theory, but plausible. Another theory could be that the agency got a big supply of left turn signal heads from a manufacturer that already had plumbizers attached to the top, and it wasn't worth the time and expense to deal with the supplier to get a new shipment with plumbizers between red and yellow.
Some Nevada examples of where signal heads are mounted differently than normal for no apparent reason:
Here's an older signal installation in Sparks, NV (McCarran Blvd & Victorian Ave/I-80 EB off ramp), which mimics the more traditional California setups with curved mast arms:
McCarran Blvd NB (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5342455,-119.7378407,3a,29.6y,24.31h,91.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGxfU-7MKyVmy1i12gYB1sg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) - Interestingly, this also uses the "left turn signal mounted from the top" approach. That installation style is not common around here.
McCarran Blvd SB (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5345835,-119.7378006,3a,25.4y,216.16h,92.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbW4jBIBU_-Rjnszkx3ZpNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) - The right thru signal is actually mounted with plumbizer between yellow and green, which seems like an effort to equalize height between the three thru signals until you realize this *wasn't* done for the opposite direction (as seen in the other link). But this is something I've seen this done a couple times in California as well.
Another older installation in Sparks, NV (Sparks Blvd & Prater Way). This install uses straight mast arms.
Prater Way EB (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.541963,-119.7156082,3a,22.4y,94.82h,89.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7vXZOKJLQsaNdixajBta_w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) - left turn signal mounted with plumbizer between yellow and green sections, despite no obvious reason to do so and all other overhead signals at this intersection mounted normally.
Quote from: blue.cable82 on August 07, 2017, 02:45:23 AM
California Traffic signal are most interest In the USA. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170807/dc22dc66a7f8e529e499e6e7324cbce7.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170807/5be69d54aaa7d1697429e241a9f22ed3.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170807/d66fc65e2fcf5697450440f338ce23fa.jpg)
LGMS210
I love California traffic signals, but they have a severe lack of Permissive Left Turns, FYAs are coming to Cali but slowly
iPhone
Quote from: calsignalfan85 on November 09, 2017, 04:20:21 AM
Anaheim area has a few straight mast arms. They are becoming more rare these days, but in the 90s there were a bunch of installations that utilized straight mast arms in Anaheim around the Knott's Berry Farm area.
8500 S Knott Ave at Crescent.
https://goo.gl/maps/jZMTKVwM5A62
The old traffic signal at La Palma & Gilbert was a straight mast arm with one traffic light head. It has been replaced with a longer curved mast arm. I think there may be a few straight mast arms around LAX as well
Quote from: capt.ron on June 01, 2020, 12:38:54 AM
Quote from: calsignalfan85 on November 09, 2017, 04:20:21 AM
Anaheim area has a few straight mast arms. They are becoming more rare these days, but in the 90s there were a bunch of installations that utilized straight mast arms in Anaheim around the Knott's Berry Farm area.
8500 S Knott Ave at Crescent.
https://goo.gl/maps/jZMTKVwM5A62
The old traffic signal at La Palma & Gilbert was a straight mast arm with one traffic light head. It has been replaced with a longer curved mast arm. I think there may be a few straight mast arms around LAX as well
Could you be more specific as to which "La Palma & Gilbert" you are referring to?
The one in Anaheim (https://goo.gl/maps/p5yab84WRiKQ5GbTA) has four mast arms that are clearly quite old, and all are curved. The signals themselves are quite worn. I don't get the impression these were the replacements for anything, anytime within the last 20 years
at least.
edit: geography.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 01, 2020, 04:21:14 AM
Quote from: capt.ron on June 01, 2020, 12:38:54 AM
Quote from: calsignalfan85 on November 09, 2017, 04:20:21 AM
Anaheim area has a few straight mast arms. They are becoming more rare these days, but in the 90s there were a bunch of installations that utilized straight mast arms in Anaheim around the Knott's Berry Farm area.
8500 S Knott Ave at Crescent.
https://goo.gl/maps/jZMTKVwM5A62
The old traffic signal at La Palma & Gilbert was a straight mast arm with one traffic light head. It has been replaced with a longer curved mast arm. I think there may be a few straight mast arms around LAX as well
Could you be more specific as to which "La Palma & Gilbert" you are referring to? The one in Buena Park (https://goo.gl/maps/p5yab84WRiKQ5GbTA) has four mast arms that are clearly quite old, and all are curved. The signals themselves are quite worn. I don't get the impression these were the replacements for anything, anytime within the last 20 years at least.
The old traffic signal at La Palma Avenue & Gilbert Street in Anaheim had resembled this signal on northbound Euclid Street at Glenoaks Avenue: https://goo.gl/maps/CSsPuJzqFbBTkqW99
Buena Park has the majority of the straight mast arm traffic signals left in Orange County. Other areas of Orange County where straight mast signals are (or were) utilized include:
- La Veta Avenue (east and westbound) at Main Street in Orange
(no longer exists) - Westbound Katella Avenue at Lexington Drive in Los Alamitos
(no longer exists) - Barranca Pkwy at Armstrong Avenue in Irvine
https://goo.gl/maps/HcVyTDa38ubpEHyH7 - Orangethrope Avenue at Walker Street in La Palma
https://goo.gl/maps/9y8Q48asMPi2MHB9A - Eastbound Chapman Avenue at Victoria Drive in Fullerton
https://goo.gl/maps/7sTNVqR4gTkJ4W7f9 - Newport Center Drive at Santa Rosa Drive in Newport Beach
https://goo.gl/maps/1g3eZKTiitcT9ffr6
Brookhust Street in Anaheim at La Palma Avenue and Ball Road used to have straight mast arm traffic signals until around 20 years ago.
The last time I visited Los Angeles, back in 1997, there were straight mast arms in the downtown Glendale business district as I recall.
There are also some in Beverly Hills, although they are attached using guy wires as well.
Quote from: FreewayDan on June 01, 2020, 06:30:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 01, 2020, 04:21:14 AM
Quote from: capt.ron on June 01, 2020, 12:38:54 AM
Quote from: calsignalfan85 on November 09, 2017, 04:20:21 AM
Anaheim area has a few straight mast arms. They are becoming more rare these days, but in the 90s there were a bunch of installations that utilized straight mast arms in Anaheim around the Knott's Berry Farm area.
8500 S Knott Ave at Crescent.
https://goo.gl/maps/jZMTKVwM5A62
The old traffic signal at La Palma & Gilbert was a straight mast arm with one traffic light head. It has been replaced with a longer curved mast arm. I think there may be a few straight mast arms around LAX as well
Could you be more specific as to which "La Palma & Gilbert" you are referring to? The one in Buena Park (https://goo.gl/maps/p5yab84WRiKQ5GbTA) has four mast arms that are clearly quite old, and all are curved. The signals themselves are quite worn. I don't get the impression these were the replacements for anything, anytime within the last 20 years at least.
The old traffic signal at La Palma Avenue & Gilbert Street in Anaheim had resembled this signal on northbound Euclid Street at Glenoaks Avenue: https://goo.gl/maps/CSsPuJzqFbBTkqW99
...
Brookhust Street in Anaheim at La Palma Avenue and Ball Road used to have straight mast arm traffic signals until around 20 years ago.
I gotcha. What you consider "old" is "very old" to me, since the current signal (20+ years old) already seem pretty old to me. I certainly wouldn't qualify it as "new" when you consider the current state of the intersection anyhow, with the faded and chipped paint, and the old signals with the raised dot in the middle (a brand that I know has been out of production for a while).
Quote from: FreewayDan on June 01, 2020, 06:30:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 01, 2020, 04:21:14 AM
Quote from: capt.ron on June 01, 2020, 12:38:54 AM
Quote from: calsignalfan85 on November 09, 2017, 04:20:21 AM
Anaheim area has a few straight mast arms. They are becoming more rare these days, but in the 90s there were a bunch of installations that utilized straight mast arms in Anaheim around the Knott's Berry Farm area.
8500 S Knott Ave at Crescent.
https://goo.gl/maps/jZMTKVwM5A62
The old traffic signal at La Palma & Gilbert was a straight mast arm with one traffic light head. It has been replaced with a longer curved mast arm. I think there may be a few straight mast arms around LAX as well
Could you be more specific as to which "La Palma & Gilbert" you are referring to? The one in Buena Park (https://goo.gl/maps/p5yab84WRiKQ5GbTA) has four mast arms that are clearly quite old, and all are curved. The signals themselves are quite worn. I don't get the impression these were the replacements for anything, anytime within the last 20 years at least.
The old traffic signal at La Palma Avenue & Gilbert Street in Anaheim had resembled this signal on northbound Euclid Street at Glenoaks Avenue: https://goo.gl/maps/CSsPuJzqFbBTkqW99
Buena Park has the majority of the straight mast arm traffic signals left in Orange County. Other areas of Orange County where straight mast signals are utilized include:
- La Veta Avenue (east and westbound) at Main Street in Orange
(no longer exists) - Westbound Katella Avenue at Lexington Drive in Los Alamitos
(no longer exists) - Barranca Pkwy at Armstrong Avenue in Irvine
https://goo.gl/maps/HcVyTDa38ubpEHyH7 - Orangethrope Avenue at Walker Street in La Palma
https://goo.gl/maps/9y8Q48asMPi2MHB9A - Eastbound Chapman Avenue at Victoria Drive in Fullerton
https://goo.gl/maps/7sTNVqR4gTkJ4W7f9 - Newport Center Drive at Santa Rosa Drive in Newport Beach
https://goo.gl/maps/1g3eZKTiitcT9ffr6
Brookhurst Street in Anaheim at La Palma Avenue and Ball Road used to have straight mast arm traffic signals until around 20 years ago.
Yep. I'm guessing when they widened the La Palma bridge over I-5 in the late 1990's / early 2000's, the traffic signals at La Palma & Gilbert also got upgraded. Back when I was young, the old La Palma overpass (over I-5 and the RR) was 2 lane and curved. I remember it being the straight mast arm(s) in 1992 when I visited SoCal.
As someone who does not work in traffic engineering, I loved reading this discussion! I never knew that anyone else paid such close attention to the design and engineering of traffic signals. :cool:
I've lived in California for over 20 years and I still feel grateful that so much thought and considerations goes into the way the traffic signals are set up in this state. The angled masts are the best, in my opinion! Drivers should see an arc of lights as they approach a signaled intersection. For the most part, California does this perfectly. I also love that the signals are often set up with varying distances from the driver's perspective so that depth perception issues are covered as well.
I grew up in Florida and return to visit occasionally. The old signals hanging from wires strung across the intersections are still common there. They're so ugly, and so much less visually effective. Seeing them in person always makes me appreciate California even more.
CalMark123, I agree with you about Calif. signal configuration.
And you're not the only one. I lived most of my life never knowing that so many other people were interested in this stuff the same as I've been since I was a kid. Thanks to the internet and forums like this it's been a real awakening!
Quote from: SignBridge on July 02, 2020, 10:20:18 PM
CalMark123, I agree with you about Calif. signal configuration.
And you're not the only one. I lived most of my life never knowing that so many other people were interested in this stuff the same as I've been since I was a kid. Thanks to the internet and forums like this it's been a real awakening!
Agreed! :nod: At least it's been a source of amusement for me from time to time. I remember telling a friend years ago about all of the things I didn't like about Florida. I finished my rant of complaints with, "And I don't even like the way they hang the traffic signals!" I'm sure he thought I was a little unhinged. :-D
Quote from: CalMark123 on July 03, 2020, 12:34:50 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 02, 2020, 10:20:18 PM
CalMark123, I agree with you about Calif. signal configuration.
And you're not the only one. I lived most of my life never knowing that so many other people were interested in this stuff the same as I've been since I was a kid. Thanks to the internet and forums like this it's been a real awakening!
Agreed! :nod: At least it's been a source of amusement for me from time to time. I remember telling a friend years ago about all of the things I didn't like about Florida. I finished my rant of complaints with, "And I don't even like the way they hang the traffic signals!" I'm sure he thought I was a little unhinged. :-D
When I lived in South Florida, most of it was pretty good on the span wires about putting at least one signal per lane, plus an additional near signal centered on the road. If there were 2 left turn lanes, that would also almost always get a near signal as well. After the hurricanes, I was a little disappointed about the switch from hanging from wires to mast arms for most new installations, as we lost the near signal in the process most of the time. When I moved to Orlando, I couldn't believe how awful they were at installing span wires. Then again, I also couldn't believe how awful they were at installing and maintaining mast arms as well
Don't many parts of Florida use mast-arms with horizontal signals similar to Texas practice?
Quote from: SignBridge on July 03, 2020, 09:35:21 PM
Don't many parts of Florida use mast-arms with horizontal signals similar to Texas practice?
My recollection is that the downtowns of Florida's larger cities use mast-arms with horizontal signals, but I don't see much consistency in other areas.
Just as an example, here's an image from one of the busiest intersections in Hillsborough County (Tampa area):
https://goo.gl/maps/QBA6KdjAcGo6KFmt6
Wow, that may be the longest diagonal span-wire with the most signals heads I've ever seen.
For a different subtopic: Newer traffic signals in the Calabasas and Thousand Oaks areas, along US 101, have yellow borders around the backplates. Here is an example from today:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50073858811_f2bd198c9b.jpg)
Quote from: M3100 on July 03, 2020, 10:30:01 PM
For a different subtopic: Newer traffic signals in the Calabasas and Thousand Oaks areas, along US 101, have yellow borders around the backplates. Here is an example from today:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50073858811_f2bd198c9b.jpg)
These backplates are common with new traffic lights. Extra reflectivity at night.
Caltrans is also adding these to existing signals in multiple Northern California districts lately. This includes nearly all of the Caltrans signals in Santa Cruz County (District 5) and also many in southern Santa Clara County (Gilroy). I'm guessing all of the Caltrans districts got some additional funding this year for safety improvements?
Yep, I recently noticed the new backplates added to a few old signals here in Palm Springs as well. I just thought they looked sharp. :) Glad to know they serve a functional purpose too.
Quote from: mapman on July 04, 2020, 01:27:45 AM
Caltrans is also adding these to existing signals in multiple Northern California districts lately. This includes nearly all of the Caltrans signals in Santa Cruz County (District 5) and also many in southern Santa Clara County (Gilroy). I'm guessing all of the Caltrans districts got some additional funding this year for safety improvements?
The reflective yellow backplates were installed on the signals on US 50 through South Lake Tahoe within the last couple months.
One of the stated reasons is that it makes the signal easier to see at night during a power outage. So motorists supposedly will be less likely to blow through an intersection without stopping when the signals aren't functioning. With power companies deliberately shutting off power to certain fire-prone areas during adverse weather conditions, that's an increasingly common occurrence.
Quote from: CalMark123 on July 03, 2020, 09:51:41 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 03, 2020, 09:35:21 PM
Don't many parts of Florida use mast-arms with horizontal signals similar to Texas practice?
My recollection is that the downtowns of Florida's larger cities use mast-arms with horizontal signals, but I don't see much consistency in other areas.
If I remember right, horizontal signals are only 'common' in South Florida. Particularly Miami-Dade County.
The horizontal black signals without backplates were common enough to make their way into Grand Theft Auto: Vice City:
(https://i.imgur.com/KpK6l9R.jpg)
Quote from: jakeroot on July 04, 2020, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: CalMark123 on July 03, 2020, 09:51:41 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 03, 2020, 09:35:21 PM
Don't many parts of Florida use mast-arms with horizontal signals similar to Texas practice?
My recollection is that the downtowns of Florida's larger cities use mast-arms with horizontal signals, but I don't see much consistency in other areas.
If I remember right, horizontal signals are only 'common' in South Florida. Particularly Miami-Dade County.
The horizontal black signals without backplates were common enough to make their way into Grand Theft Auto: Vice City:
Cool. And yes, you are exactly right. They are common in Miami-Dade County. Good to see some consistency there.
I've always liked the minimalist design of those horizontal signals, although I don't think they are optimal. Visually, it looks like something is missing. The blank vertical space on the pole is crying out for a vertically-mounted third signal.
Re: the reflectorized backplate border strips, I'm bucking the trend here. I do not like them, though I agree they will be helpful during power outages. The problem I have with them is they are visually distracting; they make the whole display more visually complex. I liked it better the old way, with just the lighted signal and plain black backplate so all you really saw was the lighted lamp. I assume many will disagree but that's the way I see it. (Pun intended LOL)
Quote from: jakeroot on July 04, 2020, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: CalMark123 on July 03, 2020, 09:51:41 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 03, 2020, 09:35:21 PM
Don't many parts of Florida use mast-arms with horizontal signals similar to Texas practice?
My recollection is that the downtowns of Florida's larger cities use mast-arms with horizontal signals, but I don't see much consistency in other areas.
If I remember right, horizontal signals are only 'common' in South Florida. Particularly Miami-Dade County.
The horizontal black signals without backplates were common enough to make their way into Grand Theft Auto: Vice City:
(https://i.imgur.com/KpK6l9R.jpg)
Horizontal signals are standard in Alachua County in North Florida as well: https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6334825,-82.3588509,3a,50.6y,31h,92.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPb2tO7dK369jmfO-E4Zjgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: M3100 on July 03, 2020, 10:30:01 PM
For a different subtopic: Newer traffic signals in the Calabasas and Thousand Oaks areas, along US 101, have yellow borders around the backplates. Here is an example from today:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50073858811_f2bd198c9b.jpg)
Vallejo has a similar thing at Redwood Street @ I-80 interchange where there is a yellow outline on the traffic lights. Usually a black outline or a dark green outline is common for traffic lights in California.
Quote from: bing101 on July 06, 2020, 08:34:40 PM
Usually a black outline or a dark green outline is common for traffic lights in California.
Dark green outline? I've never heard of this. Backplates are required to be black, and outlines have historically been a contrasting color (usually yellow, very rarely white).
WA also used dark green signals for decades, but backplates were always black. Never the prettiest combination, IMO.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 06, 2020, 09:37:51 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 06, 2020, 08:34:40 PM
Usually a black outline or a dark green outline is common for traffic lights in California.
Dark green outline? I've never heard of this. Backplates are required to be black, and outlines have historically been a contrasting color (usually yellow, very rarely white).
WA also used dark green signals for decades, but backplates were always black. Never the prettiest combination, IMO.
Here's a murky colored older one at 79th and Central in LA:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9674377,-118.2563452,3a,24.9y,95.94h,104.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxU-pa_fY7cyNNSc7YIisVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
A ton of old ones have...interestingly colored backplates, but definitely not pure dark green. Here's Crenshaw and Venice in a nicer part of town: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0448284,-118.3285325,3a,17.7y,247.82h,124.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_-5QyqqVkyQTNXiAu1IVww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: jakeroot on July 06, 2020, 09:37:51 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 06, 2020, 08:34:40 PM
Usually a black outline or a dark green outline is common for traffic lights in California.
Dark green outline? I've never heard of this. Backplates are required to be black, and outlines have historically been a contrasting color (usually yellow, very rarely white).
WA also used dark green signals for decades, but backplates were always black. Never the prettiest combination, IMO.
I'm guessing bing101 was referring to the backplate color itself. I've never seen a backplate outline in California other than the few more recent retroreflective yellow outlines that the MUTCD now allows.
Quote from: roadfro on July 11, 2020, 05:17:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 06, 2020, 09:37:51 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 06, 2020, 08:34:40 PM
Usually a black outline or a dark green outline is common for traffic lights in California.
Dark green outline? I've never heard of this. Backplates are required to be black, and outlines have historically been a contrasting color (usually yellow, very rarely white).
WA also used dark green signals for decades, but backplates were always black. Never the prettiest combination, IMO.
I'm guessing bing101 was referring to the backplate color itself. I've never seen a backplate outline in California other than the few more recent retroreflective yellow outlines that the MUTCD now allows.
I was thinking so, yes. But then again, have you ever seen a backplate in California that was anything other than black or faded black? I know the signal bodies themselves have sometimes been dark green.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2020, 09:11:06 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 11, 2020, 05:17:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 06, 2020, 09:37:51 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 06, 2020, 08:34:40 PM
Usually a black outline or a dark green outline is common for traffic lights in California.
Dark green outline? I've never heard of this. Backplates are required to be black, and outlines have historically been a contrasting color (usually yellow, very rarely white).
WA also used dark green signals for decades, but backplates were always black. Never the prettiest combination, IMO.
I'm guessing bing101 was referring to the backplate color itself. I've never seen a backplate outline in California other than the few more recent retroreflective yellow outlines that the MUTCD now allows.
I was thinking so, yes. But then again, have you ever seen a backplate in California that was anything other than black or faded black? I know the signal bodies themselves have sometimes been dark green.
I can't think of any, no. Like Nevada, sometimes some backplates appear to be a deep gray or darkish green, but it is usually the effect of sun fade from an original black finish.
Quote from: roadfro on July 13, 2020, 10:50:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2020, 09:11:06 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 11, 2020, 05:17:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 06, 2020, 09:37:51 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 06, 2020, 08:34:40 PM
Usually a black outline or a dark green outline is common for traffic lights in California.
Dark green outline? I've never heard of this. Backplates are required to be black, and outlines have historically been a contrasting color (usually yellow, very rarely white).
WA also used dark green signals for decades, but backplates were always black. Never the prettiest combination, IMO.
I'm guessing bing101 was referring to the backplate color itself. I've never seen a backplate outline in California other than the few more recent retroreflective yellow outlines that the MUTCD now allows.
I was thinking so, yes. But then again, have you ever seen a backplate in California that was anything other than black or faded black? I know the signal bodies themselves have sometimes been dark green.
I can't think of any, no. Like Nevada, sometimes some backplates appear to be a deep gray or darkish green, but it is usually the effect of sun fade from an original black finish.
That's how I've understood it. The fading effect does seem less pronounced on those backplates with wind pass-throughs.
According to
this document (https://www.multicominc.com/wp-content/uploads/econolite_backplates_datasheet.pdf), which I think is from a reseller of traffic signal backplates, they are actually produced in four colors: dark olive green, yellow, flat black, and gloss black. All match federal standards. Thing is, I don't recall the FHWA allowing anything other than black (glossy or dull) for backplates. The only exception seems to be
bike signals (https://goo.gl/maps/BNpJvScfguKUXJiZ7) (
and (https://goo.gl/maps/3eus7fmxSnB6UA6e8) errors (https://goo.gl/maps/cyXz7VQ1nT5eHREP6)).
^^ Correct. MUTCD says backplates must be black.
Quote from: Big John on July 13, 2020, 03:50:15 PM
^^ Correct. MUTCD says backplates must be black.
Wait- does the manual probhibit the yellow-bordered backplates I have seen around?
^ MUTCD 4D.12 Paragraph 21 allows backplates to have "[a] yellow retroreflective strip with a minimum width of 1 inch and a maximum width of 3 inches".
Bigger question I have is if the MUTCD actually allows louvers/slots in backplates (hopefully they will be listed as an option in the next edition rather than remaining as another questionable ambiguity).
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 13, 2020, 04:53:35 PM
^ MUTCD 4D.12 Paragraph 21 allows backplates to have "[a] yellow retroreflective strip with a minimum width of 1 inch and a maximum width of 3 inches".
Bigger question I have is if the MUTCD actually allows louvers/slots in backplates (hopefully they will be listed as an option in the next edition rather than remaining as another questionable ambiguity).
I'm fairly certain the MUTCD is silent on the issue of louvers in the backplates. I don't see why backplate louvers would be questionable or an issue.
Quote from: roadfro on July 14, 2020, 11:50:12 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 13, 2020, 04:53:35 PM
^ MUTCD 4D.12 Paragraph 21 allows backplates to have "[a] yellow retroreflective strip with a minimum width of 1 inch and a maximum width of 3 inches".
Bigger question I have is if the MUTCD actually allows louvers/slots in backplates (hopefully they will be listed as an option in the next edition rather than remaining as another questionable ambiguity).
I'm fairly certain the MUTCD is silent on the issue of louvers in the backplates. I don't see why backplate louvers would be questionable or an issue.
I agree. I don't see why they would need to issue an official opinion (or something) on the matter.
If they do have a problem,
soon might be a good time to say something, as louvered backplates are virtually all that I see installed (both now, and for a quite a long time).
Quote from: jakeroot on July 14, 2020, 01:35:55 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 14, 2020, 11:50:12 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 13, 2020, 04:53:35 PM
^ MUTCD 4D.12 Paragraph 21 allows backplates to have "[a] yellow retroreflective strip with a minimum width of 1 inch and a maximum width of 3 inches".
Bigger question I have is if the MUTCD actually allows louvers/slots in backplates (hopefully they will be listed as an option in the next edition rather than remaining as another questionable ambiguity).
I'm fairly certain the MUTCD is silent on the issue of louvers in the backplates. I don't see why backplate louvers would be questionable or an issue.
I agree. I don't see why they would need to issue an official opinion (or something) on the matter.
If they do have a problem, soon might be a good time to say something, as louvered backplates are virtually all that I see installed (both now, and for a quite a long time).
Already discussed by the FHWA. See Page 4: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/conventional/signalized/backplates/tech/sa15007.pdf
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 14, 2020, 04:43:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 14, 2020, 01:35:55 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 14, 2020, 11:50:12 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 13, 2020, 04:53:35 PM
^ MUTCD 4D.12 Paragraph 21 allows backplates to have "[a] yellow retroreflective strip with a minimum width of 1 inch and a maximum width of 3 inches".
Bigger question I have is if the MUTCD actually allows louvers/slots in backplates (hopefully they will be listed as an option in the next edition rather than remaining as another questionable ambiguity).
I'm fairly certain the MUTCD is silent on the issue of louvers in the backplates. I don't see why backplate louvers would be questionable or an issue.
I agree. I don't see why they would need to issue an official opinion (or something) on the matter.
If they do have a problem, soon might be a good time to say something, as louvered backplates are virtually all that I see installed (both now, and for a quite a long time).
Already discussed by the FHWA. See Page 4: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/conventional/signalized/backplates/tech/sa15007.pdf
Although not really in a helpful way. That paragraph just seems to acknowledge their existence.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 14, 2020, 01:35:55 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 14, 2020, 11:50:12 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 13, 2020, 04:53:35 PM
^ MUTCD 4D.12 Paragraph 21 allows backplates to have "[a] yellow retroreflective strip with a minimum width of 1 inch and a maximum width of 3 inches".
Bigger question I have is if the MUTCD actually allows louvers/slots in backplates (hopefully they will be listed as an option in the next edition rather than remaining as another questionable ambiguity).
I'm fairly certain the MUTCD is silent on the issue of louvers in the backplates. I don't see why backplate louvers would be questionable or an issue.
I agree. I don't see why they would need to issue an official opinion (or something) on the matter.
If they do have a problem, soon might be a good time to say something, as louvered backplates are virtually all that I see installed (both now, and for a quite a long time).
Louvered backplates may be standard in some parts of the country but they are not being used in just as many places. I've never seen one here on Long Island where NYS DOT Region-10 is going crazy installing new yellow-bordered backplates.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 14, 2020, 09:18:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 14, 2020, 01:35:55 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 14, 2020, 11:50:12 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 13, 2020, 04:53:35 PM
^ MUTCD 4D.12 Paragraph 21 allows backplates to have "[a] yellow retroreflective strip with a minimum width of 1 inch and a maximum width of 3 inches".
Bigger question I have is if the MUTCD actually allows louvers/slots in backplates (hopefully they will be listed as an option in the next edition rather than remaining as another questionable ambiguity).
I'm fairly certain the MUTCD is silent on the issue of louvers in the backplates. I don't see why backplate louvers would be questionable or an issue.
I agree. I don't see why they would need to issue an official opinion (or something) on the matter.
If they do have a problem, soon might be a good time to say something, as louvered backplates are virtually all that I see installed (both now, and for a quite a long time).
Louvered backplates may be standard in some parts of the country but they are not being used in just as many places. I've never seen one here on Long Island where NYS DOT Region-10 is going crazy installing new yellow-bordered backplates.
They are definitely the standard backplate in WA (apart from Bellevue and Spokane...two notable holdouts, granted).
Here's a typical install (https://goo.gl/maps/WqjXwadLUwHfABau9), with yellow-bordered louvered backplates (even those that are placed on signal masts receive louvered backplates).
Are there any places in New York that install them? I would think that every state has at least one place that uses them, with many states having more places that
do use them, than don't.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 15, 2020, 01:54:41 PM
They are definitely the standard backplate in WA (apart from Bellevue and Spokane...two notable holdouts, granted).
I'm going to challenge you on that one, Jake. In fact, the only places I really remember seeing backplates with louvers in King County are SDOT and WSDOT installs.
I've decided to spot-check with streetview to confirm though so here's what I found:
No louvers:
- Bothell (https://goo.gl/maps/P9eEGs2zDjUhQpD89)
- Kirkland (https://goo.gl/maps/BekNWPvty2AyY7HM7)
- Woodinville (https://goo.gl/maps/NJ4xVb8TRJmr6bsB6)
- Shoreline (https://goo.gl/maps/Dj3jhC7cuKr39Sgq7)
- Bellevue (https://goo.gl/maps/LqcVHWRcyEE99ez27) (as Jake did note, though many signals still don't have backplates (https://goo.gl/maps/zNUSp6kp9ZG3Jci4A))
- Sammamish (https://goo.gl/maps/sK1zUZt7ngVQzJqQ7)
- Mercer Island (https://goo.gl/maps/89gwcuSTSetvDAuX8)
- Burien (https://goo.gl/maps/VYaB9Zo2cQH3oCQq6)
- Renton (https://goo.gl/maps/9XpBhwes4Xvus5Yo7)
- Maple Valley (https://goo.gl/maps/7o57KyQD9FBUzxLj8)
- Federal Way (https://goo.gl/maps/t26JoTBK48rmEaBe6)
- King County (unincorporated areas) (https://goo.gl/maps/5Kep8oxokWEjcpX78)
Louvers:
- Kenmore (https://goo.gl/maps/k2dRDUjdNTksrVxP7)
- Seattle (https://goo.gl/maps/apEQtiTvkqkRNKEU7) (unless it's really old (https://goo.gl/maps/g5Yp6qiz76KDXzGW8))
- Snoqualmie (https://goo.gl/maps/CHM8QpTyAysHnVLXA)
- Des Moines (https://goo.gl/maps/ioHSrDub5zok4UNQ9)
- Auburn (https://goo.gl/maps/4KysfJnG4cNPr7Ro9)
- WSDOT (https://goo.gl/maps/qzMrkXRCvmTHNztr8)
Inconsistent:
- Issaquah with (https://goo.gl/maps/BtoQD5yUtL6nQ6GE9)/without (https://goo.gl/maps/Y8Zot15cE7FGjuwRA)
- Newcastle with (https://goo.gl/maps/Dd1PykE2LjVKrVRB9)/without (https://goo.gl/maps/yPn4PP46eUbjjtzj9)
- Tukwila with (https://goo.gl/maps/MYB8JpiZMrAXkzcx9)/without (https://goo.gl/maps/b7Ht9TYZk7WwdbuK9)
- Seatac (https://goo.gl/maps/SaTdDXStbXgpAJTf6)
- Covington with (https://goo.gl/maps/g3w7VHTs1Lx7VJoo9)/without (https://goo.gl/maps/YCrc4gyfiePuc1wN8)
No backplates at all!
- Redmond (https://goo.gl/maps/AYKExfST5LToWZfq6)
- Kent (https://goo.gl/maps/rQAKhp6GZsdaxA4F8)
So a few more places than I knew of but definitely more without louvers than with (at least when counting by jurisdiction).
Also, this got a bit out of hand :-D but hey, at least this is now a compendium of sorts for Seattle area signal designs!
Quote from: stevashe on July 17, 2020, 01:52:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 15, 2020, 01:54:41 PM
They are definitely the standard backplate in WA (apart from Bellevue and Spokane...two notable holdouts, granted).
I'm going to challenge you on that one, Jake. In fact, the only places I really remember seeing backplates with louvers in King County are SDOT and WSDOT installs.
I've decided to spot-check with streetview to confirm though so here's what I found:
That's fine and dandy. And I appreciate your GSV work. But a huge chunk of those signals are not new. Louvers are a very recent (last five, maybe ten year) thing and only the most recent installs in most cities are going to have them. Your with/without section highlights this: the "without" signals appear much older than the "with" signals. As well, the newest backplates in some cities such as Renton do have louvers (two aux signals, one Houser @ N 8th, and another at SW 7th and Rainier). There may be more gaps in your research, but I'm not near a computer to refute anything else.
The signals that I found in Bellevue and Spokane were both new within the last couple years, so I know their practice does not currently dictate the use of louvers. When I was looking around, I was attempting to locate the absolute newest signals in each jurisdiction, to get a better idea of what current practice is. Since louvered backplates are a recent trend, period.
Looking at Pierce County, it appears to be all jurisdictions using louvered backplates. This has definitely swayed my understanding of how common they are (it's literally all I see installed down here), but the absolute newest signals that I was seeing in King County also seemed to largely use louvered backplates. With obvious and outstanding exceptions, yes.
Here is a very interesting recent signal that I recently spotted on GSV: Vine/Waring in Hollywood:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0852256,-118.3265569,3a,75y,340.06h,87.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqFJHKi80w-ChmYbtHJ9BEQ!2e0!5s20190401T000000!7i16384!8i8192
It is rare to see a city of Los Angeles signal without a signal on the far-side right pole (not on mast arm). But there are back facing signals on the near side right corners on Vine. This is a relatively recent install based on GSV, installed within the last 5 years.
Quote from: mrsman on July 19, 2020, 08:22:04 PM
It is rare to see a city of Los Angeles signal without a signal on the far-side right pole (not on mast arm). But there are back facing signals on the near side right corners on Vine. This is a relatively recent install based on GSV, installed within the last 5 years.
I like that setup better than having the signal on the right-side pole. It addresses potential depth perception issues.
Better the old way with one head on the pole. Easier to see from the stop line and if you're further back in line behind a big truck or bus, you might see the pole signal, but not the overhead(s).
Quote from: CalMark123 on July 19, 2020, 08:29:46 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 19, 2020, 08:22:04 PM
It is rare to see a city of Los Angeles signal without a signal on the far-side right pole (not on mast arm). But there are back facing signals on the near side right corners on Vine. This is a relatively recent install based on GSV, installed within the last 5 years.
I like that setup better than having the signal on the right-side pole. It addresses potential depth perception issues.
I don't see what's wrong with both, a la thousands of other intersections across California.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 20, 2020, 12:49:19 AM
Quote from: CalMark123 on July 19, 2020, 08:29:46 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 19, 2020, 08:22:04 PM
It is rare to see a city of Los Angeles signal without a signal on the far-side right pole (not on mast arm). But there are back facing signals on the near side right corners on Vine. This is a relatively recent install based on GSV, installed within the last 5 years.
I like that setup better than having the signal on the right-side pole. It addresses potential depth perception issues.
I don't see what's wrong with both, a la thousands of other intersections across California.
That's right. In the city of LA, the usual setup for a street with the width of Vine (approx. 66 feet) it would be a far-side signal on the left corner, far-side signal on the right corner and one signal on the mast arm. Nowadays, all of those signals are 12-12-12 (but they used to make the corner signals 8-8-8). Additional signals, if warranted were placed in addition, not in place of, these three locations. So no complaint about the second mast arm signal (which are getting more common on the newer signals, probably to align with federal signal face per lane standards) or the rear facing signal on the near side right corner (which are relatively common around L.A. as jakeroot mentioned). The complaint (or rather observation) was that they replaced the near universal far side right signal.
Also interesting is that the rear facing signal on the right corner is almost always placed where the cross street is wide. Waring Ave is very narrow, probably only about 30 feet wide. Parking allowed on both sides and generally requiring that opposing traffic has to slow to a crawl to avoid scratching an opposing vehicle.
It's just weird because when nearly all of the other signals in the city have a low level signal on the far right corner, you come to expect it and are trained to look at it, especially if your view of the overhead signal is blocked by a truck.
It seems to be the new standard. Here is a signal that is under construction a few blocks away at Romaine and Vine, that seems to be following a similar approach, although it will be hard to be conclusive until all of the signal structures are in place:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.08889,-118.3265346,3a,75y,326.83h,85.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szkMZGr1sL3uONnQ4Af1BJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Compare with the standard setup a few blocks away at Romaine and Cahuenga. This is also relatively new as there was no signal there in 2011, the earliest GSV for that corner I could locate.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.08884,-118.328775,3a,75y,24.66h,77.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so-nbik4hpegmDkZh0NLDkQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: jakeroot on July 04, 2020, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: CalMark123 on July 03, 2020, 09:51:41 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 03, 2020, 09:35:21 PM
Don't many parts of Florida use mast-arms with horizontal signals similar to Texas practice?
My recollection is that the downtowns of Florida's larger cities use mast-arms with horizontal signals, but I don't see much consistency in other areas.
If I remember right, horizontal signals are only 'common' in South Florida. Particularly Miami-Dade County.
The horizontal black signals without backplates were common enough to make their way into Grand Theft Auto: Vice City:
(https://i.imgur.com/KpK6l9R.jpg)
Most of Florida's mastarms use vertically aligned signals. The exceptions are in Miami-Dade and the panhandle, where horizontally mounted signals on the mastarm dominate. Miami-Dade went to universal mastarm installation after Hurricane Andrew destroyed many of the counties signals in 1992. Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale) had a similar issue with the hurricanes in 2004, where they lost 60% of their signals, and thus has focused more on mastarm installation since. Ridiculously, rather than just require universal mastarm installation statewide to avoid the hurricane concerns, FDOT spent money to try and determine how to keep using span-wire signals that wouldn't fail and thus continues to use them regularly outside of coastal areas.
Standard Miami-Dade install (silver mastarms standard): ://goo.gl/maps/xP68sfrUEc5LWiRv8 (http://goo.gl/maps/xP68sfrUEc5LWiRv8)
Standard Tallahassee install (brown mastarms standard): https://goo.gl/maps/jmfWjRTLaK4HrrC39 (https://goo.gl/maps/jmfWjRTLaK4HrrC39)
Most of the rest of the state's mastarms use vertical signals.
Standard Tampa install (when FL DOT controlled): https://goo.gl/maps/ykk6xj3KHVMbBjB7A (https://goo.gl/maps/ykk6xj3KHVMbBjB7A)
Frequent Orlando install: https://goo.gl/maps/HkFCc9NLyQzW5Hnd6 (https://goo.gl/maps/HkFCc9NLyQzW5Hnd6)
Frequent Jacksonville install: https://goo.gl/maps/5S2UWggjF2VvY4Rd9 (https://goo.gl/maps/5S2UWggjF2VvY4Rd9)
The city of Tampa has unfortunately taken to this ridiculous habit of trying to use one massive mastarm for the entire intersection and will place signals from every direction on it. These look terrible and often make the visibility of the signals at the stop bar low for certain directions. Example: https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59 (https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59)
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 04:22:44 PM
The city of Tampa has unfortunately taken to this ridiculous habit of trying to use one massive mastarm for the entire intersection and will place signals from every direction on it. These look terrible and often make the visibility of the signals at the stop bar low for certain directions. Example: https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59 (https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59)
That is stunningly hideous, especially considering the character of that neighborhood.
New York State DOT has a few like that also. Yes it looks ridiculous, but diagonal span is common in the NYC area anyway, even with normal type mast arms or span wire.
Quote from: CalMark123 on December 20, 2020, 05:54:24 PM
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 04:22:44 PM
The city of Tampa has unfortunately taken to this ridiculous habit of trying to use one massive mastarm for the entire intersection and will place signals from every direction on it. These look terrible and often make the visibility of the signals at the stop bar low for certain directions. Example: https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59 (https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59)
That is stunningly hideous, especially considering the character of that neighborhood.
I suspect the city is doing it to be cheap. At some point, I should probably inquire about it.
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 11:44:55 PM
Quote from: CalMark123 on December 20, 2020, 05:54:24 PM
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 04:22:44 PM
The city of Tampa has unfortunately taken to this ridiculous habit of trying to use one massive mastarm for the entire intersection and will place signals from every direction on it. These look terrible and often make the visibility of the signals at the stop bar low for certain directions. Example: https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59 (https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59)
That is stunningly hideous, especially considering the character of that neighborhood.
I suspect the city is doing it to be cheap. At some point, I should probably inquire about it.
I wonder if this is actually very cost effective. With the crosswalk signals, there's still underground wiring. A single long mast is more expensive than short masts, and the post and base required must be longer and stronger as well.
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 11:44:55 PM
I suspect the city is doing it to be cheap. At some point, I should probably inquire about it.
If you do, please let us know what they say. I'll hope for a logical, rational explanation from them.
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 04:22:44 PM
The city of Tampa has unfortunately taken to this ridiculous habit of trying to use one massive mastarm for the entire intersection and will place signals from every direction on it. These look terrible and often make the visibility of the signals at the stop bar low for certain directions. Example: https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59 (https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59)
Quote from: CalMark123 on December 20, 2020, 05:54:24 PM
That is stunningly hideous, especially considering the character of that neighborhood.
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 11:44:55 PM
I suspect the city is doing it to be cheap. At some point, I should probably inquire about it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2020, 12:17:29 AM
I wonder if this is actually very cost effective. With the crosswalk signals, there's still underground wiring. A single long mast is more expensive than short masts, and the post and base required must be longer and stronger as well.
Certainly not less costly, but probably well justified from a scheduling point-of-view (both from earliest start date and time to completion). Some intersections are poorly managed with respect to underground utilities. Finding them all can be problematic, dodging them even harder. Let's say an intersection has four different layers of utility cross-runs including a gas pipeline at the bottom layer. You would then need deep boring pits [near] each mast foundation, one of them big enough to either drive or drop the side-driller into. In many cases, you need to have a bunch of utilities relocated before digging the pits. Each of those utilities have to coordinate with each other. In addition to utility relocation, this adds a not insignificant amount to the length of signal cables and conduits beneath the intersection. Then you've got to properly backfill and tamp to get a strong subgrade that will [keep the new masts from falling over].
Or they can find a spot away from the utilities and drop a giant mast foundation and a signal box with little or no utility impact whatsoever. Definitely not pretty, but impressive.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 21, 2020, 10:14:18 AM
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 04:22:44 PM
The city of Tampa has unfortunately taken to this ridiculous habit of trying to use one massive mastarm for the entire intersection and will place signals from every direction on it. These look terrible and often make the visibility of the signals at the stop bar low for certain directions. Example: https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59 (https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59)
Quote from: CalMark123 on December 20, 2020, 05:54:24 PM
That is stunningly hideous, especially considering the character of that neighborhood.
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 11:44:55 PM
I suspect the city is doing it to be cheap. At some point, I should probably inquire about it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2020, 12:17:29 AM
I wonder if this is actually very cost effective. With the crosswalk signals, there's still underground wiring. A single long mast is more expensive than short masts, and the post and base required must be longer and stronger as well.
Certainly not less costly, but probably well justified from a scheduling point-of-view (both from earliest start date and time to completion). Some intersections are poorly managed with respect to underground utilities. Finding them all can be problematic, dodging them even harder. Let's say an intersection has four different layers of utility cross-runs including a gas pipeline at the bottom layer. You would then need deep boring pits [near] each mast foundation, one of them big enough to either drive or drop the side-driller into. In many cases, you need to have a bunch of utilities relocated before digging the pits. Each of those utilities have to coordinate with each other. In addition to utility relocation, this adds a not insignificant amount to the length of signal cables and conduits beneath the intersection. Then you've got to properly backfill and tamp to get a strong subgrade that will [keep the new masts from falling over].
Or they can find a spot away from the utilities and drop a giant mast foundation and a signal box with little or no utility impact whatsoever. Definitely not pretty, but impressive.
If I find out, I will report back, but I suspect it is strictly the city being cheap. FDOT does not do this on any of the roads it controls here in Tampa when it installs new mastarms.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2020, 12:17:29 AM
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 11:44:55 PM
Quote from: CalMark123 on December 20, 2020, 05:54:24 PM
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 04:22:44 PM
The city of Tampa has unfortunately taken to this ridiculous habit of trying to use one massive mastarm for the entire intersection and will place signals from every direction on it. These look terrible and often make the visibility of the signals at the stop bar low for certain directions. Example: https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59 (https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59)
That is stunningly hideous, especially considering the character of that neighborhood.
I suspect the city is doing it to be cheap. At some point, I should probably inquire about it.
I wonder if this is actually very cost effective. With the crosswalk signals, there's still underground wiring. A single long mast is more expensive than short masts, and the post and base required must be longer and stronger as well.
Yes, there is still underground wiring for the crosswalk signals, but it's less wires run through smaller conduits than if they were also running regular signal head wiring to every corner. Also, I'm not 100% convinced that a single long mast arm installation is more expensive than four short mast arms–material cost may or may not be cheaper, but installation labor probably is because you're crew has only one mast foundation and wiring run to prepare.
Ultimately, it probably is cost effective to do it this way. Especially if you're wanting to do a mast arm signal install on the quick for a smaller intersection.
Quote from: roadfro on December 22, 2020, 01:12:20 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2020, 12:17:29 AM
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 11:44:55 PM
Quote from: CalMark123 on December 20, 2020, 05:54:24 PM
Quote from: democratic nole on December 20, 2020, 04:22:44 PM
The city of Tampa has unfortunately taken to this ridiculous habit of trying to use one massive mastarm for the entire intersection and will place signals from every direction on it. These look terrible and often make the visibility of the signals at the stop bar low for certain directions. Example: https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59 (https://goo.gl/maps/pWRTRgxZYgXHRwz59)
That is stunningly hideous, especially considering the character of that neighborhood.
I suspect the city is doing it to be cheap. At some point, I should probably inquire about it.
I wonder if this is actually very cost effective. With the crosswalk signals, there's still underground wiring. A single long mast is more expensive than short masts, and the post and base required must be longer and stronger as well.
Yes, there is still underground wiring for the crosswalk signals, but it's less wires run through smaller conduits than if they were also running regular signal head wiring to every corner. Also, I'm not 100% convinced that a single long mast arm installation is more expensive than four short mast arms–material cost may or may not be cheaper, but installation labor probably is because you're crew has only one mast foundation and wiring run to prepare.
Ultimately, it probably is cost effective to do it this way. Especially if you're wanting to do a mast arm signal install on the quick for a smaller intersection.
I tried looking up some bid results for comparison, but didn't get too far in my quick search. I did find that this intersection will be done, apparently in the same manner, with one mast. The winning bid was about $602,000.
https://goo.gl/maps/XWf1PMY7RKGXC3Bv6
https://www.tampa.gov/sites/default/files/bid/docs/migrated/20-c-00037_bidtabu.pdf
Especially with the link you provided, you can see that the light is really just a small part of the project. Curbing, drainage and repaving greatly add to the price.