California Traffic signals

[stevashe]

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
• Kirkland
• Woodinville
• Shoreline
• Bellevue (as Jake did note, though many signals still don't have backplates)
• Sammamish
• Mercer Island
• Burien
• Renton
• Maple Valley
• Federal Way
• King County (unincorporated areas)

Louvers:

• Kenmore
• Seattle (unless it's really old)
• Snoqualmie
• Des Moines
• Auburn
• WSDOT

Inconsistent:

• Issaquah with/without
• Newcastle with/without
• Tukwila with/without
• Seatac
• Covington with/without

No backplates at all!

• Redmond
• Kent

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 but hey, at least this is now a compendium of sorts for Seattle area signal designs!

[jakeroot]

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.

[mrsman]

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.

[CalMark123]

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.

[SignBridge]

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).

[jakeroot]

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.

[mrsman]

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

[democratic nole]

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:

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
Standard Tallahassee install (brown mastarms standard): 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
Frequent Orlando install: https://goo.gl/maps/HkFCc9NLyQzW5Hnd6
Frequent Jacksonville install: 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

[CalMark123]

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

That is stunningly hideous, especially considering the character of that neighborhood.

[SignBridge]

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.

[democratic nole]

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

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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

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.

[CalMark123]

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.

[Dirt Roads]

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

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.

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.

[democratic nole]

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

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.

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.

[roadfro]

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

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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

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.