Places prepped for traffic signals that aren't there yet

[STLmapboy]

Here's a relatively new Vegas neighborhood, with two principle streets intersecting:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0479154,-115.2511571,3a,33y,113.16h,91.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skln7YpDkZlP2BUlu4F8XKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

You can see that the lampposts are prepped for mast arms should traffic counts warrant.

Now here's an example off MO SR-1 in the northern KC suburbs:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2418931,-94.5397178,3a,75y,178.54h,87.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2LqdGXElE32h89J1SVVBDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The mast arms and attachments are already there, but no lights are to be found. It has been this way since at least 2007, probably since the inception of the pole. My guess is that they were installed in anticipation of a tenant to the empty lot next door, which hasn't yet come.

Any other examples of traffic lights that haven't reached their full glorious potential?

[jmd41280]

In the Waterfront development in Homestead, PA (just outside Pittsburgh), there are several intersections on Waterfront Drive that have empty mast arms. Interestingly enough, these were installed in 1999 when the Waterfront was built.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4140894,-79.9030157,3a,75y,274.13h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOnO_9dvYM-yxwhKyua5a1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[STLmapboy]

In the Waterfront development in Homestead, PA (just outside Pittsburgh), there are several intersections on Waterfront Drive that have empty mast arms. Interestingly enough, these were installed in 1999 when the Waterfront was built.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4140894,-79.9030157,3a,75y,274.13h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOnO_9dvYM-yxwhKyua5a1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4033456,-79.9194564,3a,60y,79.38h,91.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smNPheqXsklThsxsSdFNH1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Well if stuff like this is any indication, they seem to have fallen by the wayside.

[UCFKnights]

Orlando metro is full of this. I'll just give a couple of examples

Lake Nona installed cylindrical "seats" over the bases in one of the nicer ways: https://www.google.com/maps/@28.3691798,-81.2827075,3a,15y,342.53h,86.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP3XTaOu4yT98CwtMoQl8pQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Plaza Collina was never built before the last downturn... and indoor malls fell out of style: https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5465548,-81.6623939,3a,75y,234.61h,91.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv0xBXMWLwarat8p-f8kRpg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Orlando has seemingly no standard when it comes to this. I've seen them left in all sorts of states, from the conduits left sticking out of the ground everywhere, bases installed, masts installed without arms, or concrete columns without wires, to fully installed without signals, and some fully installed, but signals kept bagged or aimed away from the road for several years or set to flash mode until needed (I guess not sure if last 2 count as "not there yet").

[Rothman]

Not totally in line with what you're asking, but the new signals at NY 13 and the road to TCAT's big facility in Ithaca are probably still bagged and have been for months.  Some neverending issue with the utilities is the culprit.

[STLmapboy]

I guess bagged for eternity counts.

[STLmapboy]

Not totally in line with what you're asking, but the new signals at NY 13 and the road to TCAT's big facility in Ithaca are probably still bagged and have been for months.  Some neverending issue with the utilities is the culprit.

At least New York state has discovered mast arms.

[mapman]

I think from an engineering perspective, this approach makes a lot of sense -- put in all of the underground electrical work for the future signal, put in the poles (which can double as just streetlights in the interim) and wait until the signal is needed before adding the mast arms and rest of the signal equipment.

However, in my experience in Northern and Central California, most agencies want the future signals from a development to be installed and operational immediately (i.e., at the project's opening), rather than monitoring it on its own for future implementation.  This is usually because the agency knows that it can force the developer to construct the signal on condition of the development (say, as part of a condition of approval for the project by the city council), rather than hoping the agency has the money to monitor and implement the improvement in the future (which is not guaranteed).

[GenExpwy]

I-390 exit 11 (NY 15 and NY 251) in Rush NY has had empty signal poles at 3 of the 4 intersections since about 1979.

NY 251 at northbound ramp
NY 251 at southbound ramp
NY 15 at northbound ramp

Edit: also a set at exit 10 (US 20 & NY 5) since about 1980.

[mrsman]

I think from an engineering perspective, this approach makes a lot of sense -- put in all of the underground electrical work for the future signal, put in the poles (which can double as just streetlights in the interim) and wait until the signal is needed before adding the mast arms and rest of the signal equipment.

However, in my experience in Northern and Central California, most agencies want the future signals from a development to be installed and operational immediately (i.e., at the project's opening), rather than monitoring it on its own for future implementation.  This is usually because the agency knows that it can force the developer to construct the signal on condition of the development (say, as part of a condition of approval for the project by the city council), rather than hoping the agency has the money to monitor and implement the improvement in the future (which is not guaranteed).

I definitely see a desire to push costs onto developers.  But is it worthwhile to do so where there is no need for the signal in the first place?  In many cases, the traffic counts won't justify the traffic signal for years.  Even if we want developers to foot the bill for the masts, signal heads, controllers, etc., it would seem to make sense to not actually operate the signal until traffic levels deem it to be warranted.  The signal heads shoud be bagged until that time is reached.

[deathtopumpkins]

This thread made me think of a recent post from a General Highway Talk thread on railroads in roundabouts, regarding a railroad crossing with conduit and foundations for signals, but none installed yet:

The railroad through Healdsburg is the old Northwestern Pacific. The crossing in question is on a portion of the line currently owned by SMART and planned as a future extension of that commuter rail line, which currently extends as far north as Sonoma County Airport, with an extension to Windsor projected to open in 2022, followed by an extension to Healdsburg in the future. The line is currently active as far north as Windsor for freight service provided by the North Coast Rail Authority (under the resurrected NWP name).

The track through this crossing was rebuilt as part of the roundabout construction project in anticipation of future SMART service. Foundations were poured and conduit was laid for the installation of crossing gates, as can be seen in streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/3BjR4sucShDsTsjYA), they just were not installed yet.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Here is one in Indiana (more specifically Chesterton)

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5821476,-87.0449983,3a,75y,171.71h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9YEiYqcmCAfsaoRIQ_Q4VA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

IN 49 at Voyage Boulevard

Any others in Indiana?

[UCFKnights]

I think from an engineering perspective, this approach makes a lot of sense -- put in all of the underground electrical work for the future signal, put in the poles (which can double as just streetlights in the interim) and wait until the signal is needed before adding the mast arms and rest of the signal equipment.

However, in my experience in Northern and Central California, most agencies want the future signals from a development to be installed and operational immediately (i.e., at the project's opening), rather than monitoring it on its own for future implementation.  This is usually because the agency knows that it can force the developer to construct the signal on condition of the development (say, as part of a condition of approval for the project by the city council), rather than hoping the agency has the money to monitor and implement the improvement in the future (which is not guaranteed).

I definitely see a desire to push costs onto developers.  But is it worthwhile to do so where there is no need for the signal in the first place?  In many cases, the traffic counts won't justify the traffic signal for years.  Even if we want developers to foot the bill for the masts, signal heads, controllers, etc., it would seem to make sense to not actually operate the signal until traffic levels deem it to be warranted.  The signal heads shoud be bagged until that time is reached.

The bags don't seem to last that long and constantly have to be replaced. They seem to have switched more to aiming the signals away from the road around here.

The problem with fully installing them when they aren't needed yet is often things change. I've seen a good number of intersections where they fully installed a mast arm, and before there is a need for it, they approve a strip mall or something and need a second left turn lane, so they tear down the entire thing and start over. Or, they never warrant it because the area didn't develop the way they intended, so now the whole signal reaches its end of life or gets damaged in a storm and was never used.

[vdeane]

So, for the past couple decades, the Town of Brighton has planned a road that would run parallel to Westfall Road between Winton Road and Clinton Avenue (only part of which has been built and currently had a dead end).  When the I-590/Winton Road interchange was converted to a diverging diamond, NYSDOT went ahead and built the intersection for this road, complete with signals.  Those signals have since been removed.

[mrsman]

So, for the past couple decades, the Town of Brighton has planned a road that would run parallel to Westfall Road between Winton Road and Clinton Avenue (only part of which has been built and currently had a dead end).  When the I-590/Winton Road interchange was converted to a diverging diamond, NYSDOT went ahead and built the intersection for this road, complete with signals.  Those signals have since been removed.

They removed the signal faces from the stub (and the signal faces from Winton turning left into the stub), but yet they still left pedestrian signals for crossing over the stub.

[webny99]

So, for the past couple decades, the Town of Brighton has planned a road that would run parallel to Westfall Road between Winton Road and Clinton Avenue (only part of which has been built and currently had a dead end).  When the I-590/Winton Road interchange was converted to a diverging diamond, NYSDOT went ahead and built the intersection for this road, complete with signals.  Those signals have since been removed.

Interesting! I was not aware that dead-end road was/is supposed to connect Winton and Clinton. So there is still a signal for the other 3 approaches and it's just the one approach that had the signals removed. For a second there before I clicked the link I was worried they had unsignalized the whole intersection!

[roadfro]

Here's a relatively new Vegas neighborhood, with two principle streets intersecting:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0479154,-115.2511571,3a,33y,113.16h,91.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skln7YpDkZlP2BUlu4F8XKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

You can see that the lampposts are prepped for mast arms should traffic counts warrant.

This has become a fairly standard operating procedure around the Vegas area–at least in the faster-growing areas of both the City of Las Vegas proper, and unincorporated Clark County (where this example is located). In many newer areas along intersecting major collectors and arterials, if a developer is developing a site and putting in street improvements along a major roadway, they will usually install a pole that can later support a traffic signal at if the site work includes the corner of an anticipated major intersection.

What's also interesting for this example is that smaller separate poles to support pedestrian signal features have also been installed on all corners. That's not necessarily standard practice, but this appears to be in a master planned area, so it may be indicative of extra site work done by the developers as a condition of building the overall infrastructure in the area (e.g. all poles and underground cable conduit for the intersection).

Because these installs are conditions of adjacent developers, sometimes you'll find cases where the signal poles are only on a few corners at an intersection. This is because the other corners are either not yet developed, minimally developed, or were developed before this became a standard practice. Here's an example of a 4-way intersection in Las Vegas with future traffic signal poles installed on only two corners, because one corner is undeveloped and the other appears to have minimal development that likely dates to before this policy (back when this area was more rural).

[roadfro]

I think from an engineering perspective, this approach makes a lot of sense -- put in all of the underground electrical work for the future signal, put in the poles (which can double as just streetlights in the interim) and wait until the signal is needed before adding the mast arms and rest of the signal equipment.

However, in my experience in Northern and Central California, most agencies want the future signals from a development to be installed and operational immediately (i.e., at the project's opening), rather than monitoring it on its own for future implementation.  This is usually because the agency knows that it can force the developer to construct the signal on condition of the development (say, as part of a condition of approval for the project by the city council), rather than hoping the agency has the money to monitor and implement the improvement in the future (which is not guaranteed).

I definitely see a desire to push costs onto developers.  But is it worthwhile to do so where there is no need for the signal in the first place?  In many cases, the traffic counts won't justify the traffic signal for years.  Even if we want developers to foot the bill for the masts, signal heads, controllers, etc., it would seem to make sense to not actually operate the signal until traffic levels deem it to be warranted.  The signal heads shoud be bagged until that time is reached.

This is where I think just installing the signal mast poles and doing any associated underground improvements when the development first goes in is a better compromise.

Most local jurisdictions will require a developer to do a traffic study as part of the conditions for getting a development approved. If the new development warrants traffic signal from the get go, the project approval is often subject to the condition that the developer install the full signal (or pay appropriate funds to have the local jurisdiction do it). But if not, at least in Vegas, the project conditions include preparatory site improvements for the signal and potentially paying into a fund for future signal improvements (so the agency can do it when traffic counts warrant it).

[Roadwarriors79]

I've seen this a lot in the Phoenix area. Mostly areas that use the typical ADOT signal poles.

[mrsman]

I think from an engineering perspective, this approach makes a lot of sense -- put in all of the underground electrical work for the future signal, put in the poles (which can double as just streetlights in the interim) and wait until the signal is needed before adding the mast arms and rest of the signal equipment.

However, in my experience in Northern and Central California, most agencies want the future signals from a development to be installed and operational immediately (i.e., at the project's opening), rather than monitoring it on its own for future implementation.  This is usually because the agency knows that it can force the developer to construct the signal on condition of the development (say, as part of a condition of approval for the project by the city council), rather than hoping the agency has the money to monitor and implement the improvement in the future (which is not guaranteed).

I definitely see a desire to push costs onto developers.  But is it worthwhile to do so where there is no need for the signal in the first place?  In many cases, the traffic counts won't justify the traffic signal for years.  Even if we want developers to foot the bill for the masts, signal heads, controllers, etc., it would seem to make sense to not actually operate the signal until traffic levels deem it to be warranted.  The signal heads shoud be bagged until that time is reached.

This is where I think just installing the signal mast poles and doing any associated underground improvements when the development first goes in is a better compromise.

Most local jurisdictions will require a developer to do a traffic study as part of the conditions for getting a development approved. If the new development warrants traffic signal from the get go, the project approval is often subject to the condition that the developer install the full signal (or pay appropriate funds to have the local jurisdiction do it). But if not, at least in Vegas, the project conditions include preparatory site improvements for the signal and potentially paying into a fund for future signal improvements (so the agency can do it when traffic counts warrant it).

That is a very reasonable approach and probably the most cost-efficient all around.

[EpicRoadways]

Central Minnesota has a few examples, but the most notable is probably the Pinecone Road corridor in Sartell. When the road was constructed around 2000ish five intersections were prepped for signals. Of those intersections the two northernmost (2 1/2 Street and 2nd Street/CSAH 133) were signalized a year or two after the road was constructed as traffic counts increased (although the latter is now a roundabout). Moving further south along the corridor, the Pinecone and CSAH 133/Heritage Drive intersection was fully prepped for a signal with slip lanes and everything but signed as a four-way stop. This intersection was also upgraded to a roundabout a few years ago. Pinecone and Roberts Rd. is the only intersection that remains prepped for a signal (but my guess is it'll also be rebuilt as a roundabout sooner than later) with Roberts having stop signs. Pinecone and Scout Drive was partially prepped for a signal in the median (where the flower pots are in the '08 imagery) although unlike the other four intersections there were no bases installed for the signal masts. This intersection is also now a roundabout. Honorable mention to the Pinecone and CSAH 120 intersection that wasn't prepped for a signal but got one anyways 

[Revive 755]

Any others in Indiana?

US 30 at the water park between the Merrillville area and Valparaiso.  Unless that one is seasonal and INDOT only put the heads up when the park is open.

I think there are a few more in Indiana.

In Illinois there's IL 120 at Adams near McHenry.  There are a few foundations and handholes in place, as well as a couple detector loops. 

[Great Lakes Roads]

Any others in Indiana?

US 30 at the water park between the Merrillville area and Valparaiso.  Unless that one is seasonal and INDOT only put the heads up when the park is open.

I think there are a few more in Indiana.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4707599,-87.23016,3a,75y,315.02h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssqjVz5ncNNJeea-wh-yVdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It's a seasonal thing... It is active during the summer when the park is open, but at other times, they would put a stop sign on the pole.

[jeffandnicole]

Any others in Indiana?

US 30 at the water park between the Merrillville area and Valparaiso.  Unless that one is seasonal and INDOT only put the heads up when the park is open.

I think there are a few more in Indiana.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4707599,-87.23016,3a,75y,315.02h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssqjVz5ncNNJeea-wh-yVdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It's a seasonal thing... It is active during the summer when the park is open, but at other times, they would put a stop sign on the pole.

It appears in this GSV from Sept 2013, https://goo.gl/maps/Giia9MYGaAk3Hi3K7  they're in the process of taking them down!  The side street lights for the park have already been removed, and they're prepping (or finishing for the day) to take down the lights on US 30. 

While it appears the assembly was built to utilize a left turn light from US 30 onto 81st Ave, and a right turn light from 81st Ave onto US 30, neither have ever been installed.

[mrsman]

Any others in Indiana?

US 30 at the water park between the Merrillville area and Valparaiso.  Unless that one is seasonal and INDOT only put the heads up when the park is open.

I think there are a few more in Indiana.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4707599,-87.23016,3a,75y,315.02h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssqjVz5ncNNJeea-wh-yVdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It's a seasonal thing... It is active during the summer when the park is open, but at other times, they would put a stop sign on the pole.

It appears in this GSV from Sept 2013, https://goo.gl/maps/Giia9MYGaAk3Hi3K7  they're in the process of taking them down!  The side street lights for the park have already been removed, and they're prepping (or finishing for the day) to take down the lights on US 30. 

While it appears the assembly was built to utilize a left turn light from US 30 onto 81st Ave, and a right turn light from 81st Ave onto US 30, neither have ever been installed.

This is interesting and unique.  How many other places go through so much trouble to deal with a seasonal traffic signal?  I'm not aware of anything more than signal flash or turning signal heads as a similar method of dealing with seasonal traffic in my area.  Most signals just operate normally, even if an amusement park (or similar seasonal attraction) were closed.