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

[Brandon]

They really don't cost a lot of money. If your local city or county truly can't afford a few new signals, you must have some massive fish over there.

When you consider the lack of a state budget for a couple of years and the pension debt, yes, there are some pretty big-ass fish over here.

Understandable. Do the counties rely heavily on state funds for road works?

Not really, but the largest one (Cook) is in as bad a shape as the state (if not worse - Exhibit A is the pop tax fiasco).  However, counties and municipalities (other than Chicago) do not typically install signals on state highways.  That's IDOT's job.

[ilpt4u]

However, counties and municipalities (other than Chicago) do not typically install signals on state highways.  That's IDOT's job.

Be it up in Suburbia, in Peoria, or down here in Carbondale, pretty constant that IDOT maintains the State and US Highway signals, from what I've noticed

The various IDOT Districts do things a little differently (those FYAs on US 150/War Memorial Dr in Peoria say hello, as do the yellow stoplight backplates in Springfield, when pretty much the rest of the state uses black), but they maintain and control those highways in their Districts. Heck, the Carbondale District likes to use Lead/Lag phasing (but never on a PPLT -- only on "Green Arrow Only" Lefts) on IL 13, a lot more than I've noticed in other parts of the state for stoplight phasing. Had to reset my "Left Arrow" anticipation after moving down this way

[mrsman]

I guess in full disclosure, I see the FYA solving a problem that doesn't exist, if and only if current PPLT phasing doesn't create the "Yellow Trap" scenario

It solves a problem that largely doesn't exist, but it allows for scenarios that would have previously been impossible. So lead/lag with green orbs is indeed quite rare, but a similar setup, using a dedicated left turn signal, is now possible, without a yellow trap. Lead/lag phasing has become quite common in my area. And while the busiest corridors generally don't use FYAs here (aside from a few municipalities that use the signal at all left turns), the only way municipalities could use permissive phasing, while simultaneously maintaining the lead/lag phasing, would be to utilise the flashing yellow arrow display. It's a very important part of a city's "toolbox" of traffic tools

I guess this discussion proves the point.  To the extent that the signal timing won't be changed anyway and there isn't already a situation that induces yellow trap, then there is no need to introduce the FYA.  Save the money and leave things alone.

But, if there is a good case to be made to incorporate lead-lag or other phasing that might lead to yellow trap, then the FYA should absolutely be incorporated.

Here in MD, they use FRA instead of FYA.  And for most of the intersections that I come across that use the FRA, it seems that they are used in situations with lead-lead phasing (which would have been fine with doghouse signals).  Admittedly, I don't know if there are any phase skips in the middle of the night that could result in yellow trap at these intersections, although that is a possibility.

[empirestate]

Yuck.

Hopefully this virus doesn't spread to Southern IL for a very long time!

I thought we were past the neophobia stage.

Neophobia is an incurable condition, other than by natural mortality. In my neighborhood, we've got a modern roundabout that the old-timers still hate (and still haven't learned to operate in).

But FYAs are not new *to roadgeeks*. You can't really be neophobic towards them. Parts of Oregon and Washington have had them for well over ten years now. Even if they're new to southern Illinois, they're not new to us.

If a bunch of old people told me they didn't want anything to do with them, that'd be a different story.

Well, exactly. You can't be neophobic to things that aren't new, and yet people are. So we're not past that stage.

[cl94]

To everyone saying "it doesn't solve a problem if there's no yellow trap": it does solve the problem of inconsistent protected/permissive signaling practices. The FYA/FRA is intended to replace at least half a dozen different ways of signaling protected/permissive turns. The flashing red ball confused the hell out of my parents the first time we were in Michigan and they generally don't get confused by this stuff. I only knew what it was because I had read about it on one of the roadgeek sites. People should be able to travel across the country and encounter consistent signal practices.

[ilpt4u]

To everyone saying "it doesn't solve a problem if there's no yellow trap": it does solve the problem of inconsistent protected/permissive signaling practices. The FYA/FRA is intended to replace at least half a dozen different ways of signaling protected/permissive turns. The flashing red ball confused the hell out of my parents the first time we were in Michigan and they generally don't get confused by this stuff. I only knew what it was because I had read about it on one of the roadgeek sites. People should be able to travel across the country and encounter consistent signal practices.

Michigan Lefts and Jersey Jug Handles say hello

Point taken - having a consistent signal setup for PPLTs across the country is not a bad thing. And if it is the FYA eventually, so be it

[jakeroot]

Yuck.

Hopefully this virus doesn't spread to Southern IL for a very long time!

I thought we were past the neophobia stage.

Neophobia is an incurable condition, other than by natural mortality. In my neighborhood, we've got a modern roundabout that the old-timers still hate (and still haven't learned to operate in).

But FYAs are not new *to roadgeeks*. You can't really be neophobic towards them. Parts of Oregon and Washington have had them for well over ten years now. Even if they're new to southern Illinois, they're not new to us.

If a bunch of old people told me they didn't want anything to do with them, that'd be a different story.

Well, exactly. You can't be neophobic to things that aren't new, and yet people are. So we're not past that stage.

Well, they're no longer neophobes. They're just luddites, I guess.

[UCFKnights]

Call me stubborn, but I still don't see the problem with 5 Section Tower PPLTs. They work (unless you do Lead/Lag, which opens up "Yellow Trap" scenarios).

As discussed previously, while lead/lag is one popular cause of yellow trap, its far from the only one. Phase skipping is another big one. Also PPLTs don't just help in the yellow trap situation, studies show it helps increase an understanding to yield even without a yellow trap.

[Revive 755]

However, counties and municipalities (other than Chicago) do not typically install signals on state highways.  That's IDOT's job.

Kane County certainly tries, although only IL 25 at Gilbert Street near South Elgin (an intersection which the Streetview van has not been through since the last project) seems to be the only one they've succeeded at.

The various IDOT Districts do things a little differently (those FYAs on US 150/War Memorial Dr in Peoria say hello, as do the yellow stoplight backplates in Springfield, when pretty much the rest of the state uses black), but they maintain and control those highways in their Districts.

The yellow/retroreflective backplates have been popping up a lot in the Collinsville and Peoria Districts lately, and are used on a case by case basis in the Chicago District.

Heck, the Carbondale District likes to use Lead/Lag phasing (but never on a PPLT -- only on "Green Arrow Only" Lefts) on IL 13, a lot more than I've noticed in other parts of the state for stoplight phasing.

There is a lot of lead/lag phasing in Springfield, on Business 55 around Bloomington - Normal, US 51 through Forsyth, and Business 20/State Street east of downtown Rockford.

If IDOT really wanted to start changing to FYA's on a statewide basis, there's been enough projects with signal work lately they could have easily changed a good number over.

[ilpt4u]

If IDOT really wanted to start changing to FYA's on a statewide basis, there's been enough projects with signal work lately they could have easily changed a good number over.

And so far, outside of Peoria, there just hasn't been a big shift to the FYA in IL, at least not yet

If IDOT really wanted to use them, the IL 59 project from the Fox Valley Mall to I-88 on the Naperville/Aurora border would have been a good place to use them. Last I checked, they didn't

[bob7374]

FYAs have made it to my region of Mass. in the last year or so. Currently, a local project revising a section of MA 53 has installed two sets of FYAs at adjacent intersections between where a road diet project is occuring. The problem is they have activated them while at the same time working to revise the traffic pattern so that the 2 lanes in each direction are being change to 1 through lane and a dedicated left-turn lane in each direction. The pavement has been milled so that the new roadway sensors can be installed leaving FYAs activated with no traffic markings. This has led to people used to going straight in the left lanes being honked at by cars behind them when the new green left turn arrow goes on and these cars refusing to turn but instead waiting until the flashing yellow arrow is activated to go straight through the intersection. It has been like this for more than a week and I am hoping (and meanwhile using the intersections only for right turns) this situation is fixed soon.

[SignBridge]

Another new FYA installation by NYSDOT Region-10 on Long Island. In Lindenhurst (Suffolk County) at the intersection of S.R. 27A (Montauk Hwy.) and S. 13th St. No previous signals existed here, and according to the news story the signals were installed due to high accident history and community pressure.

In an increasing trend for NYSDOT, all the heads are hung from one very long/fat curving mast arm. And all are reflective-bordered, backplated 12-inch heads, not always standard for the cross street, but wisely done here.

[Brandon]

If IDOT really wanted to start changing to FYA's on a statewide basis, there's been enough projects with signal work lately they could have easily changed a good number over.

And so far, outside of Peoria, there just hasn't been a big shift to the FYA in IL, at least not yet

If IDOT really wanted to use them, the IL 59 project from the Fox Valley Mall to I-88 on the Naperville/Aurora border would have been a good place to use them. Last I checked, they didn't

Outside of the Kane County Division of Transportation, there really isn't much of a push (that I've seen or heard) for the FYA in District 1.

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

Seems I found an instance of a FYA being replaced with a doghouse (?).

At Old Town Rd and Boyle Rd in Suffolk County NY, the Town of Brookhaven put up this set of signals in 2011 or 2012 to replace an older installation. The 4 ways in the center were clusters of thru signals and bimodal FYAs (green arrow and FYA sharing the same head).

Those clusters were replaced shortly after by 2 sets of modified doghouses, with 3 balls and one bimodal left arrow to the left of the green light (similar to the right turn signal pictured in the GSV above). The current setup is not on GSV unfortunately.

I can't find any reason this was done, and this was the first FYA installation in R10 by any agency, and to my knowledge the only FYA not installed by NYSDOT in R10.

[paulthemapguy]

I've never seen one of these, though I know many of you have.  Here are two shots I took of a signal in Stevens Point, Wisconsin, where the most permissive indication for left-turning vehicles is a flashing yellow arrow.


IMG_1885 by Paul Drives, on Flickr


IMG_1886 by Paul Drives, on Flickr

[jakeroot]

I've never seen one of these, though I know many of you have.  Here are two shots I took of a signal in Stevens Point, Wisconsin, where the most permissive indication for left-turning vehicles is a flashing yellow arrow.

Not sure when that signal was installed, but IIRC, the preference is now for the bimodal signal to reside in the center housing, rather than the bottom. I always thought having it on the bottom made more sense, because you could more easily distinguish a jump from FYA to SYA from your peripheral vision (change in phase and position), but I guess that hasn't been proven to be a concern.

[MNHighwayMan]

I've never seen one of these, though I know many of you have.  Here are two shots I took of a signal in Stevens Point, Wisconsin, where the most permissive indication for left-turning vehicles is a flashing yellow arrow.

Not sure when that signal was installed, but IIRC, the preference is now for the bimodal signal to reside in the center housing, rather than the bottom. I always thought having it on the bottom made more sense, because you could more easily distinguish a jump from FYA to SYA from your peripheral vision (change in phase and position), but I guess that hasn't been proven to be a concern.

Hmm? I'm pretty sure that the signal in Paul's picture is red/red arrow, yellow/yellow arrow (hard to tell from his picture whether they're orbs or arrows, without them illuminated), then flashing yellow arrow at the bottom. There's no bimodal aspects to speak of there.

[jakeroot]

I've never seen one of these, though I know many of you have.  Here are two shots I took of a signal in Stevens Point, Wisconsin, where the most permissive indication for left-turning vehicles is a flashing yellow arrow.

Not sure when that signal was installed, but IIRC, the preference is now for the bimodal signal to reside in the center housing, rather than the bottom. I always thought having it on the bottom made more sense, because you could more easily distinguish a jump from FYA to SYA from your peripheral vision (change in phase and position), but I guess that hasn't been proven to be a concern.

Hmm? I'm pretty sure that the signal in Paul's picture is red/red arrow, yellow/yellow arrow (hard to tell from his picture whether they're orbs or arrows, without them illuminated), then flashing yellow arrow at the bottom. There's no bimodal aspects to speak of there.

Yes, that does appear to be the case. However, Paul's post states that the "most permissive indication for left-turning vehicles is a flashing yellow arrow", which, as far as I'm concerned, is a fancy way of saying, "flashing yellow arrow". He didn't directly state that there was no protected phase.

Judging by this street view link, there is definitely no green arrow: https://goo.gl/Yj4WYS

I figured by saying "never seen one of these", he meant that he's never seen a bimodal FYA.

[roadfro]

I've never seen one of these, though I know many of you have.  Here are two shots I took of a signal in Stevens Point, Wisconsin, where the most permissive indication for left-turning vehicles is a flashing yellow arrow.

Not sure when that signal was installed, but IIRC, the preference is now for the bimodal signal to reside in the center housing, rather than the bottom. I always thought having it on the bottom made more sense, because you could more easily distinguish a jump from FYA to SYA from your peripheral vision (change in phase and position), but I guess that hasn't been proven to be a concern.

MUTCD still specifies a bimodal green/flashing yellow arrow section if using a 3-section FYA PPLT display. An Interim Approval was issued in 2014 that allows the option for agencies to use a steady yellow arrow section as the flashing yellow section.

[paulthemapguy]

Yes, that does appear to be the case. However, Paul's post states that the "most permissive indication for left-turning vehicles is a flashing yellow arrow", which, as far as I'm concerned, is a fancy way of saying, "flashing yellow arrow". He didn't directly state that there was no protected phase.

Judging by this street view link, there is definitely no green arrow: https://goo.gl/Yj4WYS

I figured by saying "never seen one of these", he meant that he's never seen a bimodal FYA.

I was using "permissive" as a relative term rather than a technical term.  What I meant was that there was no protected phase, which in my mind counts as "100% permissive."  FYA's indicate that a left turn is conditionally permitted, on the condition that the oncoming lanes are clear.  The indications of this signal head, from top to bottom, are solid red arrow, solid yellow arrow, and flashing yellow arrow.

What I'd never seen is an FYA without a fourth solid green arrow section below it.  In my experiences, every FYA up to this point had been a 4-section head.

[20160805]

On the subject of FYAs, I've never understood why the solid and flashing yellow lights are on different parts of the signal, i.e. red, yellow, yellow, green.  Can't the two yellows be combined into one light like on regular traffic lights?

[Big John]

^^ The supposed reason is that it better alerts the driver that the light is changing, but there might be future approval in combining the yellows.

[SignBridge]

The idea always was that it was useful to actually see the light change position.

[jakeroot]

^^ The supposed reason is that it better alerts the driver that the light is changing, but there might be future approval in combining the yellows.

The idea always was that it was useful to actually see the light change position.

There's also the idea that, if you look up briefly and see a yellow arrow occupying the second-to-top housing, that it could be a solid yellow arrow and the protected phase was ending (perhaps prompting drivers to speed up and inadvertently drive into oncoming traffic). That's only possible with the combined FYA/SYA head, not the bimodal SGA/FYA (the most common and MUTCD-implemented variation). Of course, the solid yellow arrow follows the ending of both the permissive and protected phase, so that error is still possible with all other FYA variations (just maybe less likely).

[ET21]

If IDOT really wanted to start changing to FYA's on a statewide basis, there's been enough projects with signal work lately they could have easily changed a good number over.

And so far, outside of Peoria, there just hasn't been a big shift to the FYA in IL, at least not yet

If IDOT really wanted to use them, the IL 59 project from the Fox Valley Mall to I-88 on the Naperville/Aurora border would have been a good place to use them. Last I checked, they didn't

Outside of the Kane County Division of Transportation, there really isn't much of a push (that I've seen or heard) for the FYA in District 1.

Kane is the only county where I've seen these lights, mainly along Randall Road through Geneva and St Charles