Right-turn arrow with simultaneous opposing left-turn arrow

[kphoger]

Point being that just because the state law says that an EB vehicle turning right and a WB vehicle turning south are supposed to turn into separate lanes does not mean one should design for this, especially when there would be temptation for the EB right turner to either turn into the inner lane or move into that lane shortly after the turn.  You were suggesting upthread that there was nothing wrong with the design.

I'm kind of on the fence about whether there's something "wrong with the design" or not. It has, after all, survived this way for more than fifteen years without being changed (I lived in the area in the late 90s and distinctly remember the stoplight timing). I agree that it could be improved, but mainly with better striping, signage, and maybe a small divide between lanes (the latter not really doable considering the available space). I've personally driven through the intersection countless times without incident, although I have heard second-hand of an accident being caused specifically by someone not keeping his lane. So, yeah...

[UCFKnights]

Point being that just because the state law says that an EB vehicle turning right and a WB vehicle turning south are supposed to turn into separate lanes does not mean one should design for this, especially when there would be temptation for the EB right turner to either turn into the inner lane or move into that lane shortly after the turn.  You were suggesting upthread that there was nothing wrong with the design.

I'm kind of on the fence about whether there's something "wrong with the design" or not. It has, after all, survived this way for more than fifteen years without being changed (I lived in the area in the late 90s and distinctly remember the stoplight timing). I agree that it could be improved, but mainly with better striping, signage, and maybe a small divide between lanes (the latter not really doable considering the available space). I've personally driven through the intersection countless times without incident, although I have heard second-hand of an accident being caused specifically by someone not keeping his lane. So, yeah...

Seems like a perfect spot for those cheap bendable plastic tubes.

[jeffandnicole]

The interchange at Austin is the same way and has been for years.  I figured it must not be common, but I also figured it must exist in other places too.

A case of IDOT = IDiOT as they've done it at at least one other interchange.

I-55 and IL-53 in Bolingbrook used to have it for traffic entering I-55.  The right turn arrows would always be green, even when the left turn onto the freeway had a green arrow.  Damn near got into an accident there one day.

In what way are they an idiot?

I've been at many an intersection with a normal green bulb and had to honk because someone turned wide.

[tradephoric]

Would the Eisenhower example violate this section of the MUTCD?

F.  A steady GREEN ARROW signal indication:

1.  Shall be displayed only to allow vehicular movements, in the direction indicated,that are not in conflict with other vehicles moving on a green or yellow signal indication and are not in conflict with pedestrians crossing in compliance with a WALKING PERSON (symbolizing WALK) or flashing UPRAISED HAND (symbolizing DONT WALK) signal indication. Vehicles departing in the same direction shall not be considered in conflict if, for each turn lane with moving traffic, there is a separate departing lane, and pavement markings or raised channelization clearly indicate which departure lane to use.

[Jardine]

I do appreciate being informed such intersections exist.  If I'm out traveling at some point and encounter left turners heading towards me while I am right turning with the light, hopefully I'll remember this before locking up all 4 wheels in a super double emergency panic stop and getting creamed by the guy behind me.

[Jet380]

If you reverse the directions of travel, the intersection of Scarborough Beach Rd and Harborne St in Perth has a green left arrow for a slip lane while the opposing right turn has a green ball, with the two movements separated by a line.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-31.9142405,115.8193848,3a,75y,354.82h,76.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEudyMOXfs_pQA1Z-fwcuBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Brandon]

The interchange at Austin is the same way and has been for years.  I figured it must not be common, but I also figured it must exist in other places too.

A case of IDOT = IDiOT as they've done it at at least one other interchange.

I-55 and IL-53 in Bolingbrook used to have it for traffic entering I-55.  The right turn arrows would always be green, even when the left turn onto the freeway had a green arrow.  Damn near got into an accident there one day.

In what way are they an idiot?

I've been at many an intersection with a normal green bulb and had to honk because someone turned wide.

For that entry ramp, there were, at the time, one left turn lane (NB IL-53), and one right turn lane (SB IL-53).  Both lanes became one lane (not ever marked as two) for the SB I-55 entry ramp.  Yet both had green arrows at the same time!

[NWI_Irish96]

How common is this setup?  Your direction of travel gets a green right-turn arrow, while opposing traffic gets a green left-turn arrow–indicating both flows of traffic should proceed onto the same roadway.

Example from GSV at the Harlem Avenue interchange on the Eisenhower near Chicago (yes, accidents do happen here when people don't keep their lanes):

Used to live a mile from this light.  Never thought of it as weird until you mentioned it and never had a problem there.

[1995hoo]

Just curious how many people have ever heard of laws about turning into the nearest lane being enforced. I know I'm wary of turning from an option lane precisely because those laws aren't enforced and so many people will cut across into adjacent lanes.

[US 81]

Just curious how many people have ever heard of laws about turning into the nearest lane being enforced. I know I'm wary of turning from an option lane precisely because those laws aren't enforced and so many people will cut across into adjacent lanes.

I have.

Cop was waiting at a red light, westbound. I approached from southbound, had the green light and turned right into the near (right) lane, then, leaving my turn signal on, I scooted over into the left lane. Cop pulled me over stated I had improperly turned into the far (left) lane. I hadn't, but even polite disagreement is not well-tolerated in that situation, so I still got the ticket.

But when it comes up, many people haven't heard of it being enforced, and of course we all see lane violations every day.

[jeffandnicole]

Who's going to enforce it when a cop isn't around?  I'm sure if the cop was the one getting cut off, it would be enforced!

[tradephoric]

Those green arrows presumably service a lot of truck traffic coming off the freeway.  Imagine how hard it would be for a semi making a right turn to "stay in their lane" .  As the semi is struggling to make a right turn, a left-turn green arrow is being displayed to opposing left-turning traffic.  In addition, you can't even make out the lane lines along Harlem Ave to direct traffic where to be.   



But even with all this apparently the intersection works.  According to kphoger it has functioned this way for the past 15 years.  I can only assume that if this intersection did have an abnormally high crash rate that the intersection would have been addressed by IDIOT long ago.

[jakeroot]

This style of setup (with two opposing "one-way" roads merging onto the same road) exists in more than one place (here, for example, near where I live) but none, so far as I know, are signalized with two green arrows.

The problem here is, ultimately, the arrows. Change all of the signals to flashing yellow arrows. The left turns will always flash yellow, and the right turns will be green arrows. When Harlem has a green, the right-facing FYAs can flash yellow.

What will that do to the traffic flow? Who knows, but I think two green arrows create a sort of paradox that should be avoided, even if for traffic flow matters, it works as intended (most of the time).

[kphoger]

Just curious how many people have ever heard of laws about turning into the nearest lane being enforced. I know I'm wary of turning from an option lane precisely because those laws aren't enforced and so many people will cut across into adjacent lanes.

I have.

Cop was waiting at a red light, westbound. I approached from southbound, had the green light and turned right into the near (right) lane, then, leaving my turn signal on, I scooted over into the left lane. Cop pulled me over stated I had improperly turned into the far (left) lane. I hadn't, but even polite disagreement is not well-tolerated in that situation, so I still got the ticket.

But when it comes up, many people haven't heard of it being enforced, and of course we all see lane violations every day.

I know more than one person who has been ticketed for turning into the wrong lane.

US 81, I'm not sure I understand... If you turned right, then left your signal on while sliding left, then that means you changed lanes to the left with your right blinker on. If that's what you did, then it was an improper lane change.

[Revive 755]

The problem here is, ultimately, the arrows. Change all of the signals to flashing yellow arrows. The left turns will always flash yellow, and the right turns will be green arrows.

Technically, having a green arrow for the right turn when the opposing left turn has a flashing yellow arrow would not be MUTCD compliant for a single receiving lane, very borderline with two receiving lanes.  Better to have all of the turns from I-290 having flashing yellow arrows at the same time, or just switch the heads to have circular greens.

When Harlem has a green, the right-facing FYAs can flash yellow.

If I'm understanding this correctly:  Not a good idea IMHO, especially if the right turn FYA's are on at the same time as the opposing left turn FYA's.  Since technically someone turning on a right facing FYA would have right of way over the opposing left turner, he could make a bad assumption that he still has some right of way when Harlem traffic has a green and he has a right turn FYA.  This is why it would be nice to either allow viability-restricted circular greens for separate right turn signal heads or get an arrow indication that means 'you have the right of way but other vehicles may enter the intersection' - maybe via a flashing green arrow?

[jakeroot]

Technically, having a green arrow for the right turn when the opposing left turn has a flashing yellow arrow would not be MUTCD compliant for a single receiving lane, very borderline with two receiving lanes.  Better to have all of the turns from I-290 having flashing yellow arrows at the same time, or just switch the heads to have circular greens.

I thought about using green orbs for the right turns, but I wasn't sure if traffic would catch onto the right-turn-only nature of the movement. My immediate opposition to FYAs for all movements is that it creates some sort of weird illusion that you are yielding to cars who are actually yielding to you. It's like a 4-way intersection with opposing yield signs. It works, but traffic isn't going to be totally sure who has the ROW, since they both have yield signs. A green orb with an R3-5R sign posted directly below the signal should work.

If I'm understanding this correctly:  Not a good idea IMHO, especially if the right turn FYA's are on at the same time as the opposing left turn FYA's.  Since technically someone turning on a right facing FYA would have right of way over the opposing left turner, he could make a bad assumption that he still has some right of way when Harlem traffic has a green and he has a right turn FYA.  This is why it would be nice to either allow viability-restricted circular greens for separate right turn signal heads or get an arrow indication that means 'you have the right of way but other vehicles may enter the intersection' - maybe via a flashing green arrow?

I can see what you are saying. If the off-ramp's right turns were green arrows (not allowed, evidently), then the visual jump from green arrow, to a flashing yellow arrow, would be enough to indicate to the 290 traffic that the right turn must yield to traffic on Harlem. But, in the case where the off-ramp is always flashing yellow, then yes, it would be very strange (traffic would constantly be looking around to see if they can go or not, because there is neither a red phase nor a green phase).

Basically, my original proposal (with green arrows) allowed the right turn to act similar to a channelized right turn during Harlem's through phase, but I think an actual channelized right turn would be better in that case.

[paulthemapguy]

I hope the flashing yellow arrow talk isn't referring to any left arrows for the offramp traffic.  Every turning movement should see green for at least one phase.  The flow rates at these approaches is too great for FYA options; the queues need to be cleared as quickly and effectively as possible.  That's why the setup is what it is, as questionable as it is.  My vote is to remove the green right-arrows from the signal phase for the offramps and reserve them for the phase with Harlem's left-turning traffic.  If we want to try a FYA, I think it would be cool to try a right-turn FYA that is active with the offramp's steady green left arrow.  So:

New proposition:
Phase 1:  Left turns off of Harlem, protected. Steady-burn green right arrow for offramp approaches
Phase 2:  Harlem thru-traffic
Phase 3: Offramp approaches have steady-burn green left arrow, and flashing yellow right arrow

[jakeroot]

New proposition:
Phase 1:  Left turns off of Harlem, protected. Steady-burn green right arrow for offramp approaches
Phase 2:  Harlem thru-traffic
Phase 3: Offramp approaches have steady-burn green left arrow, and flashing yellow right arrow

I think this would work okay. Both the left and right turns would get some sort of green arrow phase. My instant opposition was phase 3, requiring right turns to yield to left turns. It's unconventional, but I don't see why it couldn't work. The problem really is the MUTCD, which doesn't allow green arrows to mix with flashing yellow arrows. But, the intersection already is a violation of the MUTCD. So, fuck it.

[paulthemapguy]

New proposition:
Phase 1:  Left turns off of Harlem, protected. Steady-burn green right arrow for offramp approaches
Phase 2:  Harlem thru-traffic
Phase 3: Offramp approaches have steady-burn green left arrow, and flashing yellow right arrow

I think this would work okay. Both the left and right turns would get some sort of green arrow phase. My instant opposition was phase 3, requiring right turns to yield to left turns. It's unconventional, but I don't see why it couldn't work. The problem really is the MUTCD, which doesn't allow green arrows to mix with flashing yellow arrows. But, the intersection already is a violation of the MUTCD. So, fuck it.

It's either that or 4 phases...with one phase for each offramp approach (plus phases 1 and 2 above).

[kphoger]

As it is, the simultaneous left and right arrows function as simple green balls, indicating to proceed in whatever direction you need to, except reinforcing that you shouldn't wait to turn just because opposing traffic is also turning. Switching all ramp arrows to green balls would not raise these eyebrows and would have the same basic meaning for traffic, although I'd bet a lot more drivers would wait till all opposing traffic cleared before turning left, which would then cause the queue to tail back onto the fast lane of the Eisenhower during peak times.

My number one suggestion is to leave it as is.

[US 81]

Just curious how many people have ever heard of laws about turning into the nearest lane being enforced. I know I'm wary of turning from an option lane precisely because those laws aren't enforced and so many people will cut across into adjacent lanes.

I have.

Cop was waiting at a red light, westbound. I approached from southbound, had the green light and turned right into the near (right) lane, then, leaving my turn signal on, I scooted over into the left lane. Cop pulled me over stated I had improperly turned into the far (left) lane. I hadn't, but even polite disagreement is not well-tolerated in that situation, so I still got the ticket.

But when it comes up, many people haven't heard of it being enforced, and of course we all see lane violations every day.

I know more than one person who has been ticketed for turning into the wrong lane.

US 81, I'm not sure I understand... If you turned right, then left your signal on while sliding left, then that means you changed lanes to the left with your right blinker on. If that's what you did, then it was an improper lane change.

Sorry, poor summary on my part. I did quickly switch from right blinker to left blinker.  The officer stated that, since my blinker had not been off but had gone immediately from right to left, that I hadn't "completed" one maneuver before beginning the next, therefore it was improper. 

I should stop chiming in with thoughts that are only tangentially relevant anyway.

[jeffandnicole]

So, guys, any corresponding examples outside of the Eisenhower?

I just used this example in another thread, but it is apparently relevant here: https://goo.gl/maps/v28HPkcQ3D32  Deutty & Beatty Streets at Lalor Streets.  Both Deutty & Beatty one way into Lalor.  And unlike the Eisenhower example, there aren't two lanes to turn into...there's just one lane!

Why has this worked for literally decades?  Because people don't understand what the arrows supposedly mean.  We know what they mean.  But in this case, most drivers are simply going to think they're there to indicate they can't go straight.

[kphoger]

So, guys, any corresponding examples outside of the Eisenhower?

I just used this example in another thread, but it is apparently relevant here: https://goo.gl/maps/v28HPkcQ3D32  Deutty & Beatty Streets at Lalor Streets.  Both Deutty & Beatty one way into Lalor.  And unlike the Eisenhower example, there aren't two lanes to turn into...there's just one lane!

Why has this worked for literally decades?  Because people don't understand what the arrows supposedly mean.  We know what they mean.  But in this case, most drivers are simply going to think they're there to indicate they can't go straight.

That's pretty much what the arrows in the Eisenhower example indicate too, I suppose, since nobody exiting would be getting right back on again, and doing so would conflict with left-turn movements.

[tradephoric]

^At least your anecdotal evidence is based on the actual intersection in question (unlike Baloo's anecdotal evidence).  Can anyone actually prove that this intersection functions well and doesn't have a high crash rate based on something more than their own personal experiences or second hand accounts?  Until then a compelling argument hasn't been made. 

[jeffandnicole]

^At least your anecdotal evidence is based on the actual intersection in question (unlike Baloo’s anecdotal evidence).  Can anyone actually prove that this intersection functions well and doesn’t have a high crash rate based on something more than their own personal experiences or second hand accounts?  Until then a compelling argument hasn't been made. 

Being that the unusual traffic light configuration has remained in place for many, many years, without almost anyone on these boards even being aware of this intersection until this thread came about, I would say that the crash rate is probably fairly average for this type intersection without any considerable or unusual congestion.

As what happens a little too often, we try to make things a problem that have never been a problem, simply based on a photo or post.