Have any of you seen this traffic light style? (1-1-2 configuration)

[KCRoadFan]

Along my ongoing cross-country Street View journey on US 20, I happened to notice an unusual "1-1-2" traffic light style in Wesleyville, PA, just east of Erie. It looks like a "doghouse" traffic light, with the green light having two aspects - the difference is that the yellow light has only one aspect, as opposed to the usual two. The light in question is on Water Street southbound at Buffalo Road, which US 20 follows through the east side of Erie. (Street View link here: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.141957,-80.0116991,3a,37.5y,154.67h,101.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY4YoW6lO3myTkrbABef0OQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). The unusual traffic light is the one on the left.

My question is this: has anyone else, throughout the country, ever seen any traffic lights with that particular aspect layout? Seems like a rare breed - it caught my attention right away.

[Big John]

I've seen several such layouts in Georgia.  Usual usage is the bottom of the signal has low clearance over the roadway.

[ran4sh]

That configuration seems normal and not unusual. A doghouse could be used, but the phasing is split phasing so the yellow arrow would always be redundant with the yellow circle, so it is omitted. The green left arrow is necessary because it indicates that left turning traffic must proceed and not attempt to yield to oncoming traffic (which would have a red light).

(Instead of a proper arrow indication, some states use non-standard ways of indicating a split-phased traffic light, such as a sign indicating "delayed green" for one side.)

[US 89]

That configuration seems normal and not unusual. A doghouse could be used, but the phasing is split phasing so the yellow arrow would always be redundant with the yellow circle, so it is omitted. The green left arrow is necessary because it indicates that left turning traffic must proceed and not attempt to yield to oncoming traffic (which would have a red light).

(Instead of a proper arrow indication, some states use non-standard ways of indicating a split-phased traffic light, such as a sign indicating "delayed green" for one side.)

Okay, but the vast majority of split-phasing traffic signal installations I've seen will put the green arrow beneath all three balls in a 4-section stack, like this example in Utah. I'm fairly sure I've seen that configuration someplace in Georgia as well.

I understand the reasoning for the 1-1-2 thing and I've seen them in Georgia, but I still do a double take every time I come upon one.

[jeffandnicole]

Along my ongoing cross-country Street View journey on US 20, I happened to notice an unusual "1-1-2" traffic light style in Wesleyville, PA, just east of Erie. It looks like a "doghouse" traffic light, with the green light having two aspects - the difference is that the yellow light has only one aspect, as opposed to the usual two. The light in question is on Water Street southbound at Buffalo Road, which US 20 follows through the east side of Erie. (Street View link here: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.141957,-80.0116991,3a,37.5y,154.67h,101.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY4YoW6lO3myTkrbABef0OQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). The unusual traffic light is the one on the left.

My question is this: has anyone else, throughout the country, ever seen any traffic lights with that particular aspect layout? Seems like a rare breed - it caught my attention right away.

Extremely common in Delaware. Even NJ has a few.

[ran4sh]

That configuration seems normal and not unusual. A doghouse could be used, but the phasing is split phasing so the yellow arrow would always be redundant with the yellow circle, so it is omitted. The green left arrow is necessary because it indicates that left turning traffic must proceed and not attempt to yield to oncoming traffic (which would have a red light).

(Instead of a proper arrow indication, some states use non-standard ways of indicating a split-phased traffic light, such as a sign indicating "delayed green" for one side.)

Okay, but the vast majority of split-phasing traffic signal installations I've seen will put the green arrow beneath all three balls in a 4-section stack, like this example in Utah. I'm fairly sure I've seen that configuration someplace in Georgia as well.

I understand the reasoning for the 1-1-2 thing and I've seen them in Georgia, but I still do a double take every time I come upon one.

I've even seen a fair number of locations where some 4-section towers were changed to 1-1-2 clusters probably to meet vertical clearance requirements (i.e. for whatever reason, the span wire and/or poles aren't holding the 4-section signals high enough off the ground).

[Caps81943]

Yeah this is the standard split phasing set up in a small few states. Delaware for sure, maybe Kentucky too? Pretty rare outside that small group though.

[wanderer2575]

Not to derail this, but I'm actually more intrigued with the rightmost signal.  If it's specifically for right-turn traffic, why the doghouse?  It should just be a three-section signal with red ball/yellow arrow/green arrow.

[US 89]

Not to derail this, but I'm actually more intrigued with the rightmost signal.  If it's specifically for right-turn traffic, why the doghouse?  It should just be a three-section signal with red ball/yellow arrow/green arrow.

Because when traffic coming from the right gets a protected left, that creates a protected right-turn situation where you can use a green arrow. A regular green light means you have to yield to pedestrians who are getting their walk signal at that time.

[jakeroot]

I have only seen this type of signal in Washington State once. It is in Fife. Not surprisingly, based on the above examples, it is split-phased.

From looking at it, it does seem to have been used to allow for maximum clearance given the span-wire setup.

Not to derail this, but I'm actually more intrigued with the rightmost signal.  If it's specifically for right-turn traffic, why the doghouse?  It should just be a three-section signal with red ball/yellow arrow/green arrow.

Because when traffic coming from the right gets a protected left, that creates a protected right-turn situation where you can use a green arrow. A regular green light means you have to yield to pedestrians who are getting their walk signal at that time.

To extend on this: three-section protected-only signals do not allow for permitted phasing. Although such phasing is desirable under some scenarios (double turns, those across bike lanes, etc), it's typically considered a bit excessive for a regular right turn. So for the OP's example, a five-section right turn signal is better since it allows traffic a green light while pedestrians have a walk sign.

[jakeroot]

A doghouse could be used, but the phasing is split phasing so the yellow arrow would always be redundant with the yellow circle, so it is omitted.

The discarding of a yellow arrow does make sense as it is redundant, but then I do like it when the yellow arrow is included. It seems more complete.

It's common practice to include a yellow arrow under most scenarios as simply extinguishing a green arrow randomly may serve to confuse drivers (do I go, stop, ???), but it is excluded for split-phased signals and lagging left turns (such as those onto one-way streets, like this example in Los Angeles) because, at least in theory, the yellow orb is good enough to indicate to traffic that everyone must stop. However, not having the yellow arrow does provide this momentary lapse where drivers see only yellow orbs, the same thing they would see at the end of a permissive phase. Having all-yellow orbs meaning different things depending on what preceded it doesn't sit well with me, even if it's totally normal, accepted, and not at all dangerous.

As an example of what I do like: Seattle occasionally installs lagging green arrows for right turns across crosswalks, so that drivers are allowed some exclusive turning time. All of the examples that I know have both the arrow and orb displays light up yellow at the end of the protected phase, even though standard practice would be for only the yellow orb to light up. This right turn signal (now an FYA, for the record) has a bimodal bottom lens for exactly this reason, despite it being a lagging green arrow.

This deficiency also exists with flashing yellow arrow (FYA) signals: both the protected green arrow and permissive flashing yellow arrow are followed by solid yellow arrows, but the solid yellow arrows mean different things depending on what preceded it. In theory, all solid yellow indications mean the same thing: the related green signal is ending and that drivers should prepare to stop (or in restrictive-yellow states, the red signal is about to be displayed and drivers must stop if possible). But in practice, you're not going to be doing the same thing. If the solid yellow arrow follows the flashing yellow arrow, you should be yielding and must prepare to finish your turn, yielding to any cars in the intersection before doing so. However, if the solid yellow arrow follows the solid green arrow, you have the right of way over everyone else for that brief moment and must either (a) enter the intersection and finish the turn, or (b) stop.

To be fair to existing customs: yes, drivers should absolutely be able to figure out, contextually, what is happening well-enough to know the differences in the yellow indications. Still, it's a deficiency that could have been designed out of existence, but nevertheless remains because, well, "it works". I guess that's just not good enough for me.

[mrsman]

^^^^^^^

The above intrigues me.  What different signalization would you prefer to follow a permissive flashing yellow arrow signal to differentiate from the solid yellow arrow that follows the green arrow?


I think part of the reality as to why yellow arrow having two meanings is not a big problem is because the yellow signal is very short in time.  Almost everyone will see the signal that precedes the yellow, and the yellow is just the warning that the current signal is ending and about to be more restrictive in some manner.

With regard to the signal that is the topic of this thread, the 1-1-2 configuration does exist in many places, mostly because of clearance issues that prevent a 4 aspect stack.  But what is unique about the signal pictured by OP is that the signal is 8-8-12/12.  I have not seen that yet anywhere else.  The majority of 1-1-2 signals out there use 12" aspects on all singals.

In NYC, there is an 8-8-8-12 signal where the left arrow 12" aspect is to the left of the normal 8-8-8 vertical stack.  It is also unique, but is a way of shoehorning in the left turn signal.  In this example, below, the lagging left arrow is new and was put in place as part of a pedestrian safety plan.  Leading pedestrian intervals don't work well with leading lefts, so the protected left became a lagging left.  Since FYA signals aren't used, the opposing left is prohibited to prevent yellow trap.

[The older configuaration can also be seen on GSV.  It provided a leading protected left with a five aspect signal.  8-8-8-12-12 on the side and 12-12 + 8-8-8 on the guy wire.  The opposing left was allowed at this time.]

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7079329,-73.8372221,3a,75y,22.14h,84.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTbopxzmY7BNy5sgXXKfGJA!2e0!5s20191101T000000!7i16384!8i8192

[jakeroot]

The above intrigues me.  What different signalization would you prefer to follow a permissive flashing yellow arrow signal to differentiate from the solid yellow arrow that follows the green arrow?


I think part of the reality as to why yellow arrow having two meanings is not a big problem is because the yellow signal is very short in time.  Almost everyone will see the signal that precedes the yellow, and the yellow is just the warning that the current signal is ending and about to be more restrictive in some manner.

Your concerns (or lack thereof) are exactly why the current system is in place: what's not broken does not need fixing. By all accounts, the current signalization strategy of not worrying about the brief vagueness of yellow is more than acceptable; I am, after all, not aware of any major issues related to crashes caused by misinterpretation of the yellow light, given all of the other factors otherwise at play that would prevent most crashes for occurring.

The best solution that I can readily think of would involve a five-section display that sequences from bottom-to-top: green arrow, solid yellow arrow, flashing yellow arrow, solid yellow arrow, red arrow. Adding that extra lens wouldn't be that problematic, as there are many examples of both five and three section FYA signals. The question really is just whether there is any justification. I like my idea but I have no way of knowing whether it would make any difference, since my issue is entirely theoretical.

[Dirt Roads]

The above intrigues me.  What different signalization would you prefer to follow a permissive flashing yellow arrow signal to differentiate from the solid yellow arrow that follows the green arrow?

I think part of the reality as to why yellow arrow having two meanings is not a big problem is because the yellow signal is very short in time.  Almost everyone will see the signal that precedes the yellow, and the yellow is just the warning that the current signal is ending and about to be more restrictive in some manner.

Your concerns (or lack thereof) are exactly why the current system is in place: what's not broken does not need fixing. By all accounts, the current signalization strategy of not worrying about the brief vagueness of yellow is more than acceptable; I am, after all, not aware of any major issues related to crashes caused by misinterpretation of the yellow light, given all of the other factors otherwise at play that would prevent most crashes for occurring.

The best solution that I can readily think of would involve a five-section display that sequences from bottom-to-top: green arrow, solid yellow arrow, flashing yellow arrow, solid yellow arrow, red arrow. Adding that extra lens wouldn't be that problematic, as there are many examples of both five and three section FYA signals. The question really is just whether there is any justification. I like my idea but I have no way of knowing whether it would make any difference, since my issue is entirely theoretical.

Unfortunately, I still see a bunch of folks mistake the beginning of the FYLT phase as a protected left turn and pull out into oncoming traffic (and have even seen the second car follow).  Part of the problem here in North Carolina is that many signals were downgraded from protected left turns to flashing yellows in an attempt to keep traffic from overflowing the left turn lanes.  But many of these signals have been flashing for at least 3 or 4 years, so we shouldn't be having such issues. 

[JoePCool14]

Slightly off topic, but check out the visors on the signals all around that intersection. A significant percentage of them are chipped in some form or even downright missing. I assume they were just a cheaper variety for some reason.

[Rothman]

Slightly off topic, but check out the visors on the signals all around that intersection. A significant percentage of them are chipped in some form or even downright missing. I assume they were just a cheaper variety for some reason.

Reminds me of a contractor that got their hands on old signals, repainted them and tried to charge them as brand new.

[jay8g]

The best solution that I can readily think of would involve a five-section display that sequences from bottom-to-top: green arrow, solid yellow arrow, flashing yellow arrow, solid yellow arrow, red arrow. Adding that extra lens wouldn't be that problematic, as there are many examples of both five and three section FYA signals. The question really is just whether there is any justification. I like my idea but I have no way of knowing whether it would make any difference, since my issue is entirely theoretical.

Seattle's old standard (pre-FYA) used a flashing yellow circle instead -- and these signals had a bimodal green/yellow arrow in the bottom section that was used to transition from protected to permissive. I'm pretty sure there are some where the flashing yellow circle was replaced with an arrow, leaving the bimodal arrow in place. That's the closest thing I've ever seen to a solution to that (potential) issue.

Related to the original topic, Seattle also has an intersection that uses doghouses for split phasing (in fact, it's one of only three locations I know of with doghouses in Seattle, and they're all used in rather non-traditional ways). I've always thought it looks a little weird, since all the other split-phase intersections I know of use normal 4-stack signals (sometimes with bimodal arrows).

[paulthemapguy]

I've seen the 1-1-2 configuration and I don't like it.  I get it when it's strung up on cables that connect to the top and bottom of the signal...but in VA and OH I've seen the 1-1-2 on mast arms, and just...why. (Can you tell I'm from Illinois where every arrowed signal is a tower?)  What's more interesting to me, though, about the OP's photo, is that it's an 8-8-12 signal by lens diameter!  I have never seen a 1-1-2 that's an 8-8-12!

[Opkl2]

That type of signal is very common in states that utilize the doghouse style. Mississippi and Louisiana have plenty of them. They are actually quite nice when fitted with backplates.