Right-turn arrow with simultaneous opposing left-turn arrow

[kphoger]

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):

[tradephoric]

Here's the streetview link:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8736395,-87.8048703,3a,60y,116.36h,80.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSg-fIhZv1gF1EYbsZQB2uw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That has got to be in violation of the MUTCD.

[tradephoric]

With this streetview link you can actually verify that the arrows in opposing directions are indeed on at the same time (just turn 180 to look at the other direction). 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8736894,-87.8045773,3a,41.4y,108.66h,84.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF_wrTiVFNOGjF5y-u1dxrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[kphoger]

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.

[roadman]

In Wakefield, MA, the intersection of North Avenue, Main Street and Nahant Street has a phase where the right turn from North onto Main gets a green arrow at the same time that the left turn from Nahant onto Main has a green ball.

[kphoger]

For some reason, I don't see as much conflict in that scenario–basically operating as two opposing green balls, IMO.

[myosh_tino]

I find that setup pretty dangerous.  Who has the right-of-way if there's a collision?

For some reason, I don't see as much conflict in that scenario–basically operating as two opposing green balls, IMO.

There is a difference between green balls and green arrows IMO.  Green arrows carry the presumption that that movement has the right-of-way.

[paulthemapguy]

Good point, kphoger.  I hate this interchange.  KILL IT WITH FIRE! 
The right turn arrows should not be lit when the left turn arrows are.  Rather, they should share a phase with Harlem's left- turning traffic onto the freeway ramps.

So here are the phases that should be there:

• Harlem left turn arrows + off-ramp right turn arrows
• Harlem thru traffic
• off-ramp left turn arrows

[jakeroot]

For some reason, I don't see as much conflict in that scenario–basically operating as two opposing green balls, IMO.

There is a difference between green balls and green arrows IMO.  Green arrows carry the presumption that that movement has the right-of-way.

Though 'practice' certainly differs from 'reality', most states require traffic to turn into the closest lane. If one side or the other turned into the "far" lane, technically the law wouldn't be in their favor. Unless, of course, Illinois has no such law. In which case, this signal really doesn't make any sense.

I'm surprised there's no guide lines in the intersection.

[kphoger]

Who has the right-of-way if there's a collision?

If there is a collision, then the person at fault is the one who didn't turn into the correct lane.  If all drivers keep their lanes, as is required by law, then there is no conflict.  But, in another way of answering your question, "right of way" is never guaranteed in US vehicle code.  By law, both drivers are required to give way, as set forth in the following statute.

Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may cautiously enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.

[kphoger]

If one side or the other turned into the "far" lane, technically the law wouldn't be in their favor. Unless, of course, Illinois has no such law.

Illinois does.

(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

(2) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle, and after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.

[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.

[Brandon]

If one side or the other turned into the "far" lane, technically the law wouldn't be in their favor. Unless, of course, Illinois has no such law.

Illinois does.

(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

(2) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle, and after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.

As if anyone in Chicagoland actually does that.

[kphoger]

If you'd like to see a bunch of people in Chicagoland doing it, then go to the Harlem exit on the Ike!

[Brandon]

If you'd like to see a bunch of people in Chicagoland doing it, then go to the Harlem exit on the Ike!

Been there, done that, used the horn a few times there.

[jakeroot]

If you'd like to see a bunch of people in Chicagoland doing it, then go to the Harlem exit on the Ike!

Been there, done that, used the horn a few times there.

Nothing wrong with the occasional horn. Surely if there were too many collisions or close calls, the setup would be changed.

[Kacie Jane]

If one side or the other turned into the "far" lane, technically the law wouldn't be in their favor. Unless, of course, Illinois has no such law.

Illinois does.

(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

(2) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle, and after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.

I'm not sure your interpretation is correct.  The sentences you bolded appear to be referring to the actual turning process (not to take the turn too wide), not the lane you're supposed to turn into.  The last one mentions "to the left of the center of the intersection", but doesn't mention lanes.  Obviously you're not supposed to turn into the lane "to the left of the center" of the roadway.

I think the relevant sentence is the one before the last one: "so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered."  It just says "a lane", it doesn't specify the left-most lane.  To me that means that as long as you're turning into the correct half of the roadway, you're fine.

[Revive 755]

(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

There's a difference between having a law on the books and having the law actually followed.  Just look at most of the speed limits in Chicagoland.  And what happens if someone gets off EB I-290 at Harlem and wants to turn left onto Garfield Street just south of the interchange?

[kphoger]

(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

There's a difference between having a law on the books and having the law actually followed.  Just look at most of the speed limits in Chicagoland.  And what happens if someone gets off EB I-290 at Harlem and wants to turn left onto Garfield Street just south of the interchange?

(fixed quote)

Point being...?  The question was whether or not Illinois has a law on the books and who might be at fault in the event of a collision.  People ignoring laws doesn't make lawlessness legal.

[Jardine]

The ding dongs in Omaha (and it's worse in Sarpy county) don't signal turns or lane changes and freely change lanes while turning right or left onto streets with multiple lanes.  Simultaneous opposing arrows would lead to carnage on a massive scale.

I could see tow trucks being permanently stationed at any intersection with that 'feature'.

I won't even right turn on red (properly into curb lane) if anyone is coming from the left in any other lane as they won't signal a lane change, and will not hesitate to change lanes while traversing an intersection*.

* I'd swear I recall a friend of mine from Belvidere Illinois telling me he was ticketed for 'compound maneuver' for changing lanes there while driving through an intersection back in the 80s.  I can't imagine they still do this, the logistics of enforcing something even the patrolmen don't comprehend anymore would be onerous.

[Super Mateo]

If one side or the other turned into the "far" lane, technically the law wouldn't be in their favor. Unless, of course, Illinois has no such law.

Illinois does.

(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

(2) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle, and after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.

As if anyone in Chicagoland actually does that.

The law exists, but I have never seen any enforcement of it, nor is it commonly followed.  Some even cross lanes in a double left.  Others will turn left from a lane that is not intended for left turns.  Northbound I-57's diamond ramps at 119th and 127th are good examples of this.

[wanderer2575]

A variation on this setup:  Eastbound Birch Run Road at I-75 in Birch Run MI.  When the signal for the southbound exit ramp is green, a green right-turn arrow lights for eastbound traffic to cross the stop line and drive through the intersection to the southbound entrance ramp a couple hundred feet ahead.  Imagine doing that while in your peripheral vision you see a car coming at you from the exit ramp, and you pray to whatever deity that he doesn't do a banana turn and overshoot the lane into the side of your car while he's turning.

https://goo.gl/maps/5EpRmCzZdyP2

[kphoger]

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

[Revive 755]

(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

There's a difference between having a law on the books and having the law actually followed.  Just look at most of the speed limits in Chicagoland.  And what happens if someone gets off EB I-290 at Harlem and wants to turn left onto Garfield Street just south of the interchange?

(fixed quote)

Point being...?  The question was whether or not Illinois has a law on the books and who might be at fault in the event of a collision.  People ignoring laws doesn't make lawlessness legal.

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.

[1995hoo]

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.

....

Happened near us last year outside the new Wegmans. I complained to VDOT but knew that wouldn't help, so I also spoke to our member of the county board of supervisors. He immediately understood the problem and it was fixed within a week.