Traffic signal

[fwydriver405]

On my way to a basketball playoff game on 6-7 March 2020, I noticed this intersection with some strange phasing:

US 2 near Delta Hotels by Marriott - phasing dosen't show on Google Maps

This intersection has no left turn lanes, only shared left/thru in both directions. However, at one point I noticed that the signal operated with a dual leading left (green left arrow in both directions + red ball for thru/right turns). Is this phasing legal in the MUTCD? Legal or not, I fail to see how this phasing would work with the lane configuration, especially if there is a car intending to go straight in the left-hand lane blocking left-turning drivers from proceeding when the dual left occurs...

Closer to home, I've noticed this phasing at this intersection as well...

[roadfro]

On my way to a basketball playoff game on 6-7 March 2020, I noticed this intersection with some strange phasing:

US 2 near Delta Hotels by Marriott - phasing dosen't show on Google Maps

This intersection has no left turn lanes, only shared left/thru in both directions. However, at one point I noticed that the signal operated with a dual leading left (green left arrow in both directions + red ball for thru/right turns). Is this phasing legal in the MUTCD? Legal or not, I fail to see how this phasing would work with the lane configuration, especially if there is a car intending to go straight in the left-hand lane blocking left-turning drivers from proceeding when the dual left occurs...

Closer to home, I've noticed this phasing at this intersection as well...

Yeah, pretty sure that's not really MUTCD-kosher...

[jakeroot]

From my experience living in an area where all signals are 12" but driving on roads with 8" post-mounted signals a fair amount, I personally think 8" post-mounted signals are fine, but 12" signals are definitely noticeably more visible. Other than slight cost savings, I don't think there's really any benefit in using 8" signals. Personally, I'd prefer if 12" signals were used consistently everywhere.

The inconsistencies are pretty bizarre. I noticed at the new Mountain Highway interchange that the improved Keith Road uses all 12" signals, but the ramp signals (though not yet turned on) are using 8"/12" combo signals as is common along Provincially-maintained routes.

Note in that link that another BC oddity is the general preference (outside of Vancouver proper) to mounted secondary signals and pedestrian signals at the same height. In these cases, 12" signals are a little larger, and start to butt in to the mountain position. But this is a stretch, I will admit.

I don't think it's a huge stretch. There are a few intersections where some post-mounted signals have been moved up higher than usual, I'm assuming to make the pedestrian signals more visible to drivers.

Some of these seem awkward enough that I wonder if the engineers did a calculation incorrectly, and realized the error only when it was too late to mount properly. I can't readily think of an example, but I recall more than a few intersections where one direction's pole-mounted signals will be at a different height than the pole-mounted signals for the other direction.

[jakeroot]

Question for anyone interested:

There are two left turns in the Seattle area where dedicated left turn signals are not located directly overhead, on the far-side of the intersection:

228 St SE @ 10 Ave SE in Bothell
NE 116 St @ 96 Ave NE in Kirkland

In both cases, there is an overhead near-side mast-mounted turn signal, and a far-left pole-mounted turn signal.

Which of these signals (in either case) would be considered the primary signal face?

[bcroadguy]

From my experience living in an area where all signals are 12" but driving on roads with 8" post-mounted signals a fair amount, I personally think 8" post-mounted signals are fine, but 12" signals are definitely noticeably more visible. Other than slight cost savings, I don't think there's really any benefit in using 8" signals. Personally, I'd prefer if 12" signals were used consistently everywhere.

The inconsistencies are pretty bizarre. I noticed at the new Mountain Highway interchange that the improved Keith Road uses all 12" signals, but the ramp signals (though not yet turned on) are using 8"/12" combo signals as is common along Provincially-maintained routes.

Note in that link that another BC oddity is the general preference (outside of Vancouver proper) to mounted secondary signals and pedestrian signals at the same height. In these cases, 12" signals are a little larger, and start to butt in to the mountain position. But this is a stretch, I will admit.

I don't think it's a huge stretch. There are a few intersections where some post-mounted signals have been moved up higher than usual, I'm assuming to make the pedestrian signals more visible to drivers.

Some of these seem awkward enough that I wonder if the engineers did a calculation incorrectly, and realized the error only when it was too late to mount properly. I can't readily think of an example, but I recall more than a few intersections where one direction's pole-mounted signals will be at a different height than the pole-mounted signals for the other direction.

I don't think so. For the first one, the signals were moved at some point. If you look at earlier Streetview images, they're mounted at the normal height. For the second one, there used to be a protected left turn signal, but the secondary signal was moved up when it was replaced with a permissive four-section signal.

[bcroadguy]

Question for anyone interested:

There are two left turns in the Seattle area where dedicated left turn signals are not located directly overhead, on the far-side of the intersection:

228 St SE @ 10 Ave SE in Bothell
NE 116 St @ 96 Ave NE in Kirkland

In both cases, there is an overhead near-side mast-mounted turn signal, and a far-left pole-mounted turn signal.

Which of these signals (in either case) would be considered the primary signal face?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the overhead signal is usually considered the primary signal face?

[roadfro]

Question for anyone interested:

There are two left turns in the Seattle area where dedicated left turn signals are not located directly overhead, on the far-side of the intersection:

228 St SE @ 10 Ave SE in Bothell
NE 116 St @ 96 Ave NE in Kirkland

In both cases, there is an overhead near-side mast-mounted turn signal, and a far-left pole-mounted turn signal.

Which of these signals (in either case) would be considered the primary signal face?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the overhead signal is usually considered the primary signal face?

MUTCD Section 4D.14 (Longitudinal Positioning of Signal Faces) would suggest that the far side pole mounts are the primary signal face in both instances. A primary signal face must be at least 40 feet beyond the stop line. And both of these appear to comply with the provisions in Section 4D.13 (Lateral Positioning of Signal Faces) by having the primary signal face be within the 20° angle from center of approach for the turn lanes.

[jakeroot]

I think this is a decent-enough place to post this.

City of Tacoma recently installed a new RRFB outside Annie Wright School to better facilitate the heavy crossings that occur in this area during peak hours; it replaced(?) a permanent flashing beacon, of which I'm not a fan but which proliferate throughout Tacoma (and are probably the most common type of crossing). This RRFB was installed maybe six months ago, but the original beacon is still posted overhead and continues to flash.

Is it OK to combine RRFBs with permanent-flashing beacons? Or no? Part of me doesn't actually mind it, as it continues to remind passing drives that this is a crosswalk, so when it goes into rapid-flashing mode, drivers might be more prepared to stop.

[Amtrakprod]

In this video, I noticed a traffic light indicating right turn yield to peds in a weird way. It showed an alternating yellow arrow and a walk sign.
https://youtu.be/WxEnX11qATs?t=89
Check the video out at 1:29.

[fwydriver405]

Is it OK to combine RRFBs with permanent-flashing beacons? Or no? Part of me doesn't actually mind it, as it continues to remind passing drives that this is a crosswalk, so when it goes into rapid-flashing mode, drivers might be more prepared to stop.

Near Thornton Academy in Saco ME, this used to be the case, until the overhead flashing beacons were replaced with RRFB's. This is on US Route 1:

RRFBs with flashing beacons (Pre-August 2017)
RRFBs, both overhead and ground mounted (Current condition)

MaineDOT has not approved use of PHB's in the state for pedestrian crossings. With that in mind, Maine's only PHB is about 8 km (5 mi) north from the last link above, being used as a firefighter signal.

[fwydriver405]

I noticed a bit of a signage quirk on this signal in Portsmouth NH. These signals were replaced in 2019, replacing a 4-section right turn signal (with no yellow arrow) with its own all arrow R-Y-G right turn signal.

New Hampshire often post signs saying "NO TURN ON RED ARROW" on most of their protected only and FYA installs for the left-turn movement. It is noted that NH allows a right turn on a red arrow after a stop, so as long as there is no sign prohibiting the movement. However, at this intersection, it seems that was overseen as placing that sign there not only bars left on red arrow, but it technically bars a right on a red arrow. Given the placement of the sign, could this be an oversight by whoever designed the signal configuration by unintentionally barring right on red arrow, or did they plan to bar right on red arrow anyways?

This signal in Somersworth NH also used to have the same quirk as well, until the red arrow was replaced with a ball. That signal had no right turn overlap in the first place.

[SignBridge]

My guess is that it was an oversight. I think if they intended to prohibit the right turn on red arrow, they would have put a sign on the right side as well. They probably didn't realize the unintended effect of the sign by the left-turn signal.

But why do New Hampshire traffic engineers even bother posting that sign next to a red left-turn arrow? It's not required by the Manual, and it's not needed. So in this case by posting an unnecessary/redundant sign, they outsmarted themselves and caused more confusion. 

[jakeroot]

But why do New Hampshire traffic engineers even bother posting that sign next to a red left-turn arrow? It's not required by the Manual, and it's not needed. So in this case by posting an unnecessary/redundant sign, they outsmarted themselves and caused more confusion.

I've never understood this practice, and it's various equivalents (such as "LEFT ON LEFT/GREEN ARROW ONLY"). Left from two-way to two-way is prohibited on red in every state; the only time they make sense is in WA/OR/MI where left turns onto one-way streets are OK on red arrows (example of prohibition in Clark County, WA).

The only case for any supplemental signage (IMO) might be when the signal does not use red arrows. This practiced isn't permitted anymore, so examples of this should be dwindling.

Is it OK to combine RRFBs with permanent-flashing beacons? Or no? Part of me doesn't actually mind it, as it continues to remind passing drives that this is a crosswalk, so when it goes into rapid-flashing mode, drivers might be more prepared to stop.

Near Thornton Academy in Saco ME, this used to be the case, until the overhead flashing beacons were replaced with RRFB's. This is on US Route 1:

RRFBs with flashing beacons (Pre-August 2017)
RRFBs, both overhead and ground mounted (Current condition)

Thanks for the reply. I fully expect this installation to eventually become a near-replica of the new setup there in Saco. Many of these seem to be simple oversights.

[fwydriver405]

But why do New Hampshire traffic engineers even bother posting that sign next to a red left-turn arrow? It's not required by the Manual, and it's not needed. So in this case by posting an unnecessary/redundant sign, they outsmarted themselves and caused more confusion.

I've never understood this practice, and it's various equivalents (such as "LEFT ON LEFT/GREEN ARROW ONLY"). Left from two-way to two-way is prohibited on red in every state; the only time they make sense is in WA/OR/MI where left turns onto one-way streets are OK on red arrows (example of prohibition in Clark County, WA).

The only case for any supplemental signage (IMO) might be when the signal does not use red arrows. This practice isn't permitted anymore, so examples of this should be dwindling.

When signals at our new high school in Sanford ME were being designed, the signal configuration had protected-only left turns on the leading leg, and PPLT on the lagging leg. Although the sign was never installed, one traffic engineer told me that they were planning to put a "NO TURN ON RED ARROW" sign on the protected only-side entering the high school. The reason was to remind drivers about that turn into the high school being protected-only as the opposing direction had PPLT, which may result in drivers on the protected-only side being confused about why they can't proceed.

[Amtrakprod]

But why do New Hampshire traffic engineers even bother posting that sign next to a red left-turn arrow? It's not required by the Manual, and it's not needed. So in this case by posting an unnecessary/redundant sign, they outsmarted themselves and caused more confusion.

I've never understood this practice, and it's various equivalents (such as "LEFT ON LEFT/GREEN ARROW ONLY"). Left from two-way to two-way is prohibited on red in every state; the only time they make sense is in WA/OR/MI where left turns onto one-way streets are OK on red arrows (example of prohibition in Clark County, WA).

The only case for any supplemental signage (IMO) might be when the signal does not use red arrows. This practice isn't permitted anymore, so examples of this should be dwindling.

When signals at our new high school in Sanford ME were being designed, the signal configuration had protected-only left turns on the leading leg, and PPLT on the lagging leg. Although the sign was never installed, one traffic engineer told me that they were planning to put a "NO TURN ON RED ARROW" sign on the protected only-side entering the high school. The reason was to remind drivers about that turn into the high school being protected-only as the opposing direction had PPLT, which may result in drivers on the protected-only side being confused about why they can't proceed.

what intersection in Sanford is this?


iPhone

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

A couple of interesting signal setups I saw a couple of weeks ago, both in NY

Long visors and louvers on the same signal heads for visual separation.


Giving buses a protected u turn across same-direction traffic on a main-service road setup

[ErmineNotyours]

Fixed links:

A couple of interesting signal setups I saw a couple of weeks ago, both in NY

Long visors and louvers on the same signal heads for visual separation.


Giving buses a protected u turn across same-direction traffic on a main-service road setup

Second link: a car in the bus-only lane, and a pedestrian standing on the island next to the no pedestrians sign

[fwydriver405]

But why do New Hampshire traffic engineers even bother posting that sign next to a red left-turn arrow? It's not required by the Manual, and it's not needed. So in this case by posting an unnecessary/redundant sign, they outsmarted themselves and caused more confusion.

I've never understood this practice, and it's various equivalents (such as "LEFT ON LEFT/GREEN ARROW ONLY"). Left from two-way to two-way is prohibited on red in every state; the only time they make sense is in WA/OR/MI where left turns onto one-way streets are OK on red arrows (example of prohibition in Clark County, WA).

The only case for any supplemental signage (IMO) might be when the signal does not use red arrows. This practice isn't permitted anymore, so examples of this should be dwindling.

When signals at our new high school in Sanford ME were being designed, the signal configuration had protected-only left turns on the leading leg, and PPLT on the lagging leg. Although the sign was never installed, one traffic engineer told me that they were planning to put a "NO TURN ON RED ARROW" sign on the protected only-side entering the high school. The reason was to remind drivers about that turn into the high school being protected-only as the opposing direction had PPLT, which may result in drivers on the protected-only side being confused about why they can't proceed.

what intersection in Sanford is this?


iPhone

Main St and Old Mill Rd / Alumni Blvd. These signals were installed early January 2019 and activated on 26 Feb 2019. Google Maps doesn't have an up to date image so here is what the signals look like as of 15 March 2019 (still current as of today):


Intersection Phasing (sequential lead-lag)

The doghouse on the left will be replaced with a(n) FYA when Sanford replaces their traffic signals in 2020-2022.

EDIT: This is where the "NO TURN ON RED ARROW" sign was mentioned. City Council Meeting March 20, 2018. Skip to 47:35 for the signage explanation. 24:18 is where the entirety of the project begins.

[traffic light guy]

One of the first FYA signals in District 6:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8873981,-75.4023402,3a,15y,288.15h,98.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLVBFOAB_J8p78ngRvEXgSw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DLVBFOAB_J8p78ngRvEXgSw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D349.79083%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

This one happens to be two Econolite Buttonback 4-section signals.

[jakeroot]

^^^
I like the near-side signals. Nice touch.

Speaking of: the near-side FYA looks to be a McCain? Am I seeing that right?

[fwydriver405]

Saw this earlier today in this video. Is Caltrans adding yellow reflective tape on their new signal installations, or is this a just a city/town decision?

Redwood City near YouTube headquarters

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

One of the first FYA signals in District 6:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8873981,-75.4023402,3a,15y,288.15h,98.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLVBFOAB_J8p78ngRvEXgSw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DLVBFOAB_J8p78ngRvEXgSw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D349.79083%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

This one happens to be two Econolite Buttonback 4-section signals.

Are these signals in PA?

I don't understand why a FYA was used in one direction but not the other. That can lead to yellow trap.

Putting in a 3 light FYA for the other side would prevent any issues.

[jakeroot]

Saw this earlier today in this video. Is Caltrans adding yellow reflective tape on their new signal installations, or is this a just a city/town decision?

Redwood City near YouTube headquarters

I've been seeing it sparingly, but doesn't appear to be coming from Caltrans. Other intersections nearby (that were also recently updated) have them too.

For the record, Youtube's headquarters are in San Bruno (indeed near this intersection), not Redwood City.

[fwydriver405]

Saw this earlier today in this video. Is Caltrans adding yellow reflective tape on their new signal installations, or is this a just a city/town decision?

Redwood City near YouTube headquarters

I've been seeing it sparingly, but doesn't appear to be coming from Caltrans. Other intersections nearby (that were also recently updated) have them too.

For the record, Youtube's headquarters are in San Bruno (indeed near this intersection), not Redwood City.

Oops my bad, meant to type San Bruno instead of Redwood City - running on little sleep this week!

The one on that Youtube video is at 4:50. It is in St Helena CA at this intersection. For some reason, they decided to keep the 8 inch (200 mm) signals. Wonder if that is a new installation, or if they just slapped on some reflective tape on the signals and kept the existing configuration like what some signals in New Hampshire are doing.

[roadfro]

I think this is a decent-enough place to post this.

City of Tacoma recently installed a new RRFB outside Annie Wright School to better facilitate the heavy crossings that occur in this area during peak hours; it replaced(?) a permanent flashing beacon, of which I'm not a fan but which proliferate throughout Tacoma (and are probably the most common type of crossing). This RRFB was installed maybe six months ago, but the original beacon is still posted overhead and continues to flash.

Is it OK to combine RRFBs with permanent-flashing beacons? Or no? Part of me doesn't actually mind it, as it continues to remind passing drives that this is a crosswalk, so when it goes into rapid-flashing mode, drivers might be more prepared to stop.

There is nothing in FHWA's Interim Approval 21 document prohibiting a continuously flashing beacon from operating above a crosswalk with RRFBs in this manner. However, part of the draw for installing RRFBs is that it is a pedestrian-activated warning device which is only going to flash when the warning condition is relevant ("hey, a pedestrian is crossing right now"). Contrast this to a continuously-flashing beacon ("hey, there could maybe be a pedestrian here").

I believe there are studies out that show continuously-flashing beacons at crosswalks lose effectiveness over time because drivers get used to the beacon warning of a condition that is not always present. So from that perspective, I don't think a continuously-flashing beacon should be used in conjunction with RRFBs–if the crosswalk/school crossing signs and pavement markings aren't enough to indicate the crosswalk exists, an overhead beacon isn't going to help much more. The RRFB flash pattern is incredibly attention-grabbing by itself, which (at least in my experience) invokes a high driver yield rate.