Traffic signal

[jeffandnicole]

In Denver, at the off-ramps from Peña Blvd to East 56th Ave, there are signals facing the wrong-way. In addition to three signal facing the off-ramp, there are two signals (two 8-8-8 post-mounted heads) facing up on the on-ramps, seemingly at no one.

https://goo.gl/ygHwG1 --&-- https://goo.gl/zHBHz4

I'm not sure if they were meant to be pedestrian heads, but there is zero pedestrian accommodation in the area, so I'm not sure why Denver would bother at all.

There are pedestrian crossing buttons for crossing the street here (newer looking buttons at that). So these signal heads facing the wrong way allow for peds to use the green phase for crossing—with the minimal pedestrian facilities/traffic at the intersection, this way makes more sense than installing ped heads for one little-used movement.

Ahh, didn't notice the pushbuttons.

Something odd though: the diagram attached to the pushbuttons indicate to pedestrians to cross on the white man and wait on a red hand! (doh!)... https://goo.gl/YwhfGD

That appears to be normal signage.  What's wrong with it?

And as it relates to that, how many pedestrians instinctively know to cross with a green signal? Such a setup is exceedingly rare these days. If anywhere needed a custom diagram, it would have been these crossings.

I would hope that's a normal function...to cross when you're light's green.  Although most people just cross whenever they want anyway.  The biggest problem is erroneous reports with people claiming that you can step into a crosswalk anytime you want and you get automatic right-of-way.  The media doesn't help with this, as they seemingly try to blame motorists for every pedestrian accident regardless of the facts of the incident.

[jakeroot]

one last post before bed time...

In Denver, at the off-ramps from Peña Blvd to East 56th Ave, there are signals facing the wrong-way. In addition to three signal facing the off-ramp, there are two signals (two 8-8-8 post-mounted heads) facing up on the on-ramps, seemingly at no one.

https://goo.gl/ygHwG1 --&-- https://goo.gl/zHBHz4

I'm not sure if they were meant to be pedestrian heads, but there is zero pedestrian accommodation in the area, so I'm not sure why Denver would bother at all.

There are pedestrian crossing buttons for crossing the street here (newer looking buttons at that). So these signal heads facing the wrong way allow for peds to use the green phase for crossing–with the minimal pedestrian facilities/traffic at the intersection, this way makes more sense than installing ped heads for one little-used movement.

Ahh, didn't notice the pushbuttons.

Something odd though: the diagram attached to the pushbuttons indicate to pedestrians to cross on the white man and wait on a red hand! (doh!)... https://goo.gl/YwhfGD

That appears to be normal signage.  What's wrong with it?

There are no pedestrian heads at the intersection. Telling pedestrians to cross on the white man, and wait on the flashing red and solid red hand isn't relevant here, because those indications don't exist.

And as it relates to that, how many pedestrians instinctively know to cross with a green signal? Such a setup is exceedingly rare these days. If anywhere needed a custom diagram, it would have been these crossings.

I would hope that's a normal function...to cross when your light's green.  Although most people just cross whenever they want anyway.  The biggest problem is erroneous reports with people claiming that you can step into a crosswalk anytime you want and you get automatic right-of-way.  The media doesn't help with this, as they seemingly try to blame motorists for every pedestrian accident regardless of the facts of the incident.

At least where I'm from, a RYG signal is colloquially understood to be a traffic control device for vehicles, not pedestrians (even if that's not strictly the case). Perhaps they teach the meaning of traffic signals to pedestrians in driver's ed, but it couldn't possibly be less relevant to that audience. It's not exactly common knowledge that green means go for all traffic (not anymore -- I know that used to be the case). Then again, I can't think of any intersections anywhere near me that don't have pedestrian heads where pedestrians are allowed to cross. I'm sure somewhere in Washington, there's an intersection with a sign stating "pedestrians cross with green signal", but I don't have a clue where that is, nor why they wouldn't just use pedestrian heads. Note that a sign would almost certainly be included, because (as I alluded to earlier) it's not common knowledge to cross on a green orb.

[kphoger]

And as it relates to that, how many pedestrians instinctively know to cross with a green signal? Such a setup is exceedingly rare these days. If anywhere needed a custom diagram, it would have been these crossings.

I would hope that's a normal function...to cross when your light's green.  Although most people just cross whenever they want anyway.  The biggest problem is erroneous reports with people claiming that you can step into a crosswalk anytime you want and you get automatic right-of-way.  The media doesn't help with this, as they seemingly try to blame motorists for every pedestrian accident regardless of the facts of the incident.

At least where I'm from, a RYG signal is colloquially understood to be a traffic control device for vehicles, not pedestrians (even if that's not strictly the case). Perhaps they teach the meaning of traffic signals to pedestrians in driver's ed, but it couldn't possibly be less relevant to that audience. It's not exactly common knowledge that green means go for all traffic (not anymore -- I know that used to be the case). Then again, I can't think of any intersections anywhere near me that don't have pedestrian heads where pedestrians are allowed to cross. I'm sure somewhere in Washington, there's an intersection with a sign stating "pedestrians cross with green signal", but I don't have a clue where that is, nor why they wouldn't just use pedestrian heads. Note that a sign would almost certainly be included, because (as I alluded to earlier) it's not common knowledge to cross on a green orb.

I teach my sons a little bit about how to be a pedestrian every time our family goes for a walk, and that includes how to cross with stoplights and/or ped signals.  I just figured that was my job as a parent.  I mean, how are they going to know later what to do if there's no ped signal if I don't teach them now?

Not to go down the rabbit hole of pedestrian right of way, but...  nothing in US law gives anybody explicit right of way.  Good luck finding a part of the vehicle code where a statute tells someone to just go right on ahead without worrying about yielding to anyone else.  Traffic laws invariably restrict right of way, they never grant it.  So, while it's true that stepping into a crosswalk doesn't automatically give you the right of way, it is also just as true that drivers are required to yield to you whenever you do step into a crosswalk.  And even if you're not in a crosswalk, they're still required to not hit you.

[jeffandnicole]

And as it relates to that, how many pedestrians instinctively know to cross with a green signal? Such a setup is exceedingly rare these days. If anywhere needed a custom diagram, it would have been these crossings.

I would hope that's a normal function...to cross when your light's green.  Although most people just cross whenever they want anyway.  The biggest problem is erroneous reports with people claiming that you can step into a crosswalk anytime you want and you get automatic right-of-way.  The media doesn't help with this, as they seemingly try to blame motorists for every pedestrian accident regardless of the facts of the incident.

At least where I'm from, a RYG signal is colloquially understood to be a traffic control device for vehicles, not pedestrians (even if that's not strictly the case). Perhaps they teach the meaning of traffic signals to pedestrians in driver's ed, but it couldn't possibly be less relevant to that audience. It's not exactly common knowledge that green means go for all traffic (not anymore -- I know that used to be the case). Then again, I can't think of any intersections anywhere near me that don't have pedestrian heads where pedestrians are allowed to cross. I'm sure somewhere in Washington, there's an intersection with a sign stating "pedestrians cross with green signal", but I don't have a clue where that is, nor why they wouldn't just use pedestrian heads. Note that a sign would almost certainly be included, because (as I alluded to earlier) it's not common knowledge to cross on a green orb.

I teach my sons a little bit about how to be a pedestrian every time our family goes for a walk, and that includes how to cross with stoplights and/or ped signals.  I just figured that was my job as a parent.  I mean, how are they going to know later what to do if there's no ped signal if I don't teach them now?

Exactly:  The time to teach pedestrians about signals isn't in driver's ed...after all, that's a class for driving.  Knowing what to do at walk/don't walk signs, and red/yellow/green lights, is when you're a kid walking around.

And unfortunately, whenever a parent just ignores the signal and takes their kid across the street against a don't walk/red signal, the kid learns that they don't need to care about signals as a pedestrian...more so when mom/dad yells at a car to watch them, even though the motorist has the right of way.

it is also just as true that drivers are required to yield to you whenever you do step into a crosswalk...

Not so.  If I have a green light and the ped walks into the perpendicular crosswalk against the don't walk/red signal, they still don't have the right of way.  I should take reasonable measures to do what I can do to avoid hitting them, or lessen the impact, but that's true no matter what may cross my path.

[kphoger]

yield

take reasonable measures to do what I can do to avoid hitting

OK, I guess there's a difference between the two.  It's small but it exists.

If I have a green light and the ped walks into the perpendicular crosswalk against the don't walk/red signal, they still don't have the right of way.

As I mentioned, traffic laws never state that someone "has" the right of way.  They only ever admonish people to relinquish right of way.  You are correct in saying that a pedestrian would be breaking a traffic law by entering a crosswalk against a red signal.  But, once it's happened, you are still obligated to yield to him–unless the crosswalk is an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except at crosswalks when the movement of traffic is being regulated by police officers or traffic control signals, or where otherwise regulated by municipal, county, or State regulation, and except where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided:

The statute covering marked crosswalks, in contradistinction, does not carve out an exception for signal-controlled intersections.  I doesn't say you only have to yield when the pedestrian has obeyed all of his rules, just that you are required to stop.

The driver of a vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway within a marked crosswalk, when the pedestrian is upon, or within one lane of, the half of the roadway, upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. As used in this paragraph, "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes conveying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

I'm not sure why New Jersey has that weird little loophole, though.
For what it's worth, here's how it goes in the UVC:

1. Pedestrians must yield to vehicles if crossing the street outside of a marked or unmarked crosswalk [Article V, §11-503(a)].
2. Pedestrians must yield to vehicles if a there is a pedestrian bridge or tunnel they choose not to use it [Article V, §11-503(b)].
3. Pedestrians must not cross between signals if both nearby intersections are signal-controlled [Article V, §11-503(c)].
4. Pedestrians must obey pedestrian signals if applicable [Article V, §11-501(a)].
5. Pedestrians must not suddenly step in front of a vehicle to cross [Article V, §11-502(b)].

1. Drivers must take at all times due care to avoid hitting pedestrians [Article V, §11-504].
2. Drivers must yield** to pedestrians in or about to be in any marked or unmarked crosswalk on their half of the road [Article V, §11-502(a,c)].
  ^{** (except if there is a pedestrian bridge or tunnel, and only at unsignalized locations)}
3. Drivers must stop for pedestrians if the car in the next lane over has already stopped to let them across [Article V, §11-502(d)].

According the UVC, then, you are correct in saying drivers are not obligated by law to yield the right of way to pedestrians who enter a crosswalk against a red signal.  They are only admonished to "exercise due care to avoid colliding" with them.

[US 89]

In Denver, at the off-ramps from Peña Blvd to East 56th Ave, there are signals facing the wrong-way. In addition to three signal facing the off-ramp, there are two signals (two 8-8-8 post-mounted heads) facing up on the on-ramps, seemingly at no one.

https://goo.gl/ygHwG1 --&-- https://goo.gl/zHBHz4

I'm not sure if they were meant to be pedestrian heads, but there is zero pedestrian accommodation in the area, so I'm not sure why Denver would bother at all.

There are pedestrian crossing buttons for crossing the street here (newer looking buttons at that). So these signal heads facing the wrong way allow for peds to use the green phase for crossing–with the minimal pedestrian facilities/traffic at the intersection, this way makes more sense than installing ped heads for one little-used movement.

Ahh, didn't notice the pushbuttons.

Something odd though: the diagram attached to the pushbuttons indicate to pedestrians to cross on the white man and wait on a red hand! (doh!)... https://goo.gl/YwhfGD

And as it relates to that, how many pedestrians instinctively know to cross with a green signal? Such a setup is exceedingly rare these days. If anywhere needed a custom diagram, it would have been these crossings.

In downtown San Francisco a few years ago when I was there, it was quite common for there to not be any ped heads, you just went when the light turned green (and there were several signals pointed the wrong way on one-way streets, presumably for this purpose). And I would bet most pedestrians do know instinctively to go on a green.

[jakeroot]

In Denver, at the off-ramps from Peña Blvd to East 56th Ave, there are signals facing the wrong-way. In addition to three signal facing the off-ramp, there are two signals (two 8-8-8 post-mounted heads) facing up on the on-ramps, seemingly at no one.

https://goo.gl/ygHwG1 --&-- https://goo.gl/zHBHz4

I'm not sure if they were meant to be pedestrian heads, but there is zero pedestrian accommodation in the area, so I'm not sure why Denver would bother at all.

There are pedestrian crossing buttons for crossing the street here (newer looking buttons at that). So these signal heads facing the wrong way allow for peds to use the green phase for crossing–with the minimal pedestrian facilities/traffic at the intersection, this way makes more sense than installing ped heads for one little-used movement.

Ahh, didn't notice the pushbuttons.

Something odd though: the diagram attached to the pushbuttons indicate to pedestrians to cross on the white man and wait on a red hand! (doh!)... https://goo.gl/YwhfGD

And as it relates to that, how many pedestrians instinctively know to cross with a green signal? Such a setup is exceedingly rare these days. If anywhere needed a custom diagram, it would have been these crossings.

In downtown San Francisco a few years ago when I was there, it was quite common for there to not be any ped heads, you just went when the light turned green (and there were several signals pointed the wrong way on one-way streets, presumably for this purpose). And I would bet most pedestrians do know instinctively to go on a green.

Perhaps in areas where this is the norm, pedestrians would know to cross with the green signal. But, as far as I know, this is an exceedingly uncommon setup (even in areas where it might have been the norm, such as downtown San Francisco -- pretty sure ped heads are the norm now), and less people than ever before would know what to do when greeted with the situation. I suspect in Colorado, this setup is just as unusual as it is where I am, but I'm not 100% sure.

[kphoger]

I have to imagine that, when people don't have a ped signal, most are capable of deciding green still means go and red still means stop.

[jakeroot]

I have to imagine that, when people don't have a ped signal, most are capable of deciding green still means go and red still means stop.

I think, at best, pedestrians would know that it was safe to cross on green, not that they should.

[7/8]

People in downtown Nashville, TN seemed to be hesitant to cross on greens. All the pedestrian heads didn't seem to be working because they never showed the walking symbol, and I don't remember seeing any push buttons. My family was always the first ones to cross on the greens.

At one intersection, a guy yelled out "f---ing jaywalkers!". It's not our fault the stupid signals aren't working, and we're not going to stand around forever waiting. We always made it across before the yellow.

[paulthemapguy]

People in downtown Nashville, TN seemed to be hesitant to cross on greens. All the pedestrian heads didn't seem to be working because they never showed the walking symbol, and I don't remember seeing any push buttons. My family was always the first ones to cross on the greens.

At one intersection, a guy yelled out "f---ing jaywalkers!". It's not our fault the stupid signals aren't working, and we're not going to stand around forever waiting. We always made it across before the yellow.

The fact that jaywalking is a crime baffles me.  So much for pedestrians having the right of way.  Fuck that whiner.

[kphoger]

What exactly is jaywalking?  It is perfectly legal to walk across the middle of a block, as long as there aren't signalized intersections on both sides of you, and as long as you yield to the cars going by.

[jeffandnicole]

If I have a green light and the ped walks into the perpendicular crosswalk against the don't walk/red signal, they still don't have the right of way.

As I mentioned, traffic laws never state that someone "has" the right of way.  They only ever admonish people to relinquish right of way.  You are correct in saying that a pedestrian would be breaking a traffic law by entering a crosswalk against a red signal.  But, once it's happened, you are still obligated to yield to him–unless the crosswalk is an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except at crosswalks when the movement of traffic is being regulated by police officers or traffic control signals, or where otherwise regulated by municipal, county, or State regulation, and except where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided:

The statute covering marked crosswalks, in contradistinction, does not carve out an exception for signal-controlled intersections.  I doesn't say you only have to yield when the pedestrian has obeyed all of his rules, just that you are required to stop.

The driver of a vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway within a marked crosswalk, when the pedestrian is upon, or within one lane of, the half of the roadway, upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. As used in this paragraph, "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes conveying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

You didn't site the proper law as it pertains to marked crosswalks at traffic signals.  Here's 39:4-32:

39:4-32. On highways where traffic is controlled by a traffic control signal or by traffic or police officers:

   a.   Pedestrians shall not cross a roadway against the "stop" or red signal at a crosswalk , whether marked or unmarked, unless otherwise specifically directed to go by a traffic or police officer, or official traffic control device.

   c.   A pedestrian crossing or starting across the intersection on a "go" or green signal, but who is still within the crosswalk when the signal changes, shall have the right of way until the pedestrian has reached the opposite curb or place of safety.

So in A, it specifically states a pedestrian should not enter the marked walkway when facing a stop signal.  In C, it absolutely states someone has the right of way, in contradiction to you believing that the law never states such.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

What exactly is jaywalking?  It is perfectly legal to walk across the middle of a block, as long as there aren't signalized intersections on both sides of you, and as long as you yield to the cars going by.

Jaywalking is when you walk into the street knowing there is a crosswalk next to you.

[SignBridge]

Jaywalking as I understand it means crossing the street against a Don't Walk sign or a red signal in which case a pedestrian presumably does not or should not have the right-of-way even in a marked crosswalk.

[US 89]

Here's the Utah law on this:

(1)   A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.
(2)   A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where there is a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.
(3)   Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation, a pedestrian may not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.
(4)   
(a)   A pedestrian may not cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by a traffic-control device.
(b)   If a pedestrian is authorized to cross diagonally under Subsection (4)(a), the pedestrian shall cross only as directed by the appropriate traffic-control device.
(5)   A violation of this section is an infraction.

[kphoger]

What exactly is jaywalking?  It is perfectly legal to walk across the middle of a block, as long as there aren't signalized intersections on both sides of you, and as long as you yield to the cars going by.

Jaywalking is when you walk into the street knowing there is a crosswalk next to you.

In the jurisdictions I've looked up pedestrian laws for, doing this is legal so long as said nearby crosswalk isn't signalized.

[kphoger]

If I have a green light and the ped walks into the perpendicular crosswalk against the don't walk/red signal, they still don't have the right of way.

As I mentioned, traffic laws never state that someone "has" the right of way.  They only ever admonish people to relinquish right of way.  You are correct in saying that a pedestrian would be breaking a traffic law by entering a crosswalk against a red signal.  But, once it's happened, you are still obligated to yield to him–unless the crosswalk is an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except at crosswalks when the movement of traffic is being regulated by police officers or traffic control signals, or where otherwise regulated by municipal, county, or State regulation, and except where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided:

The statute covering marked crosswalks, in contradistinction, does not carve out an exception for signal-controlled intersections.  I doesn't say you only have to yield when the pedestrian has obeyed all of his rules, just that you are required to stop.

The driver of a vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway within a marked crosswalk, when the pedestrian is upon, or within one lane of, the half of the roadway, upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. As used in this paragraph, "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes conveying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

You didn't site the proper law as it pertains to marked crosswalks at traffic signals.  Here's 39:4-32:

39:4-32. On highways where traffic is controlled by a traffic control signal or by traffic or police officers:

   a.   Pedestrians shall not cross a roadway against the "stop" or red signal at a crosswalk , whether marked or unmarked, unless otherwise specifically directed to go by a traffic or police officer, or official traffic control device.

   c.   A pedestrian crossing or starting across the intersection on a "go" or green signal, but who is still within the crosswalk when the signal changes, shall have the right of way until the pedestrian has reached the opposite curb or place of safety.

So in A, it specifically states a pedestrian should not enter the marked walkway when facing a stop signal.  In C, it absolutely states someone has the right of way, in contradiction to you believing that the law never states such.

Fair enough.  So a pedestrian who walks out into a marked crosswalk against a red signal is not specifically stated to have the right of way, but all drivers are nevertheless still required by law to stop and let him or her pass.

(ps – How did I miss the "shall have the right of way" part?)

[jakeroot]

I was down in Tucson, Arizona over the weekend. For as uninteresting as the city may be for those who aren't traffic nerds (at least according to my family who live in Phoenix), I've always found the city fascinating. They seem to be on the cutting edge of just about every new traffic control device, intersection configuration, etc. I've never seen so many "foreign" setups in my life.

I came upon this intersection in NE Tucson (Tanque Verde Road @ Sabino Canyon Road), where I noticed that the EB to NB left turn, a double left turn with permissive phasing (as is the way for almost all double lefts in Tucson), featured both a leading green arrow, and a lagging green arrow. I assume this is necessary due to a large amount of traffic performing the maneuver. Nonetheless, I've never seen this phasing used before:

https://youtu.be/1WWBn_6o4oY

[SignBridge]

That lead/lag phasing does exist elsewhere. Back in 2010 I noted a similar set-up in the San Francisco suburb of Millbrae, Calif. near S.F. Int'l Airport. It was on S.R. 82, known locally as El Camino Real. It appeared to be "actuated" only. That is the lead or lag phase would only activate if a vehicle tripped the induction loop in the left-turn lane. If there were no vehicles in the lane, that phase would be skipped as the signal cycled. It was the first and last time I ever saw a signal function that way.

[jakeroot]

That lead/lag phasing does exist elsewhere. Back in 2010 I noted a similar set-up in the San Francisco suburb of Millbrae, Calif. near S.F. Int'l Airport. It was on S.R. 82, known locally as El Camino Real. It appeared to be "actuated" only. That is the lead or lag phase would only activate if a vehicle tripped the induction loop in the left-turn lane. If there were no vehicles in the lane, that phase would be skipped as the signal cycled. It was the first and last time I ever saw a signal function that way.

I stuck around and watched the Tucson signal to see how it performed, but time after time, this was the phasing. Traffic was too heavy for me to get an idea of how it worked when traffic levels were lower. But, from what I observed at quieter intersections, pro/per left turns seemed to include the green arrow even when there wasn't any traffic, so I assume the Tanque Verde/Sabino Canyon intersection works the same (including a green arrow at the beginning and end of the phase regardless of traffic levels, with the only difference being the length of the green arrow).

I think this phasing was chosen because the EB to NB maneuver needs quite a long protected phase. But because Tucson uses lagging signals, the oncoming WB to SB left turn (evidently used far less) would have a green arrow for the entire length of the EB to NB maneuver (to prevent yellow trap w/o using FYAs). So, they split said maneuver in half, leading the phase with a protected left for EB to NB, allowing EB through traffic to proceed for the first protected maneuver, and then following up with a lagging left, where the WB to SB maneuver had a green arrow. Basically gives the EB through traffic a much longer phase, although the WB through traffic seems to have a much shorter phase (about 12 seconds shorter than EB, from what I could tell).

Tucson seems to be experimenting with FYAs now; I noticed a relatively new one being used at the Golf Links/Swan intersection north of Davis-Monthan AFB, evidently the first for a double left (they have FYAs used along Speedway Blvd, but they're all single-lane left turns). The FYA would definitely improve upon these awkward situations.

[jakeroot]

I've found an example of Dallas Phasing in Washington State. Keene Road @ Englewood/Westcliffe, Richland:

https://goo.gl/kDM8jE

The left turn doghouses (aligned in the Colorado style -- also unusual) have louvres placed over the signal faces. Judging by street view imagery, the signals seem to run independently of the through traffic signals. Since I haven't been to the Tri-Cities for several years, I cannot confirm my suspicions. But the capture below, plus the signal louvres seem to suggest Dallas phasing.

Kind of makes me wonder...how many signals with Dallas Phasing still exist? I think even Texas has gotten rid of most of theirs. I never realised an example of it existed up here.

[MNHighwayMan]

I've found an example of Dallas Phasing in Washington State. Keene Road @ Englewood/Westcliffe, Richland:

https://goo.gl/kDM8jE

The left turn doghouses (aligned in the Colorado style -- also unusual) have louvres placed over the signal faces. Judging by street view imagery, the signals seem to run independently of the through traffic signals. Since I haven't been to the Tri-Cities for several years, I cannot confirm my suspicions. But the capture below, plus the signal louvres seem to suggest Dallas phasing.

Kind of makes me wonder...how many signals with Dallas Phasing still exist? I think even Texas has gotten rid of most of theirs. I never realised an example of it existed up here.

Isn't the doghouse with the red indication (while the other heads are green) an MUTCD violation?

[jakeroot]

I've found an example of Dallas Phasing in Washington State. Keene Road @ Englewood/Westcliffe, Richland:

https://goo.gl/kDM8jE

The left turn doghouses (aligned in the Colorado style -- also unusual) have louvres placed over the signal faces. Judging by street view imagery, the signals seem to run independently of the through traffic signals. Since I haven't been to the Tri-Cities for several years, I cannot confirm my suspicions. But the capture below, plus the signal louvres seem to suggest Dallas phasing.

Kind of makes me wonder...how many signals with Dallas Phasing still exist? I think even Texas has gotten rid of most of theirs. I never realised an example of it existed up here.

https://i.imgur.com/xoONXX0.png

Isn't the doghouse with the red indication (while the other heads are green) an MUTCD violation?

Normally, I think it would be, yes. But it's a hallmark trait of Dallas phasing: the doghouse above the left turn lane runs completely independent of the through signals, so you can get these strange red/green combos. The louvres try to keep drivers from looking at the wrong signals.

The catch is, I can't quite figure out why, in the photo I posted, the left turn doghouse had the red orb lit up at all. If it was a leading left, even with Dallas phasing, the green orb should have been lit. The signal must have went red briefly, following the protected phase. This is evidenced by the very next Street View frame, showing a green orb: https://goo.gl/QcuAA5

[MNHighwayMan]

So if the doghouse is intended to be viewed only by traffic using the left turn lane, why even have a doghouse at all, as opposed to, say, a simple three section head?

P.S. This is the first time I've ever heard of "Dallas phasing," so excuse my ignorance on the subject.