How many traffic signals have you seen being mouted total? I always think that maximum 2-3 traffic signals should be up only on multiple lanes.
4 traffic signals here... unnecessary!
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0677329,-74.1757156,3a,75y,168.68h,81.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn4m8DZwlohaIXTLMusloaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Four? Hahahahahahahaha! That's not many. I've seen six or seven at some intersections.
How about five for the through lane: https://goo.gl/maps/WhENUH6Cg8w
To be fair though, IDOT requires a minimum of three for the through movement and a minimum of two each for each turning movement.
I got four for a T-junction (S 4th @ Stadium, Tacoma), only one lane approaching the intersection:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHsWgJRp.png&hash=6dafe839d0afc0448e5c00072808bf94bc6adf7e)
Quote from: Brandon on January 08, 2016, 02:34:41 PM
To be fair though, IDOT requires a minimum of three for the through movement and a minimum of two each for each turning movement.
As overkill as it may end up being, I like this standard.
Counting the turn bays, eight: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4538422,-89.5088706,3a,75y,91.04h,88.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEMw7A8AesegRUciYeTvpfA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Quote from: NJ on January 08, 2016, 02:15:26 PM
How many traffic signals have you seen being mouted total? I always think that maximum 2-3 traffic signals should be up only on multiple lanes.
4 traffic signals here... unnecessary!
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0677329,-74.1757156,3a,75y,168.68h,81.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn4m8DZwlohaIXTLMusloaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Greatly helps with visibility though.
The standard is one per lane minimum, so a 3 or 4 lane road would have at least 3 or 4 lights anyway.
Quote from: Brandon on January 08, 2016, 02:34:41 PM
Four? Hahahahahahahaha! That's not many. I've seen six or seven at some intersections.
How about five for the through lane: https://goo.gl/maps/WhENUH6Cg8w
To be fair though, IDOT requires a minimum of three for the through movement and a minimum of two each for each turning movement.
Those side signals a waste of money... unnecessary :ded:
Quote from: Big John on January 08, 2016, 02:55:42 PM
Counting the turn bays, eight: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4538422,-89.5088706,3a,75y,91.04h,88.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEMw7A8AesegRUciYeTvpfA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
The right turn (channelized road) could have had yield sign rather than traffic signal.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2016, 03:22:55 PM
Quote from: NJ on January 08, 2016, 02:15:26 PM
How many traffic signals have you seen being mouted total? I always think that maximum 2-3 traffic signals should be up only on multiple lanes.
4 traffic signals here... unnecessary!
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0677329,-74.1757156,3a,75y,168.68h,81.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn4m8DZwlohaIXTLMusloaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Greatly helps with visibility though.
The standard is one per lane minimum, so a 3 or 4 lane road would have at least 3 or 4 lights anyway.
Two of the four signalheads in OP's example contain left-turn signals. As you (Jeff) stated, the extra signal comes in handy in case an approaching vehicle making a left is behind a stopped truck whose height obstructs the signalhead over the lane.
The extra signal also helps when the bulb(s) in the other signalhead should burn out.
Given that the left-lane is for left-turns only; the single-row doghouse signalheads containing the green left-turn arrows doesn't really need to have the green ball signal next to it. Either that or convert those 2 doghouse signalheads into Left RA-YA-GA heads.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 08, 2016, 03:40:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2016, 03:22:55 PM
Quote from: NJ on January 08, 2016, 02:15:26 PM
How many traffic signals have you seen being mouted total? I always think that maximum 2-3 traffic signals should be up only on multiple lanes.
4 traffic signals here... unnecessary!
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0677329,-74.1757156,3a,75y,168.68h,81.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn4m8DZwlohaIXTLMusloaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Greatly helps with visibility though.
The standard is one per lane minimum, so a 3 or 4 lane road would have at least 3 or 4 lights anyway.
Two of the four signalheads in OP's example contain left-turn signals. As you (Jeff) stated, the extra signal comes in handy in case an approaching vehicle making a left is behind a stopped truck whose height obstructs the signalhead over the lane.
The extra signal also helps when the bulb(s) in the other signalhead should burn out.
Given that the left-lane is for left-turns only; the single-row doghouse signalheads containing the green left-turn arrows doesn't really need to have the green ball signal next to it. Either that or convert those 2 doghouse signalheads into Left RA-YA-GA heads.
Since the left turn movement has an advanced arrow, along with permission to turn left on a green ball, the setup is appropriate.
NJ has long used the 4 head tower, with the green/yellow arrow in the bottom spot. Recently, there's been several applications of the inverted T that you see here, with the green/yellow arrow on the left.
Quote from: NJ on January 08, 2016, 03:29:45 PM
Those side signals a waste of money... unnecessary :ded:
People run red lights a lot because they can't see over the car in front of them. Side-mounted signals are hugely helpful. Overhead and side-mounted signals used together are the best combination, IMO.
Further, signals aren't that expensive. Not compared to the cost of the intersection as a whole.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2016, 03:43:24 PMSince the left turn movement has an advanced arrow, along with permission to turn left on a green ball, the setup is appropriate.
NJ has long used the 4 head tower, with the green/yellow arrow in the bottom spot. Recently, there's been several applications of the inverted T that you see here, with the green/yellow arrow on the left.
That being the case & if push came to shove, then one of the R-Y-G ball heads (probably the ground-mounted one w/the pedestrian signal) erected for the right-through lane
could be (not saying would be) nixed.
I posted this elsewhere, but it fits here...
A standard off-ramp intersection has two signals for each direction on the main road; the two lame ramp has SIX signals facing it.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1475/24196173475_a89cc852a5_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/CS8HoK)I-75 SB exit to Cincinnati-Dayton Rd (2) (https://flic.kr/p/CS8HoK) by Ryan busman_49 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/busman_49/), on Flickr
I would cut out at least two of those and space them differently.
There's eight on this one.
https://goo.gl/maps/6pS7rtPBVqN2
Quote from: NJ on January 08, 2016, 02:15:26 PM
How many traffic signals have you seen being mouted total? I always think that maximum 2-3 traffic signals should be up only on multiple lanes.
4 traffic signals here... unnecessary!
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0677329,-74.1757156,3a,75y,168.68h,81.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn4m8DZwlohaIXTLMusloaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The Illinois Commerce Commission (which regulates railroads and grade crossings in Illinois) seems to now be requiring four heads just for a right turn lane next to a railroad.
I think one per lane (including left turn lanes) is fine. Right turn lane, it depends on your state and if right turns on red are OK. In Texas, they are, which makes right turn traffic signals superfluous. But I still see them and they show green right arrow while the incoming lane has a left arrow.
Quote from: Road Hog on January 08, 2016, 10:24:30 PM
I think one per lane (including left turn lanes) is fine. Right turn lane, it depends on your state and if right turns on red are OK. In Texas, they are, which makes right turn traffic signals superfluous. But I still see them and they show green right arrow while the incoming lane has a left arrow.
It's "Right Turns On Red Permitted When Safe", not "You May Turn Right On Red Without Stopping". A signal is still appropriate, as there may not be a chance to turn. Also, some vehicles are not permitted to turn right on red at any time.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2016, 01:42:37 PM
No. Because except in cities, there's rarely a pedestrian around. And unless they aren't being reported, pedestrian injuries and deaths from someone turning right on red is a rarity.
Most people do give pedestrians the right of way. You only remember the vehicles that don't.
Try telling that to the living streets folks. Slip lanes are disappearing with rapid pace here in Washington because of the
perceived danger to pedestrians. The only thing that seems acceptable anymore is to signalize the slip lane. This isn't that unreasonable (just leave the turn lane in FYA mode except when a pedestrian arrives, and then the light goes red -- no turn on red signs should be posted). The only difference between what exists now, and this, is that the pedestrian gets absolute right-of-way for about 10 seconds, instead of however long they are actually crossing. In terms of traffic flow, the difference is negligible. But to the pedestrian, it's a massive change (for the better).
I lived in NJ where in many places up to five heads scattered were used. In fact also California and Illinois uses extra ones mounted to the sides in addition to the overhead mounts. Although seems to be cluttered CalTrans (at least the ones in LA area) are only 3 for through and two for left turns, and same for Illinois.
NJ on divided highways have signal heads on multiple mast arms. Some have two in the median with side mounts to them. Then a near side right mast arm and the normal right side mast arm on the far side. NJ seems to be the only state that has more than four mast arms at one given intersection of two roads meeting.
4 signals for 2 lanes on WA-20 Spur in Anacortes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4996482,-122.6741471,3a,75y,262.41h,85.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXq__Y0jesNRR1mZqWLYmdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Quote from: Bruce on January 09, 2016, 08:35:17 PM
4 signals for 2 lanes on WA-20 Spur in Anacortes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4996482,-122.6741471,3a,75y,262.41h,85.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXq__Y0jesNRR1mZqWLYmdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
The straight through needs two to fulfill the MUTCD. The right turn could be scaled back to one though.
I have seen one in Florida that had three lanes each going three different directions. The left turn signal had one head as it only needs one, the straight through lane had two as per MUTCD as well. Then the right turn signal (yes one that let you go right if the side roads left turn protected left was activated) had only one. In essence two of the three had one signal per lane, but one had two all because of the two per through requirement and the one per lane for turn signals. Anyway all seem odd there.
Here's 5 for 1 left turn lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6175871,-82.3850285,3a,73.6y,318.69h,80.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJPVdKe-fBfs8RkAIObKCDA!2e0!5s20110401T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
They did move the right turn lane from that ramp with a stop sign to meet at the signal. Sadly, still no second left turn lane, it needed it back then (as seen in the picture), still needs it today, and they're building a Bass Pro Shops to the left now, but still no second left in sight. Anything beat 5 per lane?
Here is four for two left turn lanes
https://goo.gl/maps/EVkcK45NAxr
Quote from: MASTERNC on January 09, 2016, 09:27:59 PM
Here is four for two left turn lanes
https://goo.gl/maps/EVkcK45NAxr
Similar situation here at the intersection of PA 100 and PA 113 in Lionville.
https://goo.gl/maps/xBt4LkNTLpB2
Seems to be a recurring thing in Pennsylvania though...
https://goo.gl/maps/7ojiXB4zkPM2
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 10:57:47 AM
The buttons are responsive. But they're not going to be snappy. There's still a whole thing about the traffic light cycling properly and timely. Or think of it another way...if the opposing direction has a walk signal, and you press your walk signal, should the opposing direction's signal immediately go to a solid "Don't Walk", leaving a pedestrian in the middle of the street?
I think the conversation was focused more on right turn slips than other movements (and whether or not they should be signalized). Right turn slips can more easily be run independently than any other movement, though there should be some black-out times (like when there's an opposing left turn, leaving right-turning traffic basically protected).
Due to the unique nature of the interchange, this half SPUI gets 8 signals, two for each lane. Unlike other examples, this design is necessary because the front-most cars cannot see the closer set of signal faces, so a supplementary face for each lane is necessary...
NE 116 St @ I-405, Kirkland, Washington (https://goo.gl/uJSKx9)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbejxfKQ.png&hash=c8359be02353b63226d0f695e3b66b719d042abe)
Quote from: UCFKnights on January 09, 2016, 09:16:22 PM
Here's 5 for 1 left turn lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6175871,-82.3850285,3a,73.6y,318.69h,80.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJPVdKe-fBfs8RkAIObKCDA!2e0!5s20110401T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
They did move the right turn lane from that ramp with a stop sign to meet at the signal. Sadly, still no second left turn lane, it needed it back then (as seen in the picture), still needs it today, and they're building a Bass Pro Shops to the left now, but still no second left in sight. Anything beat 5 per lane?
Archer Road at I-75 gets extremely backed up for two reasons: University of Florida and/or Butler Plaza.
I'm guessing the fifth light is to aid eastbound right-turning traffic, so it knows when to yield to through traffic on FL 24.
7 signal heads for two left turn lanes:
I-80 WB off ramp at Keystone Ave (exit 12). Reno, NV (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.529596,-119.8306109,3a,75y,202.78h,91.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJiCD8EPFO5CTTy1LaWIzUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
This being a SPUI contributes somewhat to the high head count, but not entirely...
2 overhead on the bridge and 1 near-side post mount? Makes sense
2 overhead underneath the bridge? Good for the cars at the stop line.
2 way-far-side post mounts? Were they both really necessary...?
It just seems like the conventional suburban intersection isn't working anymore. To increase capacity, turn lanes are added which increases the pedestrian crossing distance, which increases the required cycle length, which increases driver and pedestrian delays. It's a vicious cycle.
The way to fix it is to get pedestrian crossing distances under control. Pick intersection designs where pedestrians only cross one direction of the street at a time (whatever design that may be).
Quote from: tradephoric on January 27, 2016, 10:36:55 AM
It just seems like the conventional suburban intersection isn't working anymore. To increase capacity, turn lanes are added which increases the pedestrian crossing distance, which increases the required cycle length, which increases driver and pedestrian delays. It's a vicious cycle.
The way to fix it is to get pedestrian crossing distances under control. Pick intersection designs where pedestrians only cross one direction of the street at a time (whatever design that may be).
How does making peds wait for each direction decrease pedestrian delays?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2016, 11:10:32 AM
If the cycle is too short, it'll just lead to major congestion. Gotta time it appropriately for the traffic out there.
If pedestrians are dictating how long the cycle length needs to run, then the pedestrian crossing is too long. This is what you see when you drive around Florida. Florida has massive intersections with long pedestrian crossing lengths. To fit the peds, the signals run extremely long cycle lengths. The longer the cycles, the longer the queue space needed and the harder it becomes to provide good signal progression along a corridor (there becomes a lot less flexibility when cycle lengths are too high).
So much improvement could be made to the standard suburban intersection design. Florida is a good example on how NOT to design a suburban intersection. Perhaps urban designs (such as one-way couplets) are more efficient than suburban intersections (that feature inefficient left-turns). Urbanizing a suburban intersection isn't a bad thing.
Ultimately, find a way to eliminate left-turn phases at suburban intersections and everyone would be better off.
Quote from: tradephoric on January 27, 2016, 04:21:30 PM
Ultimately, find a way to eliminate left-turn phases at suburban intersections and everyone would be better off.
I've thought about removing left turn phases at single left turns. Eventually, traffic would get so bad that people would just give up.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 27, 2016, 05:53:17 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on January 27, 2016, 04:21:30 PM
Ultimately, find a way to eliminate left-turn phases at suburban intersections and everyone would be better off.
I've thought about removing left turn phases at single left turns. Eventually, traffic would get so bad that people would just give up.
That doesn't work. You'll have them blowing the red just to make the left turn.
Quote from: Brandon on January 27, 2016, 05:54:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 27, 2016, 05:53:17 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on January 27, 2016, 04:21:30 PM
Ultimately, find a way to eliminate left-turn phases at suburban intersections and everyone would be better off.
I've thought about removing left turn phases at single left turns. Eventually, traffic would get so bad that people would just give up.
That doesn't work. You'll have them blowing the red just to make the left turn.
Disclaimer: I wasn't being completely serious. However, just get three or four people out in the intersection to wait. Guaranteed three or four left turns -- no left turn phase. Yes people will jump the red, but traffic will be so bad, the speeds will be safe.
Five signals for a single lane at the interchange of National M1 and State Route 32 in Belmont, Queensland. There's a red light camera there so I guess you can't say you didn't see the red light! :bigass:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqhqEy2z.png%3F1&hash=cedc831b0077f39a8821d1534a7be61e0ab3340f)
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Belmont+QLD+4153/@-27.5026767,153.1239439,3a,75y,99.83h,79.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skDjdD8W7JkyO0D_gbZdBOA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkDjdD8W7JkyO0D_gbZdBOA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D299.08386%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x6b915be60a5d3845:0x502a35af3de8030!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Belmont+QLD+4153/@-27.5026767,153.1239439,3a,75y,99.83h,79.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skDjdD8W7JkyO0D_gbZdBOA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkDjdD8W7JkyO0D_gbZdBOA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D299.08386%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x6b915be60a5d3845:0x502a35af3de8030!6m1!1e1)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7414747,-74.3657327,3a,75y,35.35h,76.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbzZfc3P4RG9x23R7gw4Zww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Three signal heads for a single turn lane. Pan around to the right to see em all. The right turn lane has three (two on the mast arm, and one side mounted at the stop bar) and only two left turn signal heads for two lanes devoted to turning left.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7416565,-74.365271,3a,75y,106.68h,96.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sosvFIAmxnje52UcewGcfsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Whats wrong with this picture??
^^ There is also a near-side stop bar signal for the left turn, along with the median mast arm signal and the far-side post mounted signal.
Here's a set right next to each other in Reno, NV that I've always been confused by:
Keystone Ave at California Ave
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5161558,-119.8256675,3a,75y,163.8h,75.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqY6BgWKRNrwHgAa7yxCiEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Keystone ends in a T intersection here. There are 3 signal heads for the right turn lane (a third is on the far side, somewhat hidden in bushes), only 1 for the left turn lane.
Booth St at California Ave
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5154388,-119.8264639,3a,75y,180.15h,80.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQhdtnoiS6jv6qRC1Z0q4hQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Same situation: 3 right turn heads and 1 left turn head.
These are older signals that don't conform to current Nevada standards. But these still confuse me because the right turn has one extra signal head while the left turn has one less–even older signals in Nevada usually had a redundant signal head for a left turn lane, but these two intersections do not.
At Keystone and California, the signal at the far back could be removed without an issue, since it was already obscured by the bushes
Long term, City of Reno had plans to reconstruct these intersections as part of a greater project to rehab/replace the Keystone Ave bridge over the Trucker River. They were looking at several concepts for these and adjacent intersections that would mean reconstructing these signals.
Quote from: Brandon on January 08, 2016, 02:34:41 PM
Four? Hahahahahahahaha! That's not many. I've seen six or seven at some intersections.
How about five for the through lane: https://goo.gl/maps/WhENUH6Cg8w
To be fair though, IDOT requires a minimum of three for the through movement and a minimum of two each for each turning movement.
You are right in my neck of the woods. IDOT District 3 really goes ham with their signals. [kendall, grundy, lasalle, dekalb, and several other counties]
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7032069,-88.3094446,3a,68.9y,27.26h,92.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxM-xyhzEA--sn_RyuX1Y-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This image is especially funny because the sixth signal head (on the right) doesn't even work. Why bother to fix it when you have FIVE OTHER SIGNAL HEADS doing the job just fine? :-D
And here's an overkill signal in Kane County IL. Five signal heads on one mast arm. Plus 2 gives 7:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0852759,-88.3352641,3a,75y,356.56h,85.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svoEhS52xUTEsuuSDz8q0lA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 11, 2016, 04:35:32 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 08, 2016, 02:34:41 PM
Four? Hahahahahahahaha! That's not many. I've seen six or seven at some intersections.
How about five for the through lane: https://goo.gl/maps/WhENUH6Cg8w
To be fair though, IDOT requires a minimum of three for the through movement and a minimum of two each for each turning movement.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7032069,-88.3094446,3a,68.9y,27.26h,92.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxM-xyhzEA--sn_RyuX1Y-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This image is especially funny because the sixth signal head (on the right) doesn't even work. Why bother to fix it when you have FIVE OTHER SIGNAL HEADS doing the job just fine? :-D
In my opinion, mast-mounted signals should always supplement arm-mounted signals. If anything, the right-most arm-mounted signal could go. My thinking is that if you are behind a tall vehicle in the right-most lane, you may not be able to see the arm-mounted signals. In Washington State, mast-mounted signals are only used if the geometry of the intersection is slightly askew. Driving a small hatchback, I sometimes have issues seeing the signals (which are usually only on the overhead arm). IMO, California and Wisconsin do signals right: One near-side signal, at least two far-side, and always a combination of mast- and arm-mounted heads.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 11, 2016, 04:43:50 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 11, 2016, 04:35:32 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 08, 2016, 02:34:41 PM
Four? Hahahahahahahaha! That's not many. I've seen six or seven at some intersections.
How about five for the through lane: https://goo.gl/maps/WhENUH6Cg8w
To be fair though, IDOT requires a minimum of three for the through movement and a minimum of two each for each turning movement.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7032069,-88.3094446,3a,68.9y,27.26h,92.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxM-xyhzEA--sn_RyuX1Y-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This image is especially funny because the sixth signal head (on the right) doesn't even work. Why bother to fix it when you have FIVE OTHER SIGNAL HEADS doing the job just fine? :-D
In my opinion, mast-mounted signals should always supplement arm-mounted signals. If anything, the right-most arm-mounted signal could go.
However, as per IDOT policy, it cannot go. One of the three-lamp signals could go, but not that tower. IDOT requires a minimum of two signals per turning direction.
Quote from: Brandon on February 11, 2016, 05:26:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 11, 2016, 04:43:50 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 11, 2016, 04:35:32 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 08, 2016, 02:34:41 PM
Four? Hahahahahahahaha! That's not many. I've seen six or seven at some intersections.
How about five for the through lane: https://goo.gl/maps/WhENUH6Cg8w
To be fair though, IDOT requires a minimum of three for the through movement and a minimum of two each for each turning movement.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7032069,-88.3094446,3a,68.9y,27.26h,92.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxM-xyhzEA--sn_RyuX1Y-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This image is especially funny because the sixth signal head (on the right) doesn't even work. Why bother to fix it when you have FIVE OTHER SIGNAL HEADS doing the job just fine? :-D
In my opinion, mast-mounted signals should always supplement arm-mounted signals. If anything, the right-most arm-mounted signal could go.
However, as per IDOT policy, it cannot go. One of the three-lamp signals could go, but not that tower. IDOT requires a minimum of two signals per turning direction.
And that's fine by me. I was simply stating that, in general, and particularly in this case, the arm-mounted signal should be the one to go, if one were to go (Paul was suggesting that the mast-mounted signal need not be fixed because of its redundancy, but in my opinion, the mast-mounted signal would be the better of the two to have functioning).
Quote from: jakeroot on February 11, 2016, 05:36:07 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 11, 2016, 05:26:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 11, 2016, 04:43:50 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 11, 2016, 04:35:32 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 08, 2016, 02:34:41 PM
Four? Hahahahahahahaha! That's not many. I've seen six or seven at some intersections.
How about five for the through lane: https://goo.gl/maps/WhENUH6Cg8w
To be fair though, IDOT requires a minimum of three for the through movement and a minimum of two each for each turning movement.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7032069,-88.3094446,3a,68.9y,27.26h,92.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxM-xyhzEA--sn_RyuX1Y-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This image is especially funny because the sixth signal head (on the right) doesn't even work. Why bother to fix it when you have FIVE OTHER SIGNAL HEADS doing the job just fine? :-D
In my opinion, mast-mounted signals should always supplement arm-mounted signals. If anything, the right-most arm-mounted signal could go.
However, as per IDOT policy, it cannot go. One of the three-lamp signals could go, but not that tower. IDOT requires a minimum of two signals per turning direction.
And that's fine by me. I was simply stating that, in general, and particularly in this case, the arm-mounted signal should be the one to go, if one were to go (Paul was suggesting that the mast-mounted signal need not be fixed because of its redundancy, but in my opinion, the mast-mounted signal would be the better of the two to have functioning).
IDOT requires one signal per lane, and IDOT requires at least 2 signals per turning movement.
Here we have a left only, two through-lanes, and a right only.
As is common in the rest of the state, this could be accomplished by two 5-section heads with left arrows, and two 5-section heads with right arrows, a total of 4 (which works because 4 lanes). Basically, take out the two 3-section heads and we're golden! Like in this case just down the road to the west:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6721921,-88.3766748,3a,75y,255.58h,84.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJYXguz95njLrkvK1BHtYkQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
While reading the British Columbia Signal Design Manual, I stumbled upon ~ 402.6.4, which covers where signals shall be placed. I found it rather interesting. While protected/permissive left turns need only two signal heads, protected-only left turns shall have at least three signal heads, if not more (dual turn lanes, for example). The signals shall be mounted as follows...
- One primary head shall be located in the far side raised median mounted at a height of 2.5m.
- One secondary head shall be located at the far left side of the intersection at a height of 2.5 m.
- One auxiliary head shall be located in the near side median mounted at a height of 1.25 m.
- If there is no raised median, then the primary head shall be mounted overhead on the signal pole arm. If there are no raised medians, the auxiliary head cannot be installed.
AFAICT, no overhead signals are required, lest the median is too narrow to accommodate a signal head.
https://goo.gl/a4pBEn (see page 82).
Here's an example of a protected left turn along the South Frasier Perimeter Road. This installation is roughly three to four years old (note that the left turn lane is to the left of the median).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKx4QbRo.png&hash=696f7794c9b2534a19d4fad7d43e096ebbe54c2a)
I'll add my vote of approval to California's configuration and those states like Nevada and Illinois that are similar. A standard set-up of both overhead and post-mounted heads is the best combination, for good visibility under any and all traffic conditions. States that only follow the basic MUTCD standards have many installations that are barely adequate. And that includes my native New York.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 02, 2016, 09:34:40 PM
I'll add my vote of approval to California's configuration and those states like Nevada and Illinois that are similar. A standard set-up of both overhead and post-mounted heads is the best combination, for good visibility under any and all traffic conditions. States that only follow the basic MUTCD standards have many installations that are barely adequate. And that includes my native New York.
Agreed. With this approval, though, I'd also like to voice my dissent toward any regulations that are TOO specific. That stuff from BC looks like it pigeon-holes things too much. Not every intersection is a basic 4-way on flat terrain. Laws and typical designs should be allowed room to shift, in order to adjust to the various sets of conditions you encounter. That's what engineering is for!
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 03, 2016, 09:32:41 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 02, 2016, 09:34:40 PM
I'll add my vote of approval to California's configuration and those states like Nevada and Illinois that are similar. A standard set-up of both overhead and post-mounted heads is the best combination, for good visibility under any and all traffic conditions. States that only follow the basic MUTCD standards have many installations that are barely adequate. And that includes my native New York.
Agreed. With this approval, though, I'd also like to voice my dissent toward any regulations that are TOO specific. That stuff from BC looks like it pigeon-holes things too much. Not every intersection is a basic 4-way on flat terrain. Laws and typical designs should be allowed room to shift, in order to adjust to the various sets of conditions you encounter. That's what engineering is for!
There are many times when Illinois signals get quite excessive. A single-lane approach does not need 3 signals. 2 for 3-4 lanes isn't enough, but you don't need over 2 times as many signals as there are lanes.
There are many times when Illinois signals get quite excessive. A single-lane approach does not need 3 signals. 2 for 3-4 lanes isn't enough, but you don't need over 2 times as many signals as there are lanes.
[/quote]
Word. When Illinois does go minimalist, this is what it looks like:
https://goo.gl/maps/ihYjY2skout
If you want two signals for the left turn movement, and two signals for the straight movement, just put two 5-section heads up and you're done! 2 signals for 2 lanes, and 2 for each movement. Done. (You don't even need the 3-section head in the back, but IDOT puts those on all their cable-suspended signals anyway. Even though they're usually useless.)
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 04, 2016, 10:05:17 AM
When Illinois does go minimalist, this is what it looks like:
https://goo.gl/maps/ihYjY2skout
If you want two signals for the left turn movement, and two signals for the straight movement, just put two 5-section heads up and you're done! 2 signals for 2 lanes, and 2 for each movement. Done. (You don't even need the 3-section head in the back, but IDOT puts those on all their cable-suspended signals anyway. Even though they're usually useless.)
I wouldn't say that the near-side signals are useless. It helps motorists approaching the intersection see what color the signal is; especially if there's a large vehicle in the queue. I'd agree that a 5 section tower would be overkill, but not a basic 3 section one.
Quote from: signalman on March 04, 2016, 03:21:13 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 04, 2016, 10:05:17 AM
When Illinois does go minimalist, this is what it looks like:
https://goo.gl/maps/ihYjY2skout
If you want two signals for the left turn movement, and two signals for the straight movement, just put two 5-section heads up and you're done! 2 signals for 2 lanes, and 2 for each movement. Done. (You don't even need the 3-section head in the back, but IDOT puts those on all their cable-suspended signals anyway. Even though they're usually useless.)
I wouldn't say that the near-side signals are useless. It helps motorists approaching the intersection see what color the signal is; especially if there's a large vehicle in the queue. I'd agree that a 5 section tower would be overkill, but not a basic 3 section one.
Agreed, that is why I hate Florida's (and other states that literally follow the MUTCD) as you get a truck in front of you and you are blind to the signal's orientation.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2016, 07:15:43 PM
While reading the British Columbia Signal Design Manual, I stumbled upon ~ 402.6.4, which covers where signals shall be placed. I found it rather interesting. While protected/permissive left turns need only two signal heads, protected-only left turns shall have at least three signal heads, if not more (dual turn lanes, for example). The signals shall be mounted as follows...
- One primary head shall be located in the far side raised median mounted at a height of 2.5m.
- One secondary head shall be located at the far left side of the intersection at a height of 2.5 m.
- One auxiliary head shall be located in the near side median mounted at a height of 1.25 m.
- If there is no raised median, then the primary head shall be mounted overhead on the signal pole arm. If there are no raised medians, the auxiliary head cannot be installed.
AFAICT, no overhead signals are required, lest the median is too narrow to accommodate a signal head.
Here's an example of a properly-signalized left turn in BC. This is Hwy 19 at Willis Road, near Campbell River (this also happens to be the same intersection where Kimberly Corman holds up traffic after her premonition of the huge pile-up in Final Destination 2).
Note the three left turn signals. One at the stop line, another in the far center median, and another on the left edge:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2qscDFZ.png&hash=bc0b7e92602668fad272bbde9903b0cd885d36cc)
I wonder how often those median/post-mounted signals get knocked down in accidents. This type of mounting used to be common in California too, but most have been replaced by mounting on a longer mast-arm. I remember especially seeing that on El Camino Real (S.R.82) between San Francisco and San Jose.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2016, 09:35:51 PM
I wonder how often those median/post-mounted signals get knocked down in accidents. This type of mounting used to be common in California too, but most have been replaced by mounting on a longer mast-arm. I remember especially seeing that on El Camino Real (S.R.82) between San Francisco and San Jose.
You know those white signs that show the diagram of an arrow dodging to the right of a median (R4-7)?
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2b_10_longdesc.htm
I maintain the signs for a certain road district, and these signs get knocked over
constantly. Some of them we can hardly keep standing because they get trashed so frequently. I can't imagine the damages (cost) of having to constantly replace a
signal on the median, especially on a truck route.
That might be the reason California changed to the long mast-arm mounting.
^ While the median pole-mounted left turn signal wasn't widespread in Nevada, it was employed in a few locations.
City of Las Vegas eventually removed one such installation in the median on Charleston Blvd at Valley View Blvd, replacing with a longer mast arm and putting the left turn signals overhead. This is a busy intersection and the medians were very narrow, so the signals were knocked down often.
The only median mounted left turn signals that I can think of in Nevada now are at intersections with an extremely wide median island, such that the odds of knockdown are drastically reduced.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 17, 2016, 08:05:48 PM
That might be the reason California changed to the long mast-arm mounting.
Yes. And don't forget that the older mast arms just could not be extended as far as they can today. Many old installations will have guy-wire mast arms. So the only way to hook up a left turn arrow is by the median, or perhaps a guy-wire from the left side of the street.
Wisconsin employs 1.5 meter-high median-mounted signals at nearly every intersection, though some newer, wider intersections use the more typical mast-arms. I'm not sure how often Wisconsin runs into trouble with their median-mounted signals (I would guess not often, given how often they're used), but I haven't noticed any glaring issues in BC with the signals or signs in the median being knocked over at an alarming basis.
If the reason that California and Nevada abandoned their median-mounted signals was due to the frequency of collisions involving them, they simply need(ed) to set the median back from the turning circle of left-turning traffic. Take for example these nearly identical intersections, the first from BC, the second from Nevada (note that in the BC example, the median-mounted signals face traffic on the near-side -- the far-side median is simply too far away for the signal to be of any use):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkCVaHc7.png&hash=96a7747b4fa0055e49b69b93aef93034794f4a15) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FX6qJOUZ.png&hash=87646e4ed029cf0676230e0c57cb48043f692bf7)
Quote from: jakeroot on March 20, 2016, 04:25:10 PM
Wisconsin employs 1.5 meter-high median-mounted signals at nearly every intersection, though some newer, wider intersections use the more typical mast-arms. I'm not sure how often Wisconsin runs into trouble with their median-mounted signals (I would guess not often, given how often they're used), but I haven't noticed any glaring issues in BC with the signals or signs in the median being knocked over at an alarming basis.
If the reason that California and Nevada abandoned their median-mounted signals was due to the frequency of collisions involving them, they simply need(ed) to set the median back from the turning circle of left-turning traffic. Take for example these nearly identical intersections, the first from BC, the second from Nevada (note that in the BC example, the median-mounted signals face traffic on the near-side -- the far-side median is simply too far away for the signal to be of any use):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkCVaHc7.png&hash=96a7747b4fa0055e49b69b93aef93034794f4a15) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FX6qJOUZ.png&hash=87646e4ed029cf0676230e0c57cb48043f692bf7)
Curious where that Nevada intersection is...
Like I said, there weren't a whole lot of these median mounted signals in Nevada to begin with–much more common in California. The couple I did know of were replaced because of knock downs.
I think the current Nevada preference is to have all primary signals overhead wherever feasible, as this helps somewhat with visibility. Longer mast arms being common now and less potential for knockdowns make this easier to achieve.
Quote from: roadfro on March 20, 2016, 04:36:47 PM
Curious where that Nevada intersection is...
https://goo.gl/mgmNdi
This is the BC intersection: https://goo.gl/nVH8H0 (note that the GSV is out of date, and does not show the current setup, which was changed due to a SkyTrain extension).
Quote from: roadfro on March 20, 2016, 04:36:47 PM
Like I said, there weren't a whole lot of these median mounted signals in Nevada to begin with–much more common in California. The couple I did know of were replaced because of knock downs.
I think the current Nevada preference is to have all primary signals overhead wherever feasible, as this helps somewhat with visibility. Longer mast arms being common now and less potential for knockdowns make this easier to achieve.
I'm certainly happy to see the longer mast arms in place, but I hope we don't get carried away with placing signals only on the far side of the intersection. Near-side signals have their use as well, be them median-mounted or sidewalk-mounted.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 20, 2016, 04:25:10 PM
Wisconsin employs 1.5 meter-high median-mounted signals at nearly every intersection, though some newer, wider intersections use the more typical mast-arms. I'm not sure how often Wisconsin runs into trouble with their median-mounted signals (I would guess not often, given how often they're used), but I haven't noticed any glaring issues in BC with the signals or signs in the median being knocked over at an alarming basis.
If the reason that California and Nevada abandoned their median-mounted signals was due to the frequency of collisions involving them, they simply need(ed) to set the median back from the turning circle of left-turning traffic. Take for example these nearly identical intersections, the first from BC, the second from Nevada (note that in the BC example, the median-mounted signals face traffic on the near-side -- the far-side median is simply too far away for the signal to be of any use):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkCVaHc7.png&hash=96a7747b4fa0055e49b69b93aef93034794f4a15) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FX6qJOUZ.png&hash=87646e4ed029cf0676230e0c57cb48043f692bf7)
One thing I am not fond of is how median mounted monotube mast arms in Wisconsin are starting to become really popular. Personally, I only like them to come out of the ground on the right and go to the left, not start in the median.
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on March 26, 2016, 11:07:48 AM
One thing I am not fond of is how median mounted monotube mast arms in Wisconsin are starting to become really popular. Personally, I only like them to come out of the ground on the right and go to the left, not start in the median.
Yes. And as stated earlier, putting signals in the median makes them very susceptible to collisions. You don't want to INCREASE the property value of things on the median, where stuff gets crashed into all the time! :-D
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 26, 2016, 05:11:43 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on March 26, 2016, 11:07:48 AM
One thing I am not fond of is how median mounted monotube mast arms in Wisconsin are starting to become really popular. Personally, I only like them to come out of the ground on the right and go to the left, not start in the median.
Yes. And as stated earlier, putting signals in the median makes them very susceptible to collisions. You don't want to INCREASE the property value of things on the median, where stuff gets crashed into all the time! :-D
As I also stated earlier, you can seriously reduce the chance of collisions by setting back the medians from the intersections. British Columbia figured it out .. I'm not sure why the US hasn't yet. Pulling the median right up the crosswalk puts it the left turn path overlap, where I agree, it is very susceptible to impact.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 26, 2016, 07:25:50 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 26, 2016, 05:11:43 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on March 26, 2016, 11:07:48 AM
One thing I am not fond of is how median mounted monotube mast arms in Wisconsin are starting to become really popular. Personally, I only like them to come out of the ground on the right and go to the left, not start in the median.
Yes. And as stated earlier, putting signals in the median makes them very susceptible to collisions. You don't want to INCREASE the property value of things on the median, where stuff gets crashed into all the time! :-D
As I also stated earlier, you can seriously reduce the chance of collisions by setting back the medians from the intersections. British Columbia figured it out .. I'm not sure why the US hasn't yet. Pulling the median right up the crosswalk puts it the left turn path overlap, where I agree, it is very susceptible to impact.
And in some cases, the median goes even beyond the crosswalk all the way to the intersection itself:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0415492,-77.0517865,3a,75y,244.83h,73.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_91r5oSjcI5o3yJ1jTawlQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_91r5oSjcI5o3yJ1jTawlQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D29.992403%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656
Here, (corner of Georgia and University in Wheaton, MD), we have a narrow median. The crosswalk goes through the median. Ramps are provided for disabled people crossing. I guess the traffic engineers thought that it would be nice to have a pedestrian refuge, but this median is way too narrow for that. Bettter not to give a false sense of security and not provide any waiting area at all.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 26, 2016, 05:11:43 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on March 26, 2016, 11:07:48 AM
One thing I am not fond of is how median mounted monotube mast arms in Wisconsin are starting to become really popular. Personally, I only like them to come out of the ground on the right and go to the left, not start in the median.
Yes. And as stated earlier, putting signals in the median makes them very susceptible to collisions. You don't want to INCREASE the property value of things on the median, where stuff gets crashed into all the time! :-D
I am perfectly fine withe putting pedistall mount signals and lighting in the median, just not mast arm bases. If I recall correctly, wisdot uses tapco breakaway bases so they aren't that hard to replace when hit.
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on March 28, 2016, 12:56:33 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 26, 2016, 05:11:43 PM
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on March 26, 2016, 11:07:48 AM
One thing I am not fond of is how median mounted monotube mast arms in Wisconsin are starting to become really popular. Personally, I only like them to come out of the ground on the right and go to the left, not start in the median.
Yes. And as stated earlier, putting signals in the median makes them very susceptible to collisions. You don't want to INCREASE the property value of things on the median, where stuff gets crashed into all the time! :-D
I am perfectly fine withe putting pedistall mount signals and lighting in the median, just not mast arm bases. If I recall correctly, wisdot uses tapco breakaway bases so they aren't that hard to replace when hit.
Just gotta know how to protect them!
https://goo.gl/maps/CuYzpCtqXPt
https://goo.gl/maps/bCCro1ph3iu
Although, they have taken them out and done a more standard design if an intersection is going to be reconstructed... https://goo.gl/maps/J1oad7uNQem
J&N, I've noticed many of those longer straight mast-arms that NJDOT has put in especially on US 1 in the Princeton area have started to bend downward, indicating to me a poor quality installation.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2016, 01:14:50 PM
Just gotta know how to protect them!
https://goo.gl/maps/CuYzpCtqXPt
https://goo.gl/maps/bCCro1ph3iu
Although, they have taken them out and done a more standard design if an intersection is going to be reconstructed... https://goo.gl/maps/J1oad7uNQem
Those first two pictures are hilarious to me because, at a high speed, tapering the median into the ground is just going to make the illicit vehicle ramp up right into the signal head! :-D That's why DOT's have been phasing out the guardrail terminals that taper into the ground (at least IDOT has been doing so). But then you showed the modern impact attenuators and everything is all good haha
Quote from: SignBridge on March 28, 2016, 07:56:15 PM
J&N, I've noticed many of those longer straight mast-arms that NJDOT has put in especially on US 1 in the Princeton area have started to bend downward, indicating to me a poor quality installation.
It depends on the design. Some of them bend downwards intentionally. If there's one that you could see from a few years back on GSV and see a noticable difference today, it'll be interesting to see.
While most people relate NJ with the pennant mast arms, for a good 20 years NJ has been using the monopole, especially for arms over 25 feet. Of the ones I'm familiar with, none have ever been replaced or even shown signs of fault.
Why would they be designed to bend intentionally? I thought those monotube arms are supposed to be straight. In some states, notably Nevada, they do not bend and are angled very slightly upward which looks good to me.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0776455,-87.7076839,3a,75y,306.73h,94.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slNI8tDh-wAvK-YkBuR-mJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Dewey St and Rapids Rd in Manitowoc, WI. There are 5 traffic signals for a single right turn lane. Aside from the 4 near signals, there is another one mounted on the median of Rapids Rd.
Quote from: peterj920 on April 17, 2016, 02:57:12 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0776455,-87.7076839,3a,75y,306.73h,94.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slNI8tDh-wAvK-YkBuR-mJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Dewey St and Rapids Rd in Manitowoc, WI. There are 5 traffic signals for a single right turn lane. Aside from the 4 near signals, there is another one mounted on the median of Rapids Rd.
In what part of Europe is that street view? Lol. Seriously. I wouldn't say it's overkill, but that's a lot. Is that WisDOT standard?
Quote from: jakeroot on April 17, 2016, 04:28:28 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 17, 2016, 02:57:12 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0776455,-87.7076839,3a,75y,306.73h,94.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slNI8tDh-wAvK-YkBuR-mJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Dewey St and Rapids Rd in Manitowoc, WI. There are 5 traffic signals for a single right turn lane. Aside from the 4 near signals, there is another one mounted on the median of Rapids Rd.
In what part of Europe is that street view? Lol. Seriously. I wouldn't say it's overkill, but that's a lot. Is that WisDOT standard?
It's overkill. The maximum I would have for the right turn is 3 due to the geometry and even that is pushing it. One could just put 2 signals for the approach and place them so they can be seen before the crosswalk, with a yield sign for the right turn.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 17, 2016, 04:28:28 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 17, 2016, 02:57:12 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0776455,-87.7076839,3a,75y,306.73h,94.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slNI8tDh-wAvK-YkBuR-mJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Dewey St and Rapids Rd in Manitowoc, WI. There are 5 traffic signals for a single right turn lane. Aside from the 4 near signals, there is another one mounted on the median of Rapids Rd.
In what part of Europe is that street view? Lol. Seriously. I wouldn't say it's overkill, but that's a lot. Is that WisDOT standard?
It's the City of Manitowoc that put those lights up. It's interesting how on North Dewey St there are 3 traffic signals for 2 northbound lanes, but there are 5 signals for a right turn from Dewey to North Rapids Rd and 4 signals for traffic turning left to head south on Rapids Rd. There's a total of 9 signals! Here's another perspective where you can see all 9 signals.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0776455,-87.7076839,3a,75y,272.48h,88.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slNI8tDh-wAvK-YkBuR-mJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Beverley, England (err, the East Riding of Yorkshire) recently (late 2014) reconfigured the Grove Hill Junction (A1174/Hull Road @ Grovehill Road (https://goo.gl/IITrEX)) so that it was no longer a roundabout. A point of contention for nearby residents is the sheer number of traffic lights: This junction, with 5 intersecting roads, has 42 traffic lights. Here's a picture to give you an idea as to the signal placement:
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/traffic-lights-2.jpg?w=748&h=461&crop=1)
Image courtesy Metro.co.uk (http://goo.gl/59NL12)
Apparently, several months ago, the power went out, and the intersection acted as a free-flow junction. Local residents swear it performed better than it did with the lights switched on.
Here's a before shot of the junction:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCzhD9mn.png&hash=4c006586598e886dc6bcf8d028afa35d84cd7315)
I kind of like the use of left-mounted left turn signals, as they're good for permissive turn lanes so you can keep an eye on oncoming traffic and the signal head simultaneously; they're fairly ubiquitous in Memphis and its surrounding suburbs (example (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0859535,-89.8587658,3a,75y,359.29h,82.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJWYolc2UuaQ7Oz703xdsyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)).
I agree. Those far-left supplemental signals are standard in California but used only intermittently in New York, I'm sorry to say. What's worse there doesn't seem to be any standard or consistency to where and when they are used here. Some intersections have them, some don't. For all I know it could depend on how much money is left over after they design the signals for the intersection.
Quote from: SignBridge on May 02, 2016, 09:10:03 PM
I agree. Those far-left supplemental signals are standard in California but used only intermittently in New York, I'm sorry to say. What's worse there doesn't seem to be any standard or consistency to where and when they are used here. Some intersections have them, some don't. For all I know it could depend on how much money is left over after they design the signals for the intersection.
Lately, NYSDOT (particularly Region 1) has been pole-mounting supplemental signals to the right on the major approaches. Several examples of that in the Albany area, particularly along US 9. Turn signals are almost always one per lane, with the exception of some double-right doghouses that only have one for both lanes. Given the lack of funding, we're not going to see left-side supplementals anytime soon unless the MUTCD requires them.
Quote from: cl94 on May 02, 2016, 09:25:40 PM
Lately, NYSDOT (particularly Region 1) has been pole-mounting supplemental signals to the right on the major approaches. Several examples of that in the Albany area, particularly along US 9. Turn signals are almost always one per lane, with the exception of some double-right doghouses that only have one for both lanes. Given the lack of funding, we're not going to see left-side supplementals anytime soon unless the MUTCD requires them.
That's a shame, really.
MUTCD only requires minimum two signal heads for the major movement on the approach (and, as of 2009, the through movement regardless of it being the major movement or not). Good signal design would provide minimum 2 signal heads for every signalized movement, as to make sure there is a redundant signal head in case of a bulb burnout or other failure. Best practices (typically employed for new installations in California, Nevada and elsewhere) use one overhead signal head per lane plus supplemental pole mounts as a standard.
Those supplemental pole mount proves very valuable at times. Especially when high profile vehicles block views of signal heads.
I agree with Roadfro. Those western states that he named do a far better job of signal design and configuration than many eastern states like New York. I always liked California's installations best although sometimes they (and Colorado) seem to over-signalize at some locations.