How common is this setup? Your direction of travel gets a green right-turn arrow, while opposing traffic gets a green left-turn arrow–indicating both flows of traffic should proceed onto the same roadway.
Example from GSV at the Harlem Avenue interchange on the Eisenhower near Chicago (yes, accidents do happen here when people don't keep their lanes):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fharlemexit_zpszoailsea.png&hash=ff4b7f787b0af4c9e86285eb028bf339826bbe08)
Here's the streetview link:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8736395,-87.8048703,3a,60y,116.36h,80.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSg-fIhZv1gF1EYbsZQB2uw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That has got to be in violation of the MUTCD.
With this streetview link you can actually verify that the arrows in opposing directions are indeed on at the same time (just turn 180 to look at the other direction).
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8736894,-87.8045773,3a,41.4y,108.66h,84.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF_wrTiVFNOGjF5y-u1dxrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The interchange at Austin is the same way and has been for years. I figured it must not be common, but I also figured it must exist in other places too.
In Wakefield, MA, the intersection of North Avenue, Main Street and Nahant Street has a phase where the right turn from North onto Main gets a green arrow at the same time that the left turn from Nahant onto Main has a green ball.
For some reason, I don't see as much conflict in that scenario–basically operating as two opposing green balls, IMO.
I find that setup pretty dangerous. Who has the right-of-way if there's a collision?
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 02:45:42 PM
For some reason, I don't see as much conflict in that scenario–basically operating as two opposing green balls, IMO.
There is a difference between green balls and green arrows IMO. Green arrows carry the presumption that that movement has the right-of-way.
Good point, kphoger. I hate this interchange. KILL IT WITH FIRE! :pan:
The right turn arrows should not be lit when the left turn arrows are. Rather, they should share a phase with
Harlem's left- turning traffic onto the freeway ramps.
So here are the phases that
should be there:
- Harlem left turn arrows + off-ramp right turn arrows
- Harlem thru traffic
- off-ramp left turn arrows
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 19, 2016, 03:30:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 02:45:42 PM
For some reason, I don't see as much conflict in that scenario–basically operating as two opposing green balls, IMO.
There is a difference between green balls and green arrows IMO. Green arrows carry the presumption that that movement has the right-of-way.
Though 'practice' certainly differs from 'reality', most states require traffic to turn into the closest lane. If one side or the other turned into the "far" lane, technically the law wouldn't be in their favor. Unless, of course, Illinois has no such law. In which case, this signal really doesn't make any sense.
I'm surprised there's no guide lines in the intersection.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 19, 2016, 03:30:26 PM
Who has the right-of-way if there's a collision?
If there is a collision, then the person at fault is the one who didn't turn into the correct lane. If all drivers keep their lanes, as is required by law, then there is no conflict. But, in another way of answering your question, "right of way" is never guaranteed in US vehicle code. By law, both drivers are required to give way, as set forth in the following statute.
Quote from: (625 ILCS 5/11-306) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-306) (a) 2
Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may cautiously enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 19, 2016, 03:44:58 PM
If one side or the other turned into the "far" lane, technically the law wouldn't be in their favor. Unless, of course, Illinois has no such law.
Illinois does.
Quote from: (625 ILCS 5/11-801) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-801)
(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
(2) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle, and after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 02:40:40 PM
The interchange at Austin is the same way and has been for years. I figured it must not be common, but I also figured it must exist in other places too.
A case of IDOT = IDiOT as they've done it at at least one other interchange.
I-55 and IL-53 in Bolingbrook used to have it for traffic entering I-55. The right turn arrows would always be green, even when the left turn onto the freeway had a green arrow. Damn near got into an accident there one day.
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 03:54:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 19, 2016, 03:44:58 PM
If one side or the other turned into the "far" lane, technically the law wouldn't be in their favor. Unless, of course, Illinois has no such law.
Illinois does.
Quote from: (625 ILCS 5/11-801) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-801)
(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
(2) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle, and after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.
As if anyone in Chicagoland actually does that.
If you'd like to see a bunch of people in Chicagoland doing it, then go to the Harlem exit on the Ike!
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 04:21:25 PM
If you'd like to see a bunch of people in Chicagoland doing it, then go to the Harlem exit on the Ike!
Been there, done that, used the horn a few times there.
Quote from: Brandon on April 19, 2016, 04:22:18 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 04:21:25 PM
If you'd like to see a bunch of people in Chicagoland doing it, then go to the Harlem exit on the Ike!
Been there, done that, used the horn a few times there.
Nothing wrong with the occasional horn. Surely if there were too many collisions or close calls, the setup would be changed.
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 03:54:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 19, 2016, 03:44:58 PM
If one side or the other turned into the "far" lane, technically the law wouldn't be in their favor. Unless, of course, Illinois has no such law.
Illinois does.
Quote from: (625 ILCS 5/11-801) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-801)
(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
(2) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle, and after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.
I'm not sure your interpretation is correct. The sentences you bolded appear to be referring to the actual turning process (not to take the turn too wide), not the lane you're supposed to turn into. The last one mentions "to the left of the center of the intersection", but doesn't mention lanes. Obviously you're not supposed to turn into the lane "to the left of the center" of the roadway.
I think the relevant sentence is the one before the last one: "so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered." It just says "a lane", it doesn't specify the left-most lane. To me that means that as long as you're turning into the correct half of the roadway, you're fine.
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 03:54:18 PM
Quote from: (625 ILCS 5/11-801) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-801)
(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
There's a difference between having a law on the books and having the law actually followed. Just look at most of the speed limits in Chicagoland. And what happens if someone gets off EB I-290 at Harlem and wants to turn left onto Garfield Street just south of the interchange?
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 19, 2016, 06:49:46 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 03:54:18 PM
Quote from: (625 ILCS 5/11-801) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-801)
(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
There's a difference between having a law on the books and having the law actually followed. Just look at most of the speed limits in Chicagoland. And what happens if someone gets off EB I-290 at Harlem and wants to turn left onto Garfield Street just south of the interchange?
(fixed quote)
Point being...? The question was whether or not Illinois has a law on the books and who might be at fault in the event of a collision. People ignoring laws doesn't make lawlessness legal.
The ding dongs in Omaha (and it's worse in Sarpy county) don't signal turns or lane changes and freely change lanes while turning right or left onto streets with multiple lanes. Simultaneous opposing arrows would lead to carnage on a massive scale.
I could see tow trucks being permanently stationed at any intersection with that 'feature'.
I won't even right turn on red (properly into curb lane) if anyone is coming from the left in any other lane as they won't signal a lane change, and will not hesitate to change lanes while traversing an intersection*.
* I'd swear I recall a friend of mine from Belvidere Illinois telling me he was ticketed for 'compound maneuver' for changing lanes there while driving through an intersection back in the 80s. I can't imagine they still do this, the logistics of enforcing something even the patrolmen don't comprehend anymore would be onerous.
Quote from: Brandon on April 19, 2016, 04:20:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 03:54:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 19, 2016, 03:44:58 PM
If one side or the other turned into the "far" lane, technically the law wouldn't be in their favor. Unless, of course, Illinois has no such law.
Illinois does.
Quote from: (625 ILCS 5/11-801) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-801)
(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
(2) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle, and after entering the intersection, the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.
As if anyone in Chicagoland actually does that.
The law exists, but I have never seen any enforcement of it, nor is it commonly followed. Some even cross lanes in a double left. Others will turn left from a lane that is not intended for left turns. Northbound I-57's diamond ramps at 119th and 127th are good examples of this.
A variation on this setup: Eastbound Birch Run Road at I-75 in Birch Run MI. When the signal for the southbound exit ramp is green, a green right-turn arrow lights for eastbound traffic to cross the stop line and drive through the intersection to the southbound entrance ramp a couple hundred feet ahead. Imagine doing that while in your peripheral vision you see a car coming at you from the exit ramp, and you pray to whatever deity that he doesn't do a banana turn and overshoot the lane into the side of your car while he's turning.
https://goo.gl/maps/5EpRmCzZdyP2
So, guys, any corresponding examples outside of the Eisenhower?
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 07:00:12 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 19, 2016, 06:49:46 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 03:54:18 PM
Quote from: (625 ILCS 5/11-801) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-801)
(1) Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
There's a difference between having a law on the books and having the law actually followed. Just look at most of the speed limits in Chicagoland. And what happens if someone gets off EB I-290 at Harlem and wants to turn left onto Garfield Street just south of the interchange?
(fixed quote)
Point being...? The question was whether or not Illinois has a law on the books and who might be at fault in the event of a collision. People ignoring laws doesn't make lawlessness legal.
Point being that just because the state law says that an EB vehicle turning right and a WB vehicle turning south are supposed to turn into separate lanes does not mean one should design for this, especially when there would be temptation for the EB right turner to either turn into the inner lane or move into that lane shortly after the turn. You were suggesting upthread that there was nothing wrong with the design.
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 02:16:05 PM
How common is this setup? Your direction of travel gets a green right-turn arrow, while opposing traffic gets a green left-turn arrow–indicating both flows of traffic should proceed onto the same roadway.
....
Happened near us last year outside the new Wegmans. I complained to VDOT but knew that wouldn't help, so I also spoke to our member of the county board of supervisors. He immediately understood the problem and it was fixed within a week.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 19, 2016, 09:15:53 PM
Point being that just because the state law says that an EB vehicle turning right and a WB vehicle turning south are supposed to turn into separate lanes does not mean one should design for this, especially when there would be temptation for the EB right turner to either turn into the inner lane or move into that lane shortly after the turn. You were suggesting upthread that there was nothing wrong with the design.
I'm kind of on the fence about whether there's something "wrong with the design" or not. It has, after all, survived this way for more than fifteen years without being changed (I lived in the area in the late 90s and distinctly remember the stoplight timing). I agree that it could be improved, but mainly with better striping, signage, and maybe a small divide between lanes (the latter not really doable considering the available space). I've personally driven through the intersection countless times without incident, although I have heard second-hand of an accident being caused specifically by someone not keeping his lane. So, yeah...
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 10:16:44 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 19, 2016, 09:15:53 PM
Point being that just because the state law says that an EB vehicle turning right and a WB vehicle turning south are supposed to turn into separate lanes does not mean one should design for this, especially when there would be temptation for the EB right turner to either turn into the inner lane or move into that lane shortly after the turn. You were suggesting upthread that there was nothing wrong with the design.
I'm kind of on the fence about whether there's something "wrong with the design" or not. It has, after all, survived this way for more than fifteen years without being changed (I lived in the area in the late 90s and distinctly remember the stoplight timing). I agree that it could be improved, but mainly with better striping, signage, and maybe a small divide between lanes (the latter not really doable considering the available space). I've personally driven through the intersection countless times without incident, although I have heard second-hand of an accident being caused specifically by someone not keeping his lane. So, yeah...
Seems like a perfect spot for those cheap bendable plastic tubes.
Quote from: Brandon on April 19, 2016, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 02:40:40 PM
The interchange at Austin is the same way and has been for years. I figured it must not be common, but I also figured it must exist in other places too.
A case of IDOT = IDiOT as they've done it at at least one other interchange.
I-55 and IL-53 in Bolingbrook used to have it for traffic entering I-55. The right turn arrows would always be green, even when the left turn onto the freeway had a green arrow. Damn near got into an accident there one day.
In what way are they an idiot?
I've been at many an intersection with a normal green bulb and had to honk because someone turned wide.
Would the Eisenhower example violate this section of the MUTCD?
QuoteF. A steady GREEN ARROW signal indication:
1. Shall be displayed only to allow vehicular movements, in the direction indicated,that are not in conflict with other vehicles moving on a green or yellow signal indication and are not in conflict with pedestrians crossing in compliance with a WALKING PERSON (symbolizing WALK) or flashing UPRAISED HAND (symbolizing DONT WALK) signal indication. Vehicles departing in the same direction shall not be considered in conflict if, for each turn lane with moving traffic, there is a separate departing lane, and pavement markings or raised channelization clearly indicate which departure lane to use.
I do appreciate being informed such intersections exist. If I'm out traveling at some point and encounter left turners heading towards me while I am right turning with the light, hopefully I'll remember this before locking up all 4 wheels in a super double emergency panic stop and getting creamed by the guy behind me.
If you reverse the directions of travel, the intersection of Scarborough Beach Rd and Harborne St in Perth has a green left arrow for a slip lane while the opposing right turn has a green ball, with the two movements separated by a line.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-31.9142405,115.8193848,3a,75y,354.82h,76.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEudyMOXfs_pQA1Z-fwcuBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-31.9142405,115.8193848,3a,75y,354.82h,76.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEudyMOXfs_pQA1Z-fwcuBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2016, 10:30:01 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 19, 2016, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 02:40:40 PM
The interchange at Austin is the same way and has been for years. I figured it must not be common, but I also figured it must exist in other places too.
A case of IDOT = IDiOT as they've done it at at least one other interchange.
I-55 and IL-53 in Bolingbrook used to have it for traffic entering I-55. The right turn arrows would always be green, even when the left turn onto the freeway had a green arrow. Damn near got into an accident there one day.
In what way are they an idiot?
I've been at many an intersection with a normal green bulb and had to honk because someone turned wide.
For that entry ramp, there were, at the time, one left turn lane (NB IL-53), and one right turn lane (SB IL-53). Both lanes became one lane (not ever marked as two) for the SB I-55 entry ramp. Yet both had green arrows at the same time!
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 02:16:05 PM
How common is this setup? Your direction of travel gets a green right-turn arrow, while opposing traffic gets a green left-turn arrow–indicating both flows of traffic should proceed onto the same roadway.
Example from GSV at the Harlem Avenue interchange on the Eisenhower near Chicago (yes, accidents do happen here when people don't keep their lanes):
Used to live a mile from this light. Never thought of it as weird until you mentioned it and never had a problem there.
Just curious how many people have ever heard of laws about turning into the nearest lane being enforced. I know I'm wary of turning from an option lane precisely because those laws aren't enforced and so many people will cut across into adjacent lanes.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 20, 2016, 09:07:17 AM
Just curious how many people have ever heard of laws about turning into the nearest lane being enforced. I know I'm wary of turning from an option lane precisely because those laws aren't enforced and so many people will cut across into adjacent lanes.
I have.
Cop was waiting at a red light, westbound. I approached from southbound, had the green light and turned right into the near (right) lane, then, leaving my turn signal on, I scooted over into the left lane. Cop pulled me over stated I had improperly turned into the far (left) lane. I hadn't, but even polite disagreement is not well-tolerated in that situation, so I still got the ticket.
But when it comes up, many people haven't heard of it being enforced, and of course we all see lane violations every day.
Who's going to enforce it when a cop isn't around? I'm sure if the cop was the one getting cut off, it would be enforced!
Those green arrows presumably service a lot of truck traffic coming off the freeway. Imagine how hard it would be for a semi making a right turn to "stay in their lane" . As the semi is struggling to make a right turn, a left-turn green arrow is being displayed to opposing left-turning traffic. In addition, you can't even make out the lane lines along Harlem Ave to direct traffic where to be.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi478.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr144%2Ftradephoric%2FTransportation%2520Pictures%2FRandom%2FChiUntitled_zpscq5dycxu.png&hash=32edd4c9e7adca0ec5be523656ce33787334cb09)
But even with all this apparently the intersection works. According to kphoger it has functioned this way for the past 15 years. I can only assume that if this intersection did have an abnormally high crash rate that the intersection would have been addressed by IDIOT long ago.
This style of setup (with two opposing "one-way" roads merging onto the same road) exists in more than one place (here (https://goo.gl/RBjqG9), for example, near where I live) but none, so far as I know, are signalized with two green arrows.
The problem here is, ultimately, the arrows. Change all of the signals to flashing yellow arrows. The left turns will always flash yellow, and the right turns will be green arrows. When Harlem has a green, the right-facing FYAs can flash yellow.
What will that do to the traffic flow? Who knows, but I think two green arrows create a sort of paradox that should be avoided, even if for traffic flow matters, it works as intended (most of the time).
Quote from: US 81 on April 20, 2016, 09:29:09 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 20, 2016, 09:07:17 AM
Just curious how many people have ever heard of laws about turning into the nearest lane being enforced. I know I'm wary of turning from an option lane precisely because those laws aren't enforced and so many people will cut across into adjacent lanes.
I have.
Cop was waiting at a red light, westbound. I approached from southbound, had the green light and turned right into the near (right) lane, then, leaving my turn signal on, I scooted over into the left lane. Cop pulled me over stated I had improperly turned into the far (left) lane. I hadn't, but even polite disagreement is not well-tolerated in that situation, so I still got the ticket.
But when it comes up, many people haven't heard of it being enforced, and of course we all see lane violations every day.
I know more than one person who has been ticketed for turning into the wrong lane.
US 81, I'm not sure I understand... If you turned right, then left your signal on while sliding left, then that means you changed lanes to the left with your right blinker on. If that's what you did, then it was an improper lane change.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2016, 01:33:32 PM
The problem here is, ultimately, the arrows. Change all of the signals to flashing yellow arrows. The left turns will always flash yellow, and the right turns will be green arrows.
Technically, having a green arrow for the right turn when the opposing left turn has a flashing yellow arrow would not be MUTCD compliant for a single receiving lane, very borderline with two receiving lanes. Better to have all of the turns from I-290 having flashing yellow arrows at the same time, or just switch the heads to have circular greens.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2016, 01:33:32 PMWhen Harlem has a green, the right-facing FYAs can flash yellow.
If I'm understanding this correctly: Not a good idea IMHO, especially if the right turn FYA's are on at the same time as the opposing left turn FYA's. Since technically someone turning on a right facing FYA would have right of way over the opposing left turner, he could make a bad assumption that he still has some right of way when Harlem traffic has a green and he has a right turn FYA. This is why it would be nice to either allow viability-restricted circular greens for separate right turn signal heads or get an arrow indication that means 'you have the right of way but other vehicles may enter the intersection' - maybe via a flashing green arrow?
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 20, 2016, 06:13:40 PM
Technically, having a green arrow for the right turn when the opposing left turn has a flashing yellow arrow would not be MUTCD compliant for a single receiving lane, very borderline with two receiving lanes. Better to have all of the turns from I-290 having flashing yellow arrows at the same time, or just switch the heads to have circular greens.
I thought about using green orbs for the right turns, but I wasn't sure if traffic would catch onto the right-turn-only nature of the movement. My immediate opposition to FYAs for all movements is that it creates some sort of weird illusion that you are yielding to cars who are actually yielding to you. It's like a 4-way intersection with opposing yield signs. It works, but traffic isn't going to be totally sure who has the ROW, since they both have yield signs. A green orb with an R3-5R sign posted directly below the signal should work.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 20, 2016, 06:13:40 PM
If I'm understanding this correctly: Not a good idea IMHO, especially if the right turn FYA's are on at the same time as the opposing left turn FYA's. Since technically someone turning on a right facing FYA would have right of way over the opposing left turner, he could make a bad assumption that he still has some right of way when Harlem traffic has a green and he has a right turn FYA. This is why it would be nice to either allow viability-restricted circular greens for separate right turn signal heads or get an arrow indication that means 'you have the right of way but other vehicles may enter the intersection' - maybe via a flashing green arrow?
I can see what you are saying. If the off-ramp's right turns were green arrows (not allowed, evidently), then the visual jump from green arrow, to a flashing yellow arrow, would be enough to indicate to the 290 traffic that the right turn must yield to traffic on Harlem. But, in the case where the off-ramp is always flashing yellow, then yes, it would be very strange (traffic would constantly be looking around to see if they can go or not, because there is neither a red phase nor a green phase).
Basically, my original proposal (with green arrows) allowed the right turn to act similar to a channelized right turn during Harlem's through phase, but I think an actual channelized right turn would be better in that case.
I hope the flashing yellow arrow talk isn't referring to any left arrows for the offramp traffic. Every turning movement should see green for at least one phase. The flow rates at these approaches is too great for FYA options; the queues need to be cleared as quickly and effectively as possible. That's why the setup is what it is, as questionable as it is. My vote is to remove the green right-arrows from the signal phase for the offramps and reserve them for the phase with Harlem's left-turning traffic. If we want to try a FYA, I think it would be cool to try a right-turn FYA that is active with the offramp's steady green left arrow. So:
New proposition:
Phase 1: Left turns off of Harlem, protected. Steady-burn green right arrow for offramp approaches
Phase 2: Harlem thru-traffic
Phase 3: Offramp approaches have steady-burn green left arrow, and flashing yellow right arrow
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 20, 2016, 06:40:30 PM
New proposition:
Phase 1: Left turns off of Harlem, protected. Steady-burn green right arrow for offramp approaches
Phase 2: Harlem thru-traffic
Phase 3: Offramp approaches have steady-burn green left arrow, and flashing yellow right arrow
I think this would work okay. Both the left and right turns would get some sort of green arrow phase. My instant opposition was phase 3, requiring right turns to yield to left turns. It's unconventional, but I don't see why it couldn't work. The problem really is the MUTCD, which doesn't allow green arrows to mix with flashing yellow arrows. But, the intersection already is a violation of the MUTCD. So, fuck it.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2016, 06:55:13 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 20, 2016, 06:40:30 PM
New proposition:
Phase 1: Left turns off of Harlem, protected. Steady-burn green right arrow for offramp approaches
Phase 2: Harlem thru-traffic
Phase 3: Offramp approaches have steady-burn green left arrow, and flashing yellow right arrow
I think this would work okay. Both the left and right turns would get some sort of green arrow phase. My instant opposition was phase 3, requiring right turns to yield to left turns. It's unconventional, but I don't see why it couldn't work. The problem really is the MUTCD, which doesn't allow green arrows to mix with flashing yellow arrows. But, the intersection already is a violation of the MUTCD. So, fuck it.
:sombrero:
It's either that or 4 phases...with one phase for each offramp approach (plus phases 1 and 2 above).
As it is, the simultaneous left and right arrows function as simple green balls, indicating to proceed in whatever direction you need to, except reinforcing that you shouldn't wait to turn just because opposing traffic is also turning. Switching all ramp arrows to green balls would not raise these eyebrows and would have the same basic meaning for traffic, although I'd bet a lot more drivers would wait till all opposing traffic cleared before turning left, which would then cause the queue to tail back onto the fast lane of the Eisenhower during peak times.
My number one suggestion is to leave it as is.
Quote from: kphoger on April 20, 2016, 02:35:16 PM
Quote from: US 81 on April 20, 2016, 09:29:09 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 20, 2016, 09:07:17 AM
Just curious how many people have ever heard of laws about turning into the nearest lane being enforced. I know I'm wary of turning from an option lane precisely because those laws aren't enforced and so many people will cut across into adjacent lanes.
I have.
Cop was waiting at a red light, westbound. I approached from southbound, had the green light and turned right into the near (right) lane, then, leaving my turn signal on, I scooted over into the left lane. Cop pulled me over stated I had improperly turned into the far (left) lane. I hadn't, but even polite disagreement is not well-tolerated in that situation, so I still got the ticket.
But when it comes up, many people haven't heard of it being enforced, and of course we all see lane violations every day.
I know more than one person who has been ticketed for turning into the wrong lane.
US 81, I'm not sure I understand... If you turned right, then left your signal on while sliding left, then that means you changed lanes to the left with your right blinker on. If that's what you did, then it was an improper lane change.
Sorry, poor summary on my part. I did quickly switch from right blinker to left blinker. The officer stated that, since my blinker had not been off but had gone immediately from right to left, that I hadn't "completed" one maneuver before beginning the next, therefore it was improper.
I should stop chiming in with thoughts that are only tangentially relevant anyway.
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 08:40:19 PM
So, guys, any corresponding examples outside of the Eisenhower?
I just used this example in another thread, but it is apparently relevant here: https://goo.gl/maps/v28HPkcQ3D32 Deutty & Beatty Streets at Lalor Streets. Both Deutty & Beatty one way into Lalor. And unlike the Eisenhower example, there aren't two lanes to turn into...there's just one lane!
Why has this worked for literally decades? Because people don't understand what the arrows supposedly mean. We know what they mean. But in this case, most drivers are simply going to think they're there to indicate they can't go straight.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 21, 2016, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 08:40:19 PM
So, guys, any corresponding examples outside of the Eisenhower?
I just used this example in another thread, but it is apparently relevant here: https://goo.gl/maps/v28HPkcQ3D32 Deutty & Beatty Streets at Lalor Streets. Both Deutty & Beatty one way into Lalor. And unlike the Eisenhower example, there aren't two lanes to turn into...there's just one lane!
Why has this worked for literally decades? Because people don't understand what the arrows supposedly mean. We know what they mean. But in this case, most drivers are simply going to think they're there to indicate they can't go straight.
That's pretty much what the arrows in the Eisenhower example indicate too, I suppose, since nobody exiting would be getting right back on again, and doing so would conflict with left-turn movements.
^At least your anecdotal evidence is based on the actual intersection in question (unlike Baloo's anecdotal evidence). Can anyone actually prove that this intersection functions well and doesn't have a high crash rate based on something more than their own personal experiences or second hand accounts? Until then a compelling argument hasn't been made.
Quote from: tradephoric on April 21, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
^At least your anecdotal evidence is based on the actual intersection in question (unlike Baloo’s anecdotal evidence). Can anyone actually prove that this intersection functions well and doesn’t have a high crash rate based on something more than their own personal experiences or second hand accounts? Until then a compelling argument hasn't been made.
Being that the unusual traffic light configuration has remained in place for many, many years, without almost anyone on these boards even being aware of this intersection until this thread came about, I would say that the crash rate is probably fairly average for this type intersection without any considerable or unusual congestion.
As what happens a little too often, we try to make things a problem that have never been a problem, simply based on a photo or post.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 21, 2016, 10:59:40 AM
Being that the unusual traffic light configuration has remained in place for many, many years, without almost anyone on these boards even being aware of this intersection until this thread came about, I would say that the crash rate is probably fairly average for this type intersection without any considerable or unusual congestion.
Objection: Conjecture.
Is "probably fairly average" a technical term for "I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about" ? Can we at least agree that the crash rate of this intersection would be meaningful to this discussion? I'm not saying rip out this intersection and start over but I would at least like to know the facts. I better not push for the crash data or i might be accused of "cherry-picking" again.
I used this intersection twice a day during rush hour plus several other times for six years and only remember one time there being a problem due to a crash.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 21, 2016, 01:40:09 PM
I used this intersection twice a day during rush hour plus several other times for six years and only remember one time there being a problem due to a crash.
Anecdotal.
Since IDOT is currently studying the I-290 corridor and its interchanges, it is very likely they have already gathered crash data for the Harlem interchange; it could already be on the study website (http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/) somewhere.
EDIT: There is some crash data on Page 64 of 93 of this report for the Harlem interchange; Austin Avenue is on the next page. (http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/crash_analysis_appendicies.pdf)
EDIT 2: There is also a discussion on Page 34 of 55 of this report. (http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/crash_analysis_report.pdf)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 21, 2016, 10:59:40 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on April 21, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
^At least your anecdotal evidence is based on the actual intersection in question (unlike Baloo’s anecdotal evidence). Can anyone actually prove that this intersection functions well and doesn’t have a high crash rate based on something more than their own personal experiences or second hand accounts? Until then a compelling argument hasn't been made.
Being that the unusual traffic light configuration has remained in place for many, many years, without almost anyone on these boards even being aware of this intersection until this thread came about, I would say that the crash rate is probably fairly average for this type intersection without any considerable or unusual congestion.
As what happens a little too often, we try to make things a problem that have never been a problem, simply based on a photo or post.
I knew about that weird intersection...But people seem to be figuring it out decently well. Having just taken the P.E. exam, I recognized that the Highway Capacity Manual's calculations for peak vehicle flow involve a factor fp (the "population factor") considering driver familiarity. If the population using the intersection is highly familiar with the area, i.e. the overwhelming majority of drivers at a location are locals, it has a different effect on the traffic there. People using this interchange are almost invariably locals, because the Eisenhower is largely avoided by those in the broader region, due to its infamous congestion problems. Unless you're trying to reach the city itself, in which case it might be your only viable roadway option (protip: take the train!!).
Main point: Just because you would get confused by the intersection doesn't mean the locals don't know it like it's second nature. The locals know what's up even if we don't.
Also-
Quote from: tradephoric on April 21, 2016, 02:28:21 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 21, 2016, 01:40:09 PM
I used this intersection twice a day during rush hour plus several other times for six years and only remember one time there being a problem due to a crash.
Anecdotal.
No shit sherlock.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 21, 2016, 06:51:31 PM
Unless you're trying to reach the city itself, in which case it might be your only viable roadway option (protip: take the train!!).
Unfortunately, the most affordable option for taking transit into the city involves exiting at Harlem, parking for free at the Whole Foods just north of Lake (supposedly, you can't park there if you're not a customer, but so many stores share the parking lot that it's impossible to enforce), and taking the Green Line.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 21, 2016, 06:51:31 PMHaving just taken the P.E. exam, I recognized that the Highway Capacity Manual's calculations for peak vehicle flow involve a factor fp (the "population factor") considering driver familiarity. If the population using the intersection is highly familiar with the area, i.e. the overwhelming majority of drivers at a location are locals, it has a different effect on the traffic there. People using this interchange are almost invariably locals, because the Eisenhower is largely avoided by those in the broader region, due to its infamous congestion problems. Unless you're trying to reach the city itself, in which case it might be your only viable roadway option (protip: take the train!!).
Main point: Just because you would get confused by the intersection doesn't mean the locals don't know it like it's second nature. The locals know what's up even if we don't.
Your main point is wrong. Harlem Avenue had the highest crash rate of any intersection analyzed in the I-290 crash analysis. And I don't care what you learned in kindergarten class today Sherlock.
QuoteThe top five crossroads with the highest crash rates are reviewed in further detail. Harlem Avenue, Cicero Avenue, Austin Boulevard, 25th Avenue, and 1st Avenue all have three year crash totals that exceed 100 crashes and were analyzed in greater detail to determine any noteworthy crash factors. More detailed information regarding the below referenced crossroad traffic operations can be found in the I-290 Phase I Study Existing Roadway Operations Technical Memorandum.
Harlem Avenue — Rank 1
The Harlem Avenue crossing of I-290 consists of two 11'wide through lanes in each direction that interchange with I-290 via a full access, single point intersection controlled by one signal. Of the 163 crashes on Harlem Avenue, the predominant crash types were rear-end (37%), turning (32%), and sideswipe (23%) with the majority of crashes (83%) having occurred during congested periods. Harlem Avenue's Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is between 36,000 and 40,000 with peak hour operations functioning at an overall LOS of E. The left and right turn lane demand exceeds the available single turn lane storage capacities by over 200%.
The excess demand causes turn queues to spill back into the through lane, resulting in a blockage to through traffic. This imposed blockage contributes to congestion and increases the probability of rear end crashes.
Furthermore, vehicles attempting to maneuver around a stopped turning vehicle also increase exposure to sideswipe crashes. I-290 on-ramp metering may also be contributing factor for rear-end and turning crashes. During peak hours, the stop requirement on the on-ramp may cause the ramp to back up into the intersection resulting in turning vehicles not being able to clear the intersection before a yellow or red signal.
The 11' through lane widths are narrower than the 12' lanes that are preferred where truck traffic exists. Narrower though lanes contribute to sideswipe crashes as there is less room between lanes for trucks to maneuver. Also, the sustained 4% grades of the approaches to the I-290 intersection are not desirable for operations. When releasing the clutch to accelerate, stopped trucks and vehicles on the grade may roll backward, increasing the chance of a collision, and steeper grades may also factor into the 7% of crashes having occurred in ice or snow conditions.
http://eisenhowerexpressway.com/pdfs/crash_analysis_report.pdf
Quote from: tradephoric on April 21, 2016, 11:54:36 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 21, 2016, 10:59:40 AM
Being that the unusual traffic light configuration has remained in place for many, many years, without almost anyone on these boards even being aware of this intersection until this thread came about, I would say that the crash rate is probably fairly average for this type intersection without any considerable or unusual congestion.
Objection: Conjecture.
Overruled. This ain't a court.
Good thing. You would make a probably fairly average lawyer.
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2016, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 21, 2016, 06:51:31 PM
Unless you're trying to reach the city itself, in which case it might be your only viable roadway option (protip: take the train!!).
Unfortunately, the most affordable option for taking transit into the city involves exiting at Harlem, parking for free at the Whole Foods just north of Lake (supposedly, you can't park there if you're not a customer, but so many stores share the parking lot that it's impossible to enforce), and taking the Green Line.
The totally-legal-and-stuff way to do it is to do what I do all the time: Exit at Des Plaines Ave, park at the park-n-ride lot, and get on the blue line at the line's west end. Pretty painless, few congestion issues once you're off 290, and parking isn't insanely priced.
Paulthemapguy, you going to ignore the fact that Harlem Ave was the highest crash prone intersection in the I-290 study? What ever happened to your theory that the locals get it? Oh yeah, your theory was bunk based on no actual facts.
most facts are learned by going outside
you should drive through the intersection sometime
oh yeah, actually interacting with the physical thing you're talking about is merely "anecdotal" and therefore meaningless
We know when things are anecdotal. You don't need to point it out. The overwhelming majority of learning comes from interacting with the thing you're learning about, not reading about it from a distance.
Yeah the intersection sucks and it's dangerous. That's real. But ROW is nonexistent for reconfiguring any alignments, so that leaves us with reconfiguring the intersection. Got any suggestions for something we can implement going forward, as opposed to reading reports on occurrences looking back?
It's hard to know where you stand paulthemapguy.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 19, 2016, 03:37:08 PM
I hate this interchange. KILL IT WITH FIRE!
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 21, 2016, 06:51:31 PM
I knew about that weird intersection...But people seem to be figuring it out decently well.... Just because you would get confused by the intersection doesn't mean the locals don't know it like it's second nature. The locals know what's up even if we don't.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 22, 2016, 10:15:20 PM
Yeah the intersection sucks and it's dangerous.
So which one is it? Is the intersection dangerous or do the locals know how to drive it and it's functioning decently well? Make up your mind.
It's a bit more prone to crashes but it isn't the disaster you're making it out to be.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 24, 2016, 08:36:27 PM
It's a bit more prone to crashes but it isn't the disaster you're making it out to be.
If you believe I think Harlem Avenue is a "disaster" simply because it was the highest crash prone intersection in the I-290 study then sobeit. But consider this. Suppose there is a room full of people and Harlem is the oldest person in the room. Someone may hear the phrase "oldest person" and automatically assume Harlem must be really old. It turns out it's a room full of kids and Harlem is only 12 years old. It's not my fault someone wrongfully assumed Harlem is 80 just because they heard the phrase "oldest person" . You always have to consider the facts.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 20, 2016, 06:40:30 PM
I hope the flashing yellow arrow talk isn't referring to any left arrows for the offramp traffic. Every turning movement should see green for at least one phase. The flow rates at these approaches is too great for FYA options; the queues need to be cleared as quickly and effectively as possible. That's why the setup is what it is, as questionable as it is. My vote is to remove the green right-arrows from the signal phase for the offramps and reserve them for the phase with Harlem's left-turning traffic. If we want to try a FYA, I think it would be cool to try a right-turn FYA that is active with the offramp's steady green left arrow. So:
New proposition:
Phase 1: Left turns off of Harlem, protected. Steady-burn green right arrow for offramp approaches
Phase 2: Harlem thru-traffic
Phase 3: Offramp approaches have steady-burn green left arrow, and flashing yellow right arrow
Sorry for chiming into the conversation late. But I believe that the best approach would be for phase 3 to have steady green left arrows and red balls for the right turn. This would make the intersection similar to a lead-lead with a doghouse. At an intersection like that, you know that the left turners have the right of way and you can turn right when the left turners don't conflict with you. Probably much easier to enforce than making sure people stick to their own lane.
Two intersections that aare somewaht similar with these issues:
Linden Dr / Wilshire Blvd in Beverly Hills, CA. The signaling is similar to my solution above. Traffic on Linden must turn onto Wilshire in both directions. Linden always has a red ball and its "green phase" is green left arrow with red ball in a doghouse. right turners yield to left turners and a diagonal pedestrian crosswalk. Left turners have no conflict with the crosswalk.
Union Turnpike / Queens Blvd in Jamaica, NY. Left turners from Q to UT have a left arrow when right tuners also have a right arrow. There is some channelization to make this better, but there is still conflict. To avoid conflict right turners must turn into the curbside lane, but then half a block ahead there are parked cars in that lane, so then you have to merge into traffic. NYC has a no turn on red law and I beleive the right turn arrow signal was meant to work mainly with the pedestrian crossing without much thought to traffic on UT or the left turning traffic from Q to UT. IMO, the green right arrow should be replaced with a FYA unless there is no vehicular conflicts. (I believe the only part of the signal when there are no vehicluar conflicts [when Q thru traffic has right of way] has the pedestrian conflict.)
See: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7142755,-73.8304349,3a,75y,98.6h,61.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swPSKRtXLlIHYGwwNEFUpEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Found a setup that is basically identical to the OP in Kingston, WA.
Two one-way streets meeting a major one-way street, but both one-way streets have green arrows at the same time for the turn onto the major one-way street. Only way this can safely work is if both cars turn into the near lane. Which they should, of course, but I still don't think this is permitted.
http://bit.ly/2U8CPnz (spin camera around to see the other signal)
Quote from: jakeroot on January 23, 2019, 04:43:56 PM
Found a setup that is basically identical to the OP in Kingston, WA.
Two one-way streets meeting a major one-way street, but both one-way streets have green arrows at the same time for the turn onto the major one-way street. Only way this can safely work is if both cars turn into the near lane. Which they should, of course, but I still don't think this is permitted.
http://bit.ly/2U8CPnz (spin camera around to see the other signal)
I wouldn't have much issue with this if they were ordinary green signals, but a green arrow implies a protected turn, with any opposing traffic only making a turn on red in which they must yield. That's what makes this dangerous.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 23, 2019, 05:26:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 23, 2019, 04:43:56 PM
Found a setup that is basically identical to the OP in Kingston, WA.
Two one-way streets meeting a major one-way street, but both one-way streets have green arrows at the same time for the turn onto the major one-way street. Only way this can safely work is if both cars turn into the near lane. Which they should, of course, but I still don't think this is permitted.
http://bit.ly/2U8CPnz (spin camera around to see the other signal)
I wouldn't have much issue with this if they were ordinary green signals, but a green arrow implies a protected turn, with any opposing traffic only making a turn on red in which they must yield. That's what makes this dangerous.
Absolutely. Regular green orbs would be totally fine and absolutely normal. Maybe even changing one of the directions to a flashing yellow arrow. Considering that both movements permit turns on red, plus the high likelihood of the movements being low-trafficked anyway, means that issues rarely ever occur, but I'd rather they swap out the green arrows anyway, just to prevent the opportunity.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 23, 2019, 05:43:46 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 23, 2019, 05:26:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 23, 2019, 04:43:56 PM
Found a setup that is basically identical to the OP in Kingston, WA.
Two one-way streets meeting a major one-way street, but both one-way streets have green arrows at the same time for the turn onto the major one-way street. Only way this can safely work is if both cars turn into the near lane. Which they should, of course, but I still don't think this is permitted.
http://bit.ly/2U8CPnz (spin camera around to see the other signal)
I wouldn't have much issue with this if they were ordinary green signals, but a green arrow implies a protected turn, with any opposing traffic only making a turn on red in which they must yield. That's what makes this dangerous.
Absolutely. Regular green orbs would be totally fine and absolutely normal. Maybe even changing one of the directions to a flashing yellow arrow. Considering that both movements permit turns on red, plus the high likelihood of the movements being low-trafficked anyway, means that issues rarely ever occur, but I'd rather they swap out the green arrows anyway, just to prevent the opportunity.
They should give FYA to the least traveled road.
Another simple solution would be to install the flexible plastic bollards between the 2 lanes to force vehicles into the correct lane, eliminating the conflict. i've seen that before (don't ask me where, it was a long time ago)
Quote from: Amtrakprod on January 23, 2019, 08:52:44 PM
They should give FYA to the least traveled road.
That would be fine too.
Quote from: UCFKnights on January 23, 2019, 09:01:35 PM
Another simple solution would be to install the flexible plastic bollards between the 2 lanes to force vehicles into the correct lane, eliminating the conflict. i've seen that before (don't ask me where, it was a long time ago)
Given that there's no cross-traffic, that seems like a reasonable option too. I may even suggest it to WSDOT!
Quote from: UCFKnights on January 23, 2019, 09:01:35 PM
Another simple solution would be to install the flexible plastic bollards between the 2 lanes to force vehicles into the correct lane, eliminating the conflict. i've seen that before (don't ask me where, it was a long time ago)
Assuming there's even an issue right now (in other words, it's been working fine until this was posted, now we're in search of a solution where a problem hasn't existed), the plastic bollards could only come out as far as it wouldn't interfere with cross traffic.
Also, they would limit large vehicles from turning properly, so they may not be a good solution anyway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 24, 2019, 06:17:09 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on January 23, 2019, 09:01:35 PM
Another simple solution would be to install the flexible plastic bollards between the 2 lanes to force vehicles into the correct lane, eliminating the conflict. i've seen that before (don't ask me where, it was a long time ago)
Assuming there's even an issue right now (in other words, it's been working fine until this was posted, now we're in search of a solution where a problem hasn't existed), the plastic bollards could only come out as far as it wouldn't interfere with cross traffic.
Also, they would limit large vehicles from turning properly, so they may not be a good solution anyway.
Just because it hasn't caused an accident doesn't mean its not an issue, there is still conflicting movements with green signals. There is no cross traffic permitted, so the bollards would help prevent that illegal manuever from happening, and they are flexible and typically pop right back up if a truck needs to go over them to make a turn, and they're cheap
Quote from: UCFKnights on January 24, 2019, 07:22:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 24, 2019, 06:17:09 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on January 23, 2019, 09:01:35 PM
Another simple solution would be to install the flexible plastic bollards between the 2 lanes to force vehicles into the correct lane, eliminating the conflict. i've seen that before (don't ask me where, it was a long time ago)
Assuming there's even an issue right now (in other words, it's been working fine until this was posted, now we're in search of a solution where a problem hasn't existed), the plastic bollards could only come out as far as it wouldn't interfere with cross traffic.
Also, they would limit large vehicles from turning properly, so they may not be a good solution anyway.
Just because it hasn't caused an accident doesn't mean its not an issue, there is still conflicting movements with green signals. There is no cross traffic permitted, so the bollards would help prevent that illegal manuever from happening, and they are flexible and typically pop right back up if a truck needs to go over them to make a turn, and they're cheap
Just because this was found out yesterday doesn't mean there has been or will be issues.
One of the fallacies in planning is finding out about something that has existed for years, and feeling the need to make corrections to it, even when corrections aren't needed. Looking at Street View, this particular layout has been in existence since 2013. There's no reason to split the lanes, especially for those coming up the ramp.
Not only that, but the opposing arrows here are completely lawful, as nothing is stated within the law that the arrows provide a protected movement. Per https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.055 ,
Quote
Traffic control signal legend.
Whenever traffic is controlled by traffic control signals exhibiting different colored lights, or colored lighted arrows, successively one at a time or in combination, only the colors green, red and yellow shall be used, except for special pedestrian signals carrying a word or legend, and said lights shall indicate and apply to drivers of vehicles and pedestrians as follows:
(1) Green indication
(b) Vehicle operators facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may enter the intersection control area only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. Vehicle operators shall stop to allow other vehicles lawfully within the intersection control area to complete their movements. Vehicle operators shall also stop for pedestrians who are lawfully within the intersection control area as required by RCW 46.61.235(1).
So again, there's no issue with the issue as is, and introducing a hazard in the middle of the roadway, especially for the straight thru movement, is usually not advisable.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 24, 2019, 01:32:28 AM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on January 23, 2019, 08:52:44 PM
They should give FYA to the least traveled road.
That would be fine too.
Quote from: UCFKnights on January 23, 2019, 09:01:35 PM
Another simple solution would be to install the flexible plastic bollards between the 2 lanes to force vehicles into the correct lane, eliminating the conflict. i've seen that before (don't ask me where, it was a long time ago)
Given that there's no cross-traffic, that seems like a reasonable option too. I may even suggest it to WSDOT!
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 23, 2019, 05:26:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 23, 2019, 04:43:56 PM
Found a setup that is basically identical to the OP in Kingston, WA.
Two one-way streets meeting a major one-way street, but both one-way streets have green arrows at the same time for the turn onto the major one-way street. Only way this can safely work is if both cars turn into the near lane. Which they should, of course, but I still don't think this is permitted.
http://bit.ly/2U8CPnz (spin camera around to see the other signal)
I wouldn't have much issue with this if they were ordinary green signals, but a green arrow implies a protected turn, with any opposing traffic only making a turn on red in which they must yield. That's what makes this dangerous.
Another option could be to just paint some cat tracks or guide lines in the intersection to "force" the two directions into the near lanes. Possibly supplement with signage.
Although I like the idea of giving a direction FYA. They could put FYAs in both directions actually, and not do any other action.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 24, 2019, 08:07:36 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on January 24, 2019, 07:22:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 24, 2019, 06:17:09 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on January 23, 2019, 09:01:35 PM
Another simple solution would be to install the flexible plastic bollards between the 2 lanes to force vehicles into the correct lane, eliminating the conflict. i've seen that before (don't ask me where, it was a long time ago)
Assuming there's even an issue right now (in other words, it's been working fine until this was posted, now we're in search of a solution where a problem hasn't existed), the plastic bollards could only come out as far as it wouldn't interfere with cross traffic.
Also, they would limit large vehicles from turning properly, so they may not be a good solution anyway.
Just because it hasn't caused an accident doesn't mean its not an issue, there is still conflicting movements with green signals. There is no cross traffic permitted, so the bollards would help prevent that illegal manuever from happening, and they are flexible and typically pop right back up if a truck needs to go over them to make a turn, and they're cheap
Just because this was found out yesterday doesn't mean there has been or will be issues.
One of the fallacies in planning is finding out about something that has existed for years, and feeling the need to make corrections to it, even when corrections aren't needed. Looking at Street View, this particular layout has been in existence since 2013. There's no reason to split the lanes, especially for those coming up the ramp.
Not only that, but the opposing arrows here are completely lawful, as nothing is stated within the law that the arrows provide a protected movement. Per https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.055 ,
Quote
Traffic control signal legend.
Whenever traffic is controlled by traffic control signals exhibiting different colored lights, or colored lighted arrows, successively one at a time or in combination, only the colors green, red and yellow shall be used, except for special pedestrian signals carrying a word or legend, and said lights shall indicate and apply to drivers of vehicles and pedestrians as follows:
(1) Green indication
(b) Vehicle operators facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may enter the intersection control area only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. Vehicle operators shall stop to allow other vehicles lawfully within the intersection control area to complete their movements. Vehicle operators shall also stop for pedestrians who are lawfully within the intersection control area as required by RCW 46.61.235(1).
So again, there's no issue with the issue as is, and introducing a hazard in the middle of the roadway, especially for the straight thru movement, is usually not advisable.
That doesn't change the fact the straight thru movement is still extremely dangerous as it would lead to wrong way driving, and the flexible bollards are designed to be non-destructive. The ones on the interstate near me seem to invoke almost no fear for those who wish to change lanes over them.
Quote from: UCFKnights on January 24, 2019, 11:15:14 AM
That doesn't change the fact the straight thru movement is still extremely dangerous as it would lead to wrong way driving, and the flexible bollards are designed to be non-destructive. The ones on the interstate near me seem to invoke almost no fear for those who wish to change lanes over them.
Such is the case in the unknown hundreds or thousands of cases where a street ends with an opposing one way street coming out. In fact, many of the ones I'm familiar with don't even utilize arrows - just 'Do Not Enter' signage.