AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Traffic Control => Topic started by: peterj920 on September 12, 2016, 01:53:14 AM

Title: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: peterj920 on September 12, 2016, 01:53:14 AM
On US 127 in Michigan, there are traffic signals in addition to the traditional flashing red lights for a railroad crossing.  Are there any other cases where there are traffic signals dedicated exclusively for trains?

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1828573,-84.563221,3a,75y,355.75h,79.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slOtRRouO175XBECIGxZrcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: roadfro on September 12, 2016, 03:13:22 AM
^ Interesting to note that this crossing omits the typical gate arms of a railroad crossing but still has the double red signal crossing lights–maybe that has something to do with it...? Also noting the regulatory sign upstream: "Trucks and buses do not stop on [green ball]" – perhaps this crossing was purposefully designed with the signal so to avoid the typical legal requirement for buses/certain trucks to stop on what appears to be a limited-access expressway?
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: peterj920 on September 12, 2016, 03:45:35 AM
Quote from: roadfro on September 12, 2016, 03:13:22 AM
^ Interesting to note that this crossing omits the typical gate arms of a railroad crossing but still has the double red signal crossing lights–maybe that has something to do with it...? Also noting the regulatory sign upstream: "Trucks and buses do not stop on [green ball]" – perhaps this crossing was purposefully designed with the signal so to avoid the typical legal requirement for buses/certain trucks to stop on what appears to be a limited-access expressway?

It looks like that rail line isn't used much so I'm guessing that MDOT couldn't justify putting up an overpass for a lightly used rail line.  They must have felt that the traffic signals would help warn in the rare instances that there is a train.  Other signs could have been posted if they did not want trucks and buses to stop at the railroad crossing without the traffic signals.   

In Wisconsin, there's an exempt sign posted below a Railroad Warning sign and below the Railroad Crossing sign if buses and trucks aren't supposed to stop.  Usually they're posted on railroad tracks that either have little traffic or are out of service.  I have an example below on County AP.  The rail spur is still used, but only goes to the RR Donnely Plant to the right. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2299727,-88.4387882,3a,75y,282.91h,85.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGur5fDOX2mJXJGRmUuDp7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: vdeane on September 12, 2016, 12:51:04 PM
There are a few in NY.  Off the top of my head:
-US 11 near Gouverneur
-NY 49 near Rome
-NY 840 near NY 5/8/12
-NY 825 just past Ellsworth Rd

You can also count the intersection of NY 32 and Spring St in Cohoes; the tracks run right through the middle of the intersection (it's a minor spur to an industrial building).
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: JCinSummerfield on September 12, 2016, 12:51:32 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 12, 2016, 03:45:35 AM
Quote from: roadfro on September 12, 2016, 03:13:22 AM
^ Interesting to note that this crossing omits the typical gate arms of a railroad crossing but still has the double red signal crossing lights–maybe that has something to do with it...? Also noting the regulatory sign upstream: "Trucks and buses do not stop on [green ball]" – perhaps this crossing was purposefully designed with the signal so to avoid the typical legal requirement for buses/certain trucks to stop on what appears to be a limited-access expressway?

It looks like that rail line isn't used much so I'm guessing that MDOT couldn't justify putting up an overpass for a lightly used rail line.  They must have felt that the traffic signals would help warn in the rare instances that there is a train.  Other signs could have been posted if they did not want trucks and buses to stop at the railroad crossing without the traffic signals.   

In Wisconsin, there's an exempt sign posted below a Railroad Warning sign and below the Railroad Crossing sign if buses and trucks aren't supposed to stop.  Usually they're posted on railroad tracks that either have little traffic or are out of service.  I have an example below on County AP.  The rail spur is still used, but only goes to the RR Donnely Plant to the right. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2299727,-88.4387882,3a,75y,282.91h,85.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGur5fDOX2mJXJGRmUuDp7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Actually, the traffic lights were put there when they made the crossing exempt, that is, where buses and other large trucks that normally stop at RR crossing don't have to, unless the light is red.  That way,  traffic on US-127 doesn't come to a screeching halt because of a tanker stopping for the crossing.

Along Telegraph Rd. in southern Monroe Co, Michigan, traffic lights were put up on various intersecting roads before the RR crossing that parallels US-24 (Telegraph).  This was done so cars wouldn't back up onto the crossing from the red light at the nearby intersection.

Edited to add:  In Michigan, it is not common to have crossing gates with flashers.  Newer crossing upgrades have them, but many do not.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2016, 12:55:54 PM
There's a few in Delaware, including this location on US 40 in Bear, which happened to stop the GSV...  https://goo.gl/maps/qrzoNsGnuH22
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: briantroutman on September 12, 2016, 01:02:29 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 12, 2016, 01:53:14 AM
On US 127 in Michigan, there are traffic signals in addition to the traditional flashing red lights for a railroad crossing.  Are there any other cases where there are traffic signals dedicated exclusively for trains?

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1828573,-84.563221,3a,75y,355.75h,79.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slOtRRouO175XBECIGxZrcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

On this assembly, is the progression: green - yellow - red - and then the wigwag lights come on?
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: JCinSummerfield on September 12, 2016, 01:11:17 PM


On this assembly, is the progression: green - yellow - red - and then the wigwag lights come on?
[/quote]

When railroad flashers activate, traffic light simultaneously urns yellow, then red.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: xcellntbuy on September 12, 2016, 01:16:43 PM
There are two sets these traffic lights for rail crossings in Hudson, NY.  One is located at the very northern end of NY 9G and 23B on Columbia Street and a second set is located one block to the north on State Street.  The rail line is the old Boston and Albany Railroad tracks which also run through the 7th Street Park to the south.  The railroad tracks are also at street level through South 7th Street at Warren Street south to Union Street.  Never had any gates or flashing lights. 
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: Joe The Dragon on September 12, 2016, 01:21:47 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on September 12, 2016, 01:11:17 PM


On this assembly, is the progression: green - yellow - red - and then the wigwag lights come on?

When railroad flashers activate, traffic light simultaneously urns yellow, then red.
[/quote]

also I think the trains have to wait for green as well.
Title: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: Sam on September 12, 2016, 10:29:56 PM
NY 332 in downtown Canandaigua has a 3-segment traffic signal with crossbucks. No red flashers or gates. NY 17 once had a traffic signal at an exempt crossing north of Middletown.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: DaBigE on September 12, 2016, 10:52:57 PM
Prairie du Chien, WI has a couple: Blackhawk Ave (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0518556,-91.1425349,3a,75y,102.1h,82.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ_Bh4V_ABLz-tcWi3mJ42A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) & Iowa St (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0490813,-91.1426516,3a,75y,95.75h,74.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQTpSZSGmjZRIIuYHiZNWLQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), except in these cases, they're designed to meter any queues that have formed due to the roundabout downstream, preventing the grade crossing from being blocked. The signals kick-into service by means of a dozen or so loop detectors (at least they were loop detectors on the original plans) and railroad preemption.

WisDOT also has a  simulation (https://youtu.be/W04AVsY6IWQ) of how those signals work.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: cl94 on September 12, 2016, 11:56:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2016, 12:51:04 PM
There are a few in NY.  Off the top of my head:
-US 11 near Gouverneur
-NY 49 near Rome
-NY 840 near NY 5/8/12
-NY 825 just past Ellsworth Rd

You can also count the intersection of NY 32 and Spring St in Cohoes; the tracks run right through the middle of the intersection (it's a minor spur to an industrial building).

NY 5/8/12 has one at its interchange with NY 840 (whose crossing you mentioned above). There are 6 along NY 425 in North Tonawanda. NY 39 through Arcade has 2. Warren CR 7 (Bay Rd) once had one in Queensbury, lights remain up.

US 4 has one in Rutland, VT. 65 mph section.

I will assume we're excluding signals at an intersection if they have rail preemption. The NY 425 ones do not have preemption: rail traffic faces a red and has to wait for its phase in the cycle.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: GenExpwy on September 13, 2016, 01:17:36 AM
Quote from: cl94 on September 12, 2016, 11:56:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2016, 12:51:04 PM
There are a few in NY.  Off the top of my head:
-US 11 near Gouverneur
-NY 49 near Rome
-NY 840 near NY 5/8/12
-NY 825 just past Ellsworth Rd

You can also count the intersection of NY 32 and Spring St in Cohoes; the tracks run right through the middle of the intersection (it's a minor spur to an industrial building).

NY 5/8/12 has one at its interchange with NY 840 (whose crossing you mentioned above). There are 6 along NY 425 in North Tonawanda. NY 39 through Arcade has 2. Warren CR 7 (Bay Rd) once had one in Queensbury, lights remain up.

Also NY 15 in Henrietta, next to Marketplace Mall.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: Brian556 on September 13, 2016, 01:50:24 AM
Also, traffic signals have something railroad crossing signals don't...a yellow light.

There are several of these in Chattanooga, TN. Some are straight-up traffic signals only, while some others are a strange combination of traffic and RR Xing signals

Amnicola Hwy: Amnicola Hwy lanes have traffic signals only; ramp traffic has RR Xings signal only:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0958219,-85.2454248,3a,75y,68.07h,81.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGo_WYwn2r_x50_CupF51xA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DGo_WYwn2r_x50_CupF51xA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D316.7673%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0958219,-85.2454248,3a,75y,68.07h,81.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGo_WYwn2r_x50_CupF51xA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DGo_WYwn2r_x50_CupF51xA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D316.7673%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656)
Note: Amnicola Hwy used to be SR 58. The section from SR 317 to SR 153 became SR 317, the remaining section went to the city.

McCallie Av/ Bailey Av:
Track is still active, but RR lights were removed from cantilevers, and now there are only traffic signals. This street used to be one way, so maybe they didn't want to spend the money on reconfiguring the cantilevers when it was converted to two way:https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0387875,-85.2824687,3a,47.6y,306.55h,87.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sr9FpuBKvEbn_e6B_pLMAwg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dr9FpuBKvEbn_e6B_pLMAwg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D342.16937%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0387875,-85.2824687,3a,47.6y,306.55h,87.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sr9FpuBKvEbn_e6B_pLMAwg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dr9FpuBKvEbn_e6B_pLMAwg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D342.16937%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656)
Note: This used to be US 11/64/SR 2 WB, and Bailey Av was US 11/64/ SR 2 EB. It has a similar setup:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0363425,-85.2839021,3a,75y,276.67h,82.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNUpw3ZOexqm1UNAOPU-E0Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DNUpw3ZOexqm1UNAOPU-E0Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D49.937157%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0363425,-85.2839021,3a,75y,276.67h,82.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNUpw3ZOexqm1UNAOPU-E0Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DNUpw3ZOexqm1UNAOPU-E0Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D49.937157%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656)

Google maps has it wrong, it says these two streets are still on the state highway system.

And, in Dallas, Tx, there are several traffic signals that are for the DART line on Pacific Street, which is a trains-only street:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7802894,-96.806381,3a,26.5y,341.11h,87.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVzsNIDq414QzZdMq2DTAlQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7802894,-96.806381,3a,26.5y,341.11h,87.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVzsNIDq414QzZdMq2DTAlQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

This is a bad time for Mike's RR Crossing Website to be down.



Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: peterj920 on September 13, 2016, 04:03:32 AM
It looks like the common theme is that the traffic signals are used for railroad crossings that aren't very busy, with the exception of Prairie Du Chien with the "road metering" signals before the roundabout.  Would probably be for another topic but would be interesting to see if there are metering signals for non freeway or expressway situations since I've only seen those signals that meter traffic counts on freeway on ramps until now. 
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: kphoger on September 13, 2016, 06:19:49 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies, but...

In Wichita, where 29th Street North crosses a freight yard, there is a 14-track level crossing immediately before a stoplight at Broadway.  Because of the distance involved, there is a secondary signal in advance of the crossing, to ensure people don't get stuck on the tracks.

Street view here (https://goo.gl/maps/qTi9aZ5rx732)
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: Joe The Dragon on September 14, 2016, 02:23:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2016, 06:19:49 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies, but...

In Wichita, where 29th Street North crosses a freight yard, there is a 14-track level crossing immediately before a stoplight at Broadway.  Because of the distance involved, there is a secondary signal in advance of the crossing, to ensure people don't get stuck on the tracks.

Street view here (https://goo.gl/maps/qTi9aZ5rx732)

Not odd and the fox river grove bus crash let to alot of them being put it all over the place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Fox_River_Grove_bus%E2%80%93train_collision
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: Michael on September 14, 2016, 05:43:39 PM
Here's a few in CNY that I can think of off the top of my head:

US 20/NY 5 in Auburn (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9307336,-76.579544,3a,62.6y,262.87h,91.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shEpSO4GPRPWGZ5sCcJy4eA!2e0) (note the train signal on the right side)
There used to be a second crossing just after this one (move ahead to see the curb cuts), but it was removed in the late 90s or early 2000s.  When I was in high school, I was surprised that our BOCES bus driver didn't stop at this crossing.  He told me that it's not required if there's a stoplight.  I Googled it, and sure enough, that's the law.  I would think a crossing without a gate would be more dangerous.

NY 840, Utica (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0820973,-75.2945444,3a,85.6y,323.49h,89.32t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sB1Zocfgr9g_SbyB2VDMnZw!2e0) (mentioned earlier)

NY 481, Fulton (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3612183,-76.4273065,3a,85.6y,328.69h,89.47t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sn571KXSQHHYRpV8llY3eKg!2e0)
I haven't been through there in at least 10 years, but it looks like the tracks have been partially paved over, so it may not be active anymore and just stays green all the time

One I've been through but forgot about is NY 297 in Solvay (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0629278,-76.2168165,3a,45.3y,174.35h,93.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sarHo2CsbHLT3cR-we8SzCQ!2e0).  It's a seperate signal from the intersection to the south.  Note the red light in the background and the mast arm for oncoming traffic before the tracks.  It also has train signals (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0627008,-76.2167884,3a,50y,267.13h,94.5t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjf7LniWaloGqGNF9SFjJqQ!2e0) like the one in Auburn.

Another one I've been through but forgot about until seeing it in an earlier post is NY 49 in Rome (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2047556,-75.4171907,3a,85.6y,269.41h,91.1t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sz1tNRnbof6CvfQxYjK5APg!2e0).  NY 49's frontage roads have signals too, and there are also train signals on each of the outermost mast arm poles.

I also forgot about NY 332 in Canandaigua until seeing it in this thread, but I haven't been through there in probably at least 12 years.

I thought I knew of one in Rochester, but I couldn't find it.  I thought I might have been misremembering until seeing GenExpwy's post.  Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.082222,-77.6394495,3a,92.8y,189.87h,91.41t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sMvb0w69pJmguoqlFMcKjAQ!2e0) a Street View link of that one.  While looking for it, I did come across one crossing (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0935503,-77.6522781,3a,64.3y,259.35h,94.04t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sN1Lm7wBoRFnIHmCp-ELJYg!2e0) with gates on both sides, but one side also had a signal with the gate.  I've never seen a setup like it before.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: epzik8 on September 14, 2016, 09:16:34 PM
The Baltimore Light Rail has at least one, at Shawan Road in Hunt Valley/Cockeysville.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: kj3400 on September 14, 2016, 11:28:00 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on September 14, 2016, 09:16:34 PM
The Baltimore Light Rail has at least one, at Shawan Road in Hunt Valley/Cockeysville.
Don't forget the one at Waterview Av. in Cherry Hill, which is also for a rail line.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 15, 2016, 12:00:51 AM
The NJ Transit Hudson-Bergen Light Rail line has a number of crossings in Jersey City with just traffic signals such as here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7134067,-74.0507033,3a,95.6y,26.64h,90.33t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sQ8VraicgywEGFmbUCnFIYw!2e0? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7134067,-74.0507033,3a,95.6y,26.64h,90.33t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sQ8VraicgywEGFmbUCnFIYw!2e0?)
At other locations they use traditional signals and gates, and still finally they do some street running with traffic in the downtown area.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: freebrickproductions on September 15, 2016, 01:53:42 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on September 13, 2016, 01:50:24 AM
This is a bad time for Mike's RR Crossing Website to be down.
As a current admin of that site, I can tell you it's still up, but we've moved from rxrsignals.net to rxrsignals.com (and if you encounter any errors accessing a page, check to see if it's pointing at the right address). We kept having issues with hitting the monthly bandwidth limit on the old hosting plan, and it was getting to the point where we needed a new hosting plan before the old one expired. Sadly, the old URL was tied to the old hosting plan, so we changed from .net to .com.
I'll probably go look through it sometime soon and see what I can find.
Here's the link for those whom are curious though: http://www.rxrsignals.com/
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: cl94 on September 15, 2016, 11:56:33 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 15, 2016, 01:53:42 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on September 13, 2016, 01:50:24 AM
This is a bad time for Mike's RR Crossing Website to be down.
As a current admin of that site, I can tell you it's still up, but we've moved from rxrsignals.net to rxrsignals.com (and if you encounter any errors accessing a page, check to see if it's pointing at the right address). We kept having issues with hitting the monthly bandwidth limit on the old hosting plan, and it was getting to the point where we needed a new hosting plan before the old one expired. Sadly, the old URL was tied to the old hosting plan, so we changed from .net to .com.
I'll probably go look through it sometime soon and see what I can find.
Here's the link for those whom are curious though: http://www.rxrsignals.com/

Now I have a new nerd site to bookmark. Wonderful. Give me a few days and I'll be sending over a boatload of pictures from the Albany area.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: freebrickproductions on September 15, 2016, 02:22:22 PM
Quote from: cl94 on September 15, 2016, 11:56:33 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 15, 2016, 01:53:42 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on September 13, 2016, 01:50:24 AM
This is a bad time for Mike's RR Crossing Website to be down.
As a current admin of that site, I can tell you it's still up, but we've moved from rxrsignals.net to rxrsignals.com (and if you encounter any errors accessing a page, check to see if it's pointing at the right address). We kept having issues with hitting the monthly bandwidth limit on the old hosting plan, and it was getting to the point where we needed a new hosting plan before the old one expired. Sadly, the old URL was tied to the old hosting plan, so we changed from .net to .com.
I'll probably go look through it sometime soon and see what I can find.
Here's the link for those whom are curious though: http://www.rxrsignals.com/

Now I have a new nerd site to bookmark. Wonderful. Give me a few days and I'll be sending over a boatload of pictures from the Albany area.
Send me a PM and I can send you my e-mail to submit pictures via. Make sure you read the 103 page as well, you don't have to follow it exactly, but it gives a good idea of the shots we're looking for:
http://www.rxrsignals.com/103/
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: kphoger on September 16, 2016, 06:06:39 PM
Most of these seem pointless, as in why wouldn't they install a normal railroad crossing signal instead?
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: dgolub on September 16, 2016, 07:13:34 PM
There's one at the very beginning of Corlies Avenue (NJ 33) in Neptune, New Jersey.  See http://www.greaternyroads.info/roads/njstate/nj33.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: mrsman on September 18, 2016, 06:22:15 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2016, 06:06:39 PM
Most of these seem pointless, as in why wouldn't they install a normal railroad crossing signal instead?

It seems from the video that was posted earlier that one of the features of the traffic light was also to make sure that the intersection was kept clear so that traffic would no back up into the railroad crossing.  This seems particularly true if a roundabout is nearby.

In some areas, I see a lot of people not properly respect the R/R crossing signals, even to the point of driving around gates that are closing.  Perhaps a normal traffic signal would give people more warning of the need to stop.

Another idea is that perhaps the traffic signal can be used as a way to make a R/R crossing exempt (from school buses and truck from having to stop before the crossing). 

In many ways, they do seem pointless.  But if there are marked increases in safety, why not have the extra signal.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: vdeane on September 18, 2016, 07:10:04 PM
That last idea might be it.  Many of the ones in NY are on freeways, or at least more major roads.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: drrosenrosen on June 01, 2019, 12:29:47 PM
E Truman Rd in Independence, MO
https://goo.gl/maps/LUSE61Cd7jx7dVBH8

(https://goo.gl/maps/RTU78K2uKxMckkda6)
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2016, 06:06:39 PM
Most of these seem pointless, as in why wouldn't they install a normal railroad crossing signal instead?

I agree. There seems to be no need for this as the regular RR crossing signals seem fine.

Is there any data out there justifying these?  Do drivers respect RYG signals more than the flashing RR signals?
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: US 89 on June 02, 2019, 08:13:11 PM
Now that we've bumped this, here are a couple from the Salt Lake area, on 2200 West (https://goo.gl/maps/k3v8uWYWBNUWfxaeA) (also featuring RYG signals for the trains themselves) and 500 West (https://goo.gl/maps/f3K4RHbrdhW9d2298) (featuring 3M PV signals for the southbound approach). Both are small industrial spurs.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: OracleUsr on June 03, 2019, 06:52:43 AM
Side roads intersecting Market St. in Greensboro used to along the tracks on the west side of town; I don't know if it still does, but Meadowood Rd. had one.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 07:26:42 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2016, 06:06:39 PM
Most of these seem pointless, as in why wouldn't they install a normal railroad crossing signal instead?

I agree. There seems to be no need for this as the regular RR crossing signals seem fine.

Is there any data out there justifying these?  Do drivers respect RYG signals more than the flashing RR signals?

Personal observation: Yes.

When people approach a train signal that's flashing, they slow down, look, and if they think they can beat the train they go.  At a traffic light, when the light turns red, people just stop and stay stopped until the light turns green, no matter how long and pointless the light may be.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on June 03, 2019, 10:09:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 07:26:42 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2016, 06:06:39 PM
Most of these seem pointless, as in why wouldn't they install a normal railroad crossing signal instead?

I agree. There seems to be no need for this as the regular RR crossing signals seem fine.

Is there any data out there justifying these?  Do drivers respect RYG signals more than the flashing RR signals?

Personal observation: Yes.

When people approach a train signal that's flashing, they slow down, look, and if they think they can beat the train they go.  At a traffic light, when the light turns red, people just stop and stay stopped until the light turns green, no matter how long and pointless the light may be.

Haha, no. I suspect you've never lived near a truly long and/or pointless light–red light jumping absolutely gets worse the more inconvenient people think the signal is.
Title: Re: Traffic Signals exclusively for railroad crossings
Post by: ErmineNotyours on June 03, 2019, 11:09:22 PM
Where the Arbutus Railway crossed Broadway in Vancouver, BC, the crossing was controlled by regular traffic lights. Street View (https://goo.gl/maps/ZN7QEVrbsRALXcv78).  It's since been turned into a trail with a crosswalk signal.