I've seen this all over the place, many times, but I've never understood it.
Slip lanes pretty much universally have yield signs, as they are A) usually more of a merge than a right turn, and B) they are frequently used at signals, so a yield sign allows the right turning traffic to continuously turn during the straight-ahead green phase, except when giving way to oncoming left turns.
But every now and then, I see a stop sign used at these locations. If you know of any egregious examples, feel free to share.
Here's one in Seattle (https://goo.gl/TJbX5K) that drivers frequently acknowledge as a yield sign. And below, a nearly brand-new slip lane with a stop sign in Coquitlam, BC (https://goo.gl/ZoMx1r) (the other three slip lanes at this intersection feature yield signs or nothing (add-lane) -- no idea why this particular movement is special).
(https://i.imgur.com/ksdcat0.png)
Wisconsin likes slip lanes with stop signs or signals.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 11, 2018, 11:10:19 PM
Wisconsin likes slip lanes with stop signs or signals.
I've always liked WI's signalized slip lanes, but did not know they used the stop sign at these locations too.
I guess this sort of counts as a slip lane...
This fairly new (built 2011-ish) on ramp has a stop sign. It's a relatively low volume movement, but I've always found it very bizarre / kind of haphazard for a pretty new ramp between two major roads: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2504394,-122.7377319,3a,75y,191.22h,81.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sc_CmYd6gcQhobTbC3Srx5A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dc_CmYd6gcQhobTbC3Srx5A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D164.97737%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
That Coquitlam example that Jakeroot posted is often treated like a yield sign by many people (myself included).
Here's a stop sign freeway RIRO onramp in North Vancouver (with a merge lane for some reason). I have no idea why it hasn't been removed yet since it only serves a small residential neighborhood and there's a proper (sort of) interchange very close by.
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.3326857,-123.104799,3a,84.9y,199.6h,82.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNExpKs5Vf8WGr2qgkB0I1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 11:08:56 PM
I've seen this all over the place, many times, but I've never understood it.
Slip lanes pretty much universally have yield signs, as they are A) usually more of a merge than a right turn, and B) they are frequently used at signals, so a yield sign allows the right turning traffic to continuously turn during the straight-ahead green phase, except when giving way to oncoming left turns.
But every now and then, I see a stop sign used at these locations. If you know of any egregious examples, feel free to share.
Here's one in Seattle (https://goo.gl/TJbX5K) that drivers frequently acknowledge as a yield sign. And below, a nearly brand-new slip lane with a stop sign in Coquitlam, BC (https://goo.gl/ZoMx1r) (the other three slip lanes at this intersection feature yield signs or nothing (add-lane) -- no idea why this particular movement is special).
(https://i.imgur.com/ksdcat0.png)
One that always drove me crazy was i-75/Archer Road in Gainesville.
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6167892,-82.3873387,3a,24.8y,258.09h,87.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAPnaHk7v9gmjaXgH9eWBiA!2e0!5s20170201T000000!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6177061,-82.385027,3a,75y,101.33h,97t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEBhXhMgZUkF39tBcqdC9AQ!2e0!5s20080301T000000!7i3328!8i1664
Cops used to love to hang out there and give tickets to anyone who failed to come to a complete stop, and the second one especially, would back up pretty severely when people were stopping due to cops watching. I say used to as they actually removed both slip ramps recently and replaced them with traditional right turn lanes at the lights. I've heard rumors that was because of the ticket abuse at the location, although I don't know why they couldn't just have switched the stop to yield instead of removing the slip lanes.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 11:14:51 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 11, 2018, 11:10:19 PM
Wisconsin likes slip lanes with stop signs or signals.
I've always liked WI's signalized slip lanes, but did not know they used the stop sign at these locations too.
Unfortunately, they do. Way too many of them, IMO. Some are converted from Yield control, but there are many like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/VxAWSjUk9RB2) which have been stop-controlled from day one. Very annoying when the rest of the approach has a green light, but right-turners still have to stop. It leads to a lot of generous rolling stops.
These off the NJ Turnpike Exit 3 looks like the perfect yield situations, but each has a stop sign. https://goo.gl/maps/g3fosPsjJ652 . It's possible you could argue the nearby driveways would require a stop sign at these locations. Anyway, the stop signs function as a yield sign. Many years ago when I worked this interchange, I had someone come through with a printout of all the quote-unquote known police speed and other traps, and this stop sign was one of them. (I often thought that list was filled with a ton of places someone happened to see a cop just driving and had nothing to do with a speed trap.) In all my years of traveling around this intersection, I've never seen a cop down there watching traffic at the stop sign. Note...the crosswalks are newer so they don't really factor into why there's always been stop signs on the ramps.
Similar situation was at the NJ Turnpike Exit 2. However, the right turn slip lane was upgraded from a stop sign to a yield sign when a traffic light was installed.
https://goo.gl/maps/2n5WaGjy32K2
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 09:48:58 AM
Unfortunately, they do. Way too many of them, IMO. Some are converted from Yield control, but there are many like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/VxAWSjUk9RB2) which have been stop-controlled from day one. Very annoying when the rest of the approach has a green light, but right-turners still have to stop. It leads to a lot of generous rolling stops.
And Wisconsin putting up a sign beneath the stop sign saying "Right Turns Obey This Sign" (of which I can't find an example of on Streetview this morning).
Illinois has a couple:
* IL 58 at IL 72 in Schaumburg for the EB IL 72 to WB IL 58 (https://goo.gl/maps/6L6FpknkpWH2)
* IL 62 at IL 68 for the EB IL 62 to WB IL 68 movement (https://goo.gl/maps/5zEan332ogK2)
Yes, I do know of an example: right here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2153754,-77.4306126,3a,75y,112.19h,93.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjlrmsfsY4qZ8N987VuBiWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at NY 104 and NY 250 in Webster, NY. Completely unnecessary, and it bugs the tar out of me every time I use it. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 12, 2018, 11:54:29 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 09:48:58 AM
Unfortunately, they do. Way too many of them, IMO. Some are converted from Yield control, but there are many like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/VxAWSjUk9RB2) which have been stop-controlled from day one. Very annoying when the rest of the approach has a green light, but right-turners still have to stop. It leads to a lot of generous rolling stops.
And Wisconsin putting up a sign beneath the stop sign saying "Right Turns Obey This Sign" (of which I can't find an example of on Streetview this morning).
Here's one (https://goo.gl/maps/9UY7Ciibz3L2)
There is this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.81273,-84.3082438,3a,75y,116.58h,79.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH3202jK_EA1RfzTYs7SVNg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) a few miles from me. Admittedly it does hit the cross road at a sharper-than-average angle, but I'd say that's just an artifact of poor intersection design.
Soooooo............ A slip lane with a stop sign is actually more restrictive than the stoplight it supposedly avoids–when that stoplight is green. :ded:
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2018, 02:15:42 PM
Soooooo............ A slip lane with a stop sign is actually more restrictive than the stoplight it supposedly avoids–when that stoplight is green. :ded:
Yeah, I know, hence my hatred for these things.
Quote from: bcroadguy on November 12, 2018, 05:31:33 AM
This fairly new (built 2011-ish) on ramp has a stop sign. It's a relatively low volume movement, but I've always found it very bizarre / kind of haphazard for a pretty new ramp between two major roads:
I've always hated that one too. That damn bridge/interchange opened in 2009, but that merge looks like something from the 50s. Apparently not enough room for a proper merge before the railway underpass, so we got stuck with this.
Quote from: bcroadguy on November 12, 2018, 05:31:33 AM
That Coquitlam example that Jakeroot posted is often treated like a yield sign by many people (myself included).
Guilty as charged.
Quote from: bcroadguy on November 12, 2018, 05:39:19 AM
Here's a stop sign freeway RIRO onramp in North Vancouver (with a merge lane for some reason). I have no idea why it hasn't been removed yet since it only serves a small residential neighborhood and there's a proper (sort of) interchange very close by.
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.3326857,-123.104799,3a,84.9y,199.6h,82.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNExpKs5Vf8WGr2qgkB0I1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I've never understood that RIRO. The province has been working tirelessly to upgrade Highway 1 throughout the Lower Mainland with bigger/better interchanges, more lanes, safer merges, etc. But they let crap like this fly, even when a proper interchange is just a few hundred meters away. Stupid. Looks more like something you'd seen on the SFPR.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 09:48:58 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 11:14:51 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 11, 2018, 11:10:19 PM
Wisconsin likes slip lanes with stop signs or signals.
I've always liked WI's signalized slip lanes, but did not know they used the stop sign at these locations too.
Unfortunately, they do. Way too many of them, IMO. Some are converted from Yield control, but there are many like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/VxAWSjUk9RB2) which have been stop-controlled from day one. Very annoying when the rest of the approach has a green light, but right-turners still have to stop. It leads to a lot of generous rolling stops.
Wait, some of them have been changed
to stop control from yield? Jesus. The one's I'm most familiar with have always been stop signs (as stupid as they may be). Can't even imagine the level of non-compliance at ones that used to be a yield.
Quote from: UCFKnights on November 12, 2018, 09:28:47 AM
One that always drove me crazy was i-75/Archer Road in Gainesville.
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6167892,-82.3873387,3a,24.8y,258.09h,87.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAPnaHk7v9gmjaXgH9eWBiA!2e0!5s20170201T000000!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6177061,-82.385027,3a,75y,101.33h,97t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEBhXhMgZUkF39tBcqdC9AQ!2e0!5s20080301T000000!7i3328!8i1664
Cops used to love to hang out there and give tickets to anyone who failed to come to a complete stop, and the second one especially, would back up pretty severely when people were stopping due to cops watching. I say used to as they actually removed both slip ramps recently and replaced them with traditional right turn lanes at the lights. I've heard rumors that was because of the ticket abuse at the location, although I don't know why they couldn't just have switched the stop to yield instead of removing the slip lanes.
Classic revenue scheme. Total crap.
Slip lanes are often being removed now to reduce the number of crossings for pedestrians, or improve pedestrian safety at poorly-performing slip lanes. Though I agree that many, if not all, could be fixed by signalizing the slip ramp instead of completely rebuilding it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 12, 2018, 10:04:58 AM
These off the NJ Turnpike Exit 3 looks like the perfect yield situations, but each has a stop sign. https://goo.gl/maps/g3fosPsjJ652 . It's possible you could argue the nearby driveways would require a stop sign at these locations. Anyway, the stop signs function as a yield sign. Many years ago when I worked this interchange, I had someone come through with a printout of all the quote-unquote known police speed and other traps, and this stop sign was one of them. (I often thought that list was filled with a ton of places someone happened to see a cop just driving and had nothing to do with a speed trap.) In all my years of traveling around this intersection, I've never seen a cop down there watching traffic at the stop sign. Note...the crosswalks are newer so they don't really factor into why there's always been stop signs on the ramps.
Similar situation was at the NJ Turnpike Exit 2. However, the right turn slip lane was upgraded from a stop sign to a yield sign when a traffic light was installed.
https://goo.gl/maps/2n5WaGjy32K2
I think your first link should have been to this trumpet: https://goo.gl/ShuiXM
Those merges appear to be completely ignored! For good reason. Plenty of room for merging.
Glad that second link's right turn was modified. Proper intersection now.
Sidenote: NJ, as usual, way outdoing every other northeast state with their signal placement.
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 12, 2018, 11:54:29 AM
Illinois has a couple:
* IL 58 at IL 72 in Schaumburg for the EB IL 72 to WB IL 58 (https://goo.gl/maps/6L6FpknkpWH2)
* IL 62 at IL 68 for the EB IL 62 to WB IL 68 movement (https://goo.gl/maps/5zEan332ogK2)
Woah, a slip lane in IL that's unsignalized! Guess I shouldn't be surprised that they opted for stop control, as they are apparently afraid of right-turn-yield situations (never seen one in IL).
Quote from: webny99 on November 12, 2018, 12:14:12 PM
Yes, I do know of an example: right here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2153754,-77.4306126,3a,75y,112.19h,93.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjlrmsfsY4qZ8N987VuBiWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at NY 104 and NY 250 in Webster, NY. Completely unnecessary, and it bugs the tar out of me every time I use it. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
I can see why put up those massive stop signs. I'm sure most drivers are rightfully ignoring them, as you can clearly see that it's OK to turn without stopping when the off-ramp has a green signal (as is the case with most examples here).
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 12:50:21 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 12, 2018, 11:54:29 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 09:48:58 AM
Unfortunately, they do. Way too many of them, IMO. Some are converted from Yield control, but there are many like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/VxAWSjUk9RB2) which have been stop-controlled from day one. Very annoying when the rest of the approach has a green light, but right-turners still have to stop. It leads to a lot of generous rolling stops.
And Wisconsin putting up a sign beneath the stop sign saying "Right Turns Obey This Sign" (of which I can't find an example of on Streetview this morning).
Here's one (https://goo.gl/maps/9UY7Ciibz3L2)
:facepalm: -- if a stop sign and signal are so close together that you need to use that sign, perhaps a reconsideration of the traffic control method is in order.
Quote from: Eth on November 12, 2018, 01:03:47 PM
There is this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.81273,-84.3082438,3a,75y,116.58h,79.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH3202jK_EA1RfzTYs7SVNg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) a few miles from me. Admittedly it does hit the cross road at a sharper-than-average angle, but I'd say that's just an artifact of poor intersection design.
They are sometimes designed like that to improve pedestrian visibility, but I don't see why they couldn't still use yield signs, especially being that close to a signal. The approach reminds me of this off-ramp: https://goo.gl/UhwHWG (sharp turn but yield sign).
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 03:15:50 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 09:48:58 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 11:14:51 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 11, 2018, 11:10:19 PM
Wisconsin likes slip lanes with stop signs or signals.
I've always liked WI's signalized slip lanes, but did not know they used the stop sign at these locations too.
Unfortunately, they do. Way too many of them, IMO. Some are converted from Yield control, but there are many like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/VxAWSjUk9RB2) which have been stop-controlled from day one. Very annoying when the rest of the approach has a green light, but right-turners still have to stop. It leads to a lot of generous rolling stops.
Wait, some of them have been changed to stop control from yield? Jesus. The one's I'm most familiar with have always been stop signs (as stupid as they may be). Can't even imagine the level of non-compliance at ones that used to be a yield.
Yup, it's the hierarchy of improvements. Places where right turn volumes aren't high enough to justify signalization, but compliance is low enough that the Yield sign isn't working, and typically in urban areas where pedestrians could be an issue. Note my example above has a mixed use path paralleling the main road. In my other example (https://goo.gl/maps/akRpmEn3WrF2), it's adjacent to the downtown. All in an effort to save a couple thousand dollars from lack of signalization, but you get the indirect "benefit" of an increase in rolling stops. :rolleyes:
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 12:50:21 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 12, 2018, 11:54:29 AM
And Wisconsin putting up a sign beneath the stop sign saying "Right Turns Obey This Sign" (of which I can't find an example of on Streetview this morning).
Here's one (https://goo.gl/maps/9UY7Ciibz3L2)
:facepalm: -- if a stop sign and signal are so close together that you need to use that sign, perhaps a reconsideration of the traffic control method is in order.
In the city's defense, the right turn volumes are incredibly low at that location. There used to be protected/permissive lefts for the opposing direction (serving the influx of shift traffic from the major employers that used to be just down the road). The Stop sign is a carryover from those days. Back when the left-turn arrows were active, signalized right-turn lanes were uncommon (non-existent in that city). The left-turn arrows are long gone, but the Stop sign will likely remain until the time the intersection is redone (not even on the radar screen).
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 03:24:01 PM
Woah, a slip lane in IL that's unsignalized!
There are slip lanes in Illinois, however, where it's unclear whether you have to stop at a red light or not. Take a look at
this intersection in Marion (https://goo.gl/maps/x4e8QTDXkHK2), for example. There is a slip lane with a signal next to it made up of right arrows, but no stop bar or crosswalk markings. The geometry and pavement seems to contradict the signal indication.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 03:42:15 PM
Yup, it's the hierarchy of improvements. Places where right turn volumes aren't high enough to justify signalization, but compliance is low enough that the Yield sign isn't working, and typically in urban areas where pedestrians could be an issue. Note my example above has a mixed use path paralleling the main road. In my other example (https://goo.gl/maps/akRpmEn3WrF2), it's adjacent to the downtown. All in an effort to save a couple thousand dollars from lack of signalization, but you get the indirect "benefit" of an increase in rolling stops. :rolleyes:
I think the way they signalized the right turn (in this example (https://goo.gl/maps/VxAWSjUk9RB2)) from University to Allen is a great alternative to yield signs, assuming funds exist. I guess there wasn't any money left over to replace that yield sign!
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 03:42:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 03:24:01 PM
if a stop sign and signal are so close together that you need to use that sign, perhaps a reconsideration of the traffic control method is in order.
In the city's defense, the right turn volumes are incredibly low at that location. There used to be protected/permissive lefts for the opposing direction (serving the influx of shift traffic from the major employers that used to be just down the road). The Stop sign is a carryover from those days. Back when the left-turn arrows were active, signalized right-turn lanes were uncommon (non-existent in that city). The left-turn arrows are long gone, but the Stop sign will likely remain until the time the intersection is redone (not even on the radar screen).
They could have taken a page from IL and just used green circles for the right turns. I guess this would give priority to right turning traffic...come to think of it, kind of unsure how things work in IL if the right turn has a green circle...
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2018, 04:10:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 03:24:01 PM
Woah, a slip lane in IL that's unsignalized!
There are slip lanes in Illinois, however, where it's unclear whether you have to stop at a red light or not. Take a look at this intersection in Marion (https://goo.gl/maps/x4e8QTDXkHK2), for example. There is a slip lane with a signal next to it made up of right arrows, but no stop bar or crosswalk markings. The geometry and pavement seems to contradict the signal indication.
That is strange. The other slip lanes have stop lines (though very faded), yet no indication that one ever existed for that right turn. I could sort of understand it, if the right turn got its own lane (making the arrow an effective "keep moving" signal), but that's obviously not the case. I guess they just want drivers to stop before entering the "intersection control area"?
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 07:30:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2018, 04:10:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 03:24:01 PM
Woah, a slip lane in IL that's unsignalized!
There are slip lanes in Illinois, however, where it's unclear whether you have to stop at a red light or not. Take a look at this intersection in Marion (https://goo.gl/maps/x4e8QTDXkHK2), for example. There is a slip lane with a signal next to it made up of right arrows, but no stop bar or crosswalk markings. The geometry and pavement seems to contradict the signal indication.
That is strange. The other slip lanes have stop lines (though very faded), yet no indication that one ever existed for that right turn. I could sort of understand it, if the right turn got its own lane (making the arrow an effective "keep moving" signal), but that's obviously not the case. I guess they just want drivers to stop before entering the "intersection control area"?
While they are certainly rare, slip lanes do exist in Illinois without restriction. Just down Route 13 from that other intersection is
this one (https://goo.gl/maps/vfXeTZq4Nv32) (very near where I briefly worked a miserable temp job at a Circuit City distribution center 12½ years ago) with no restriction at all.
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2018, 07:50:03 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 07:30:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2018, 04:10:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 03:24:01 PM
Woah, a slip lane in IL that's unsignalized!
There are slip lanes in Illinois, however, where it's unclear whether you have to stop at a red light or not. Take a look at this intersection in Marion (https://goo.gl/maps/x4e8QTDXkHK2), for example. There is a slip lane with a signal next to it made up of right arrows, but no stop bar or crosswalk markings. The geometry and pavement seems to contradict the signal indication.
That is strange. The other slip lanes have stop lines (though very faded), yet no indication that one ever existed for that right turn. I could sort of understand it, if the right turn got its own lane (making the arrow an effective "keep moving" signal), but that's obviously not the case. I guess they just want drivers to stop before entering the "intersection control area"?
While they are certainly rare, slip lanes do exist in Illinois without restriction. Just down Route 13 from that other intersection is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/vfXeTZq4Nv32) (very near where I briefly worked a miserable temp job at a Circuit City distribution center 12½ years ago) with no restriction at all.
I assume the idea is to follow the lead of the signals to the left?
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 12, 2018, 11:54:29 AM
Illinois has a couple:
* IL 58 at IL 72 in Schaumburg for the EB IL 72 to WB IL 58 (https://goo.gl/maps/6L6FpknkpWH2)
* IL 62 at IL 68 for the EB IL 62 to WB IL 68 movement (https://goo.gl/maps/5zEan332ogK2)
Woah, a slip lane in IL that's unsignalized! Guess I shouldn't be surprised that they opted for stop control, as they are apparently afraid of right-turn-yield situations (never seen one in IL).
I thought we had a thread on yield controlled right turns in Illinois? I think District 8 (Collinsville) had the most. Couple examples:
* One off SB IL 3 in Dupo (https://goo.gl/maps/UcQad7rsecn)
* SB IL 3 at Sand Bank Road in Columbia (https://goo.gl/maps/w29soUuSX6N2)
* IL 157 at IL 3 in Cahokia (appears to also have right turn arrows? (https://goo.gl/maps/93PAxC4tWxz)
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 07:30:48 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 03:42:15 PM
Yup, it's the hierarchy of improvements. Places where right turn volumes aren't high enough to justify signalization, but compliance is low enough that the Yield sign isn't working, and typically in urban areas where pedestrians could be an issue. Note my example above has a mixed use path paralleling the main road. In my other example (https://goo.gl/maps/akRpmEn3WrF2), it's adjacent to the downtown. All in an effort to save a couple thousand dollars from lack of signalization, but you get the indirect "benefit" of an increase in rolling stops. :rolleyes:
I think the way they signalized the right turn (in this example (https://goo.gl/maps/VxAWSjUk9RB2)) from University to Allen is a great alternative to yield signs, assuming funds exist. I guess there wasn't any money left over to replace that yield sign!
I'm assuming you're referring to this one (https://goo.gl/maps/zo2gWbojQ9v)? Your link went to the same unsignalized right-turn. For the record, I have yet to see this one go red (or this over-signalized monstrosity (https://goo.gl/maps/GH7A7s5PKQT2)...yes that's FIVE signals all for a single right-turn lane :pan:). Trust me, they had the money, but because of the volumes, they were lazy and kept the Stop sign. As part of the same project, this was also put in (https://goo.gl/maps/ZhKmkugNPXv). The project spanned from just west of the Hill Farms WisDOT HQ (near Sheboygan Ave) to approximately Allen Blvd. The only way they could have spent more money is if it would have been all concrete. For what it's worth, I don't believe the original right turn movement in question was ever a Yield control. Several in Wisconsin have followed the pattern of Yield sign to Stop sign but I don't think this was one of them.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 07:30:48 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 03:42:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 03:24:01 PM
if a stop sign and signal are so close together that you need to use that sign, perhaps a reconsideration of the traffic control method is in order.
In the city's defense, the right turn volumes are incredibly low at that location. There used to be protected/permissive lefts for the opposing direction (serving the influx of shift traffic from the major employers that used to be just down the road). The Stop sign is a carryover from those days. Back when the left-turn arrows were active, signalized right-turn lanes were uncommon (non-existent in that city). The left-turn arrows are long gone, but the Stop sign will likely remain until the time the intersection is redone (not even on the radar screen).
They could have taken a page from IL and just used green circles for the right turns. I guess this would give priority to right turning traffic...come to think of it, kind of unsure how things work in IL if the right turn has a green circle...
That would have cost extra money to run conduit. As much as an annoyance as it is to drivers, unless the volumes, safety needs, or political will warrants it, they'll always go the cheaper route. Whenever the time does come to rebuild the intersection, I see the EB slip lane disappearing and the NB free-flow right turning into a Stop-controlled lane or pulled back into the main approach altogether. As I eluded to before, traffic patterns have changed dramatically since the current configuration was constructed. I doubt the right turn lanes at that intersection will ever be signalized slip lanes.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 10:47:51 PM
I'm assuming you're referring to this one (https://goo.gl/maps/zo2gWbojQ9v)? Your link went to the same unsignalized right-turn. For the record, I have yet to see this one go red (or this over-signalized monstrosity (https://goo.gl/maps/GH7A7s5PKQT2)...yes that's FIVE signals all for a single right-turn lane :pan:). Trust me, they had the money, but because of the volumes, they were lazy and kept the Stop sign. As part of the same project, this was also put in (https://goo.gl/maps/ZhKmkugNPXv). The project spanned from just west of the Hill Farms WisDOT HQ (near Sheboygan Ave) to approximately Allen Blvd. The only way they could have spent more money is if it would have been all concrete. For what it's worth, I don't believe the original right turn movement in question was ever a Yield control. Several in Wisconsin have followed the pattern of Yield sign to Stop sign but I don't think this was one of them.
Yes, that's the correct slip lane. I copied your link that I cut out when quoting you (to minimize stacking), but since I was referring to that intersection, I just copied your original link for my response. Probably could have just made another one in retrospect :-/.
Anyways, I refuse to acknowledge the concept of over-signalization. I come from an area with virtually no requirements for secondary signals (just cities and counties doing whatever the hell they want, sometimes using them, sometimes not), so I have a strong appreciation for "just in case" signals.
The University/Spring Harbor intersection might be the first signal I've seen in Wisconsin without a secondary through signal face. Obviously the right turn has one, as does the oncoming left and the oncoming through, but nothing extra for northbound traffic. Funny how they can have single-lane right turns with five signal faces, but be unable to find a way to have even one secondary through head for that movement.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 10:47:51 PM
As much as an annoyance as it is to drivers, unless the volumes, safety needs, or political will warrants it, they'll always go the cheaper route. Whenever the time does come to rebuild the intersection, I see the EB slip lane disappearing and the NB free-flow right turning into a Stop-controlled lane or pulled back into the main approach altogether. As I eluded to before, traffic patterns have changed dramatically since the current configuration was constructed. I doubt the right turn lanes at that intersection will ever be signalized slip lanes.
Slip lanes are rapidly disappearing from many WA cities, and even BC has been backing off the idea (despite building them religiously at most intersections for many decades). Honestly, I'd rather right turns occurred at the main intersection box if it meant not having to go through a stop sign for the right turn. If a jurisdiction is gonna build a slip lane, build it right (https://goo.gl/Kh32rc) (with correct angles for improved visibility -- see link), and put in a yield sign or a signal. Or, don't build one at all. But don't cheap out with stop signs. Yuck.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2018, 12:51:28 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 12, 2018, 10:47:51 PM
I'm assuming you're referring to this one (https://goo.gl/maps/zo2gWbojQ9v)? Your link went to the same unsignalized right-turn. For the record, I have yet to see this one go red (or this over-signalized monstrosity (https://goo.gl/maps/GH7A7s5PKQT2)...yes that's FIVE signals all for a single right-turn lane :pan:). Trust me, they had the money, but because of the volumes, they were lazy and kept the Stop sign. As part of the same project, this was also put in (https://goo.gl/maps/ZhKmkugNPXv). The project spanned from just west of the Hill Farms WisDOT HQ (near Sheboygan Ave) to approximately Allen Blvd. The only way they could have spent more money is if it would have been all concrete. For what it's worth, I don't believe the original right turn movement in question was ever a Yield control. Several in Wisconsin have followed the pattern of Yield sign to Stop sign but I don't think this was one of them.
Anyways, I refuse to acknowledge the concept of over-signalization. I come from an area with virtually no requirements for secondary signals (just cities and counties doing whatever the hell they want, sometimes using them, sometimes not), so I have a strong appreciation for "just in case" signals.
The University/Spring Harbor intersection might be the first signal I've seen in Wisconsin without a secondary through signal face. Obviously the right turn has one, as does the oncoming left and the oncoming through, but nothing extra for northbound traffic. Funny how they can have single-lane right turns with five signal faces, but be unable to find a way to have even one secondary through head for that movement.
I assume you're referring to the bike signal. From the Interim Approval for the Bicycle Signal:
Quotei. As a specific exception to Item A in Paragraph 1 of Section 4D.11, a minimum of one primary bicycle signal face shall be provided traffic control for the bicycle movement, even if a bicycle through movement exists.
iii. When the primary bicycle signal face is located more than 120 feet from beyond the stop line, a supplemental near-side bicycle signal face shall be provided.
iv. When the primary bicycle signal face is located more than 80 feet from beyond the stop line, a supplemental near-side bicycle signal face should be provided.
Depending on where you measure, the distance is approximately 80-ft. Based on other installations in the city, they apparently have interpreted the "should" as, "we're not going to": Example 1 (https://goo.gl/maps/CXVZ4gfp75K2). This one bucks one-signal face the trend: Example 2 (https://goo.gl/maps/EghnU4mknj52)
Quote from: DaBigE on November 13, 2018, 09:23:32 AM
This one bucks one-signal face the trend: Example 2 (https://goo.gl/maps/EghnU4mknj52)
How cute, it even has its own small trombone, mounted the traditional Wisconsin way.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 13, 2018, 09:23:32 AM
I assume you're referring to the bike signal.
No, I was referring to the lack of a side-mounted or near-side through signal head for northbound vehicles on University. The normal placement area has, evidently, been taken by bicycle signals. Typically this is when you see two signals mounted right next to each other on a pole (in your "Example 2"), but no attempt was made to do that at the University/Spring Harbor intersection.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 10:22:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2018, 07:50:03 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 07:30:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2018, 04:10:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 03:24:01 PM
Woah, a slip lane in IL that's unsignalized!
There are slip lanes in Illinois, however, where it's unclear whether you have to stop at a red light or not. Take a look at this intersection in Marion (https://goo.gl/maps/x4e8QTDXkHK2), for example. There is a slip lane with a signal next to it made up of right arrows, but no stop bar or crosswalk markings. The geometry and pavement seems to contradict the signal indication.
That is strange. The other slip lanes have stop lines (though very faded), yet no indication that one ever existed for that right turn. I could sort of understand it, if the right turn got its own lane (making the arrow an effective "keep moving" signal), but that's obviously not the case. I guess they just want drivers to stop before entering the "intersection control area"?
While they are certainly rare, slip lanes do exist in Illinois without restriction. Just down Route 13 from that other intersection is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/vfXeTZq4Nv32) (very near where I briefly worked a miserable temp job at a Circuit City distribution center 12½ years ago) with no restriction at all.
I assume the idea is to follow the lead of the signals to the left?
Well, you might assume that, but I wouldn't. I would treat that as a normal merge situation, wherein no stop is required if no cross-traffic is approaching.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2018, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 13, 2018, 09:23:32 AM
I assume you're referring to the bike signal.
No, I was referring to the lack of a side-mounted or near-side through signal head for northbound vehicles on University. The normal placement area has, evidently, been taken by bicycle signals. Typically this is when you see two signals mounted right next to each other on a pole (in your "Example 2"), but no attempt was made to do that at the University/Spring Harbor intersection.
Yeah, they could have easily put a near-side on the left. Not sure why they didn't; however, left-side near signals aren't nearly as common when there isn't a left-turn lane for the approach. This one (https://goo.gl/maps/5HJV3d1eno12) lacks a near-side through signal as well. Despite having the pole already there, that one was done as someone's grand idea of how to save money.
I don't like them, makes no sense. But I can't think of many. There's one near where I used to live in Bend: Street View Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0287414,-121.3129845,3a,74.1y,111.87h,89.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXtqB8_NTmJb2SiMMe3Gt-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). I don't remember how people usually treated it, I almost always turned left there so I didn't really pay much attention to it.
But I can't think of any in the Boise area. We have lots of Yields. (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.61106,-116.1931804,3a,75y,156.07h,87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1ghFg4jVCVK4QpdlEi1Udg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) We have signals (these are fine, as they're green when thru traffic is green, and you can RTOR), which are not on GSV as they were recently added to the Cole/Overland intersection. Even some with no restrictions as they form a new lane (and about 30% of people stop and wait anyways :pan: )Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6079834,-116.1934368,3a,41.3y,320.25h,87.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svDGsz_jV7p2htOineYqebQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DvDGsz_jV7p2htOineYqebQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D328.49777%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: kphoger on November 13, 2018, 02:04:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 10:22:54 PM
I assume the idea is to follow the lead of the signals to the left?
Well, you might assume that, but I wouldn't. I would treat that as a normal merge situation, wherein no stop is required if no cross-traffic is approaching.
But there are no signs or markings that indicate that. Merges that I'm familiar with are marked by at least one of these: markings (of any type), yield signs, merge signs, add-lane signs, stop signs, signals, etc. One with nothing is not something I'm familiar with. I guess I'd follow the "boulevard" rule, which would give priority to the entering road.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 13, 2018, 02:39:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2018, 12:59:20 PM
I was referring to the lack of a side-mounted or near-side through signal head for northbound vehicles on University. The normal placement area has, evidently, been taken by bicycle signals. Typically this is when you see two signals mounted right next to each other on a pole (in your "Example 2"), but no attempt was made to do that at the University/Spring Harbor intersection.
Yeah, they could have easily put a near-side on the left. Not sure why they didn't; however, left-side near signals aren't nearly as common when there isn't a left-turn lane for the approach. This one (https://goo.gl/maps/5HJV3d1eno12) lacks a near-side through signal as well. Despite having the pole already there, that one was done as someone's grand idea of how to save money.
At least at that second intersection, the second primary signal face is in a "supplemental" position. Better than two overhead, equally-invisible-behind-trucks, signals (ie University @ Spring Harbor).
Quote from: doorknob60 on November 13, 2018, 05:48:49 PM
I don't like them, makes no sense. But I can't think of many. There's one near where I used to live in Bend: Street View Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0287414,-121.3129845,3a,74.1y,111.87h,89.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXtqB8_NTmJb2SiMMe3Gt-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). I don't remember how people usually treated it, I almost always turned left there so I didn't really pay much attention to it.
I remember seeing this one in Bend as well, though not nearly as bad as that first example you gave: https://goo.gl/kNs4fr
This one in Tucson, AZ is pretty gross:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1900319,-110.90553,3a,49.8y,97.4h,86.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srvtl6c8N7DzSZyx8Pl-a0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: bcroadguy on November 15, 2018, 04:13:47 AM
This one in Tucson, AZ is pretty gross:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1900319,-110.90553,3a,49.8y,97.4h,86.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srvtl6c8N7DzSZyx8Pl-a0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Jesus, no kidding. All that room and that was the best setup they could come up with? Tucson normally has my admiration, but they lost a tiny bit here.
Knowing Arizona drivers, I get the feeling that stop sign is barely acknowledged.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 15, 2018, 04:29:09 AM
Quote from: bcroadguy on November 15, 2018, 04:13:47 AM
This one in Tucson, AZ is pretty gross:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1900319,-110.90553,3a,49.8y,97.4h,86.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srvtl6c8N7DzSZyx8Pl-a0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Jesus, no kidding. All that room and that was the best setup they could come up with? Tucson normally has my admiration, but they lost a tiny bit here.
Knowing Arizona drivers, I get the feeling that stop sign is barely acknowledged.
I think it's especially bad because the ramp parallels the through lanes for so long. By the time you reach the actual merge point, if you haven't yet figured out how to merge between two vehicles, you need your license revoked anyway.
The off-ramps from I-95/128 to North Ave/Walkers Brook Drive in Wakefield MA have both traffic lights and "free" right turns. When originally put in, the turns had Yield signs, which is correct for this type of treatment. About two months later, the Town replaced the Yield signs with Stop signs. Shortly thereafter, the MassHighway District changed the Stop signs back to Yield signs. Sure enough, the Town eventually changed the Yield signs back to Stop signs.
When the signals at this location were last upgraded to reflect yet another retail development on Walkers Brook Drive, the Stop signs were again replaced with Yield signs. So far, the newest Yield signs have remained in place.
Quote from: roadman on November 15, 2018, 10:39:08 AM
The off-ramps from I-95/128 to North Ave/Walkers Brook Drive in Wakefield MA have both traffic lights and "free" right turns. When originally put in, the turns had Yield signs, which is correct for this type of treatment. About two months later, the Town replaced the Yield signs with Stop signs. Shortly thereafter, the MassHighway District changed the Stop signs back to Yield signs. Sure enough, the Town eventually changed the Yield signs back to Stop signs.
When the signals at this location were last upgraded to reflect yet another retail development on Walkers Brook Drive, the Stop signs were again replaced with Yield signs. So far, the newest Yield signs have remained in place.
Why can both the town and the state swap signs?
Just found another one of these bastards. Spokane, at the intersection of Monroe and W 14th: https://goo.gl/hauXXi
The entire intersection was rebuilt (and narrowed) a couple years ago, but the signals remain from the old setup (with text-only ped signals). Annoyingly, the stop signs were carried over as well.
Every bloody slip lane has one at this intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/wmoeoLLhUVJ2). Even more frustrating is that a couple of the Stop signs are mounted to signal poles with wiring already to them. :banghead:
Quote from: DaBigE on November 19, 2018, 01:36:20 AM
Every bloody slip lane has one at this intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/wmoeoLLhUVJ2). Even more frustrating is that a couple of the Stop signs are mounted to signal poles with wiring already to them. :banghead:
I am willing to forgive installations where there is no conduit availability. This is unforgivable.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 14, 2018, 01:35:34 AM
Quote from: doorknob60 on November 13, 2018, 05:48:49 PM
I don't like them, makes no sense. But I can't think of many. There's one near where I used to live in Bend: Street View Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0287414,-121.3129845,3a,74.1y,111.87h,89.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXtqB8_NTmJb2SiMMe3Gt-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). I don't remember how people usually treated it, I almost always turned left there so I didn't really pay much attention to it.
I remember seeing this one in Bend as well, though not nearly as bad as that first example you gave: https://goo.gl/kNs4fr
Oh yeah, I used that one all the time. That one never bothered me as much, because it was less of a slip lane and more of a glorified RIRO, and it was onto a 45 MPH expressway (where traffic is often 55-60). Though, they should really just redesign it with a proper acceleration/merge lane.
Quote from: doorknob60 on November 20, 2018, 05:06:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 14, 2018, 01:35:34 AM
Quote from: doorknob60 on November 13, 2018, 05:48:49 PM
I don't like them, makes no sense. But I can't think of many. There's one near where I used to live in Bend: Street View Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0287414,-121.3129845,3a,74.1y,111.87h,89.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXtqB8_NTmJb2SiMMe3Gt-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). I don't remember how people usually treated it, I almost always turned left there so I didn't really pay much attention to it.
I remember seeing this one in Bend as well, though not nearly as bad as that first example you gave: https://goo.gl/kNs4fr
Oh yeah, I used that one all the time. That one never bothered me as much, because it was less of a slip lane and more of a glorified RIRO, and it was onto a 45 MPH expressway (where traffic is often 55-60). Though, they should really just redesign it with a proper acceleration/merge lane.
Even so, most slip lanes have no merge area but still use yield signs. The Bend example has plenty of visibility on the approach, thus a full stop should not be required.
If we're including on-ramps, then one example I know is the EB on-ramp for Highway 58 from Pine St in Thorold, ON. The merge is short (especially for Ontario), but there's okay visibility leading up to the merge. I'm not sure how I feel about this one.
https://goo.gl/maps/3j7H9aDP3yE2 (https://goo.gl/maps/3j7H9aDP3yE2)
Quote from: 7/8 on November 22, 2018, 10:40:01 PM
If we're including on-ramps, then one example I know is the EB on-ramp for Highway 58 from Pine St in Thorold, ON. The merge is short (especially for Ontario), but there's okay visibility leading up to the merge. I'm not sure how I feel about this one.
https://goo.gl/maps/3j7H9aDP3yE2 (https://goo.gl/maps/3j7H9aDP3yE2)
Plenty of room for a proper merge. That goes into the "silly" bin.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2018, 11:57:00 PM
Plenty of room for a proper merge. That goes into the "silly" bin.
It's Canada, so that would be the "loonie" bin.
Quote from: kphoger on November 23, 2018, 09:24:55 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2018, 11:57:00 PM
Plenty of room for a proper merge. That goes into the "silly" bin.
It's Canada, so that would be the "loonie" bin.
Bin full of dollars! :-D
On an intersection in Mexico posted by kphoger in another thread: https://goo.gl/maps/o8HULPQXedF2
The ALTO sign is a bit ahead of a slip lane by a signal.
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on December 04, 2018, 11:08:41 PM
On an intersection in Mexico posted by kphoger in another thread: https://goo.gl/maps/o8HULPQXedF2
The ALTO sign is a bit ahead of a slip lane by a signal.
That seems like odd placement for the sign. I hope they don't intend for traffic to stop at that point. Nevermind stopping at all.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 12, 2018, 10:04:58 AM
These off the NJ Turnpike Exit 3 looks like the perfect yield situations, but each has a stop sign. https://goo.gl/maps/g3fosPsjJ652.
Your posted link is for Exit 2. Either of these two below-GSVs are for Exit 3:
Onto NJ 168 Northbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8617712,-75.0771812,3a,75y,315.71h,78.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjfpN3PynswkcUwzv08OftA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Onto NJ 168 Southbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8618822,-75.0776929,3a,75y,124.11h,70.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2_vT2MNoYsekBfZ4YTmNNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 12, 2018, 10:04:58 AM
It's possible you could argue the nearby driveways would require a stop sign at these locations.
I would think that the reasoning for STOP signs instead of YIELD signs at the Exit 3 locations have more to do with the traffic volumes/congestion along the Black Horse Pike (NJ 168); the above northbound-GSV show such.
^^
A ramp meter might be more desirable in these locations, if the merging issues occur primarily during rush hour.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2018, 01:19:20 PM
^^
A ramp meter might be more desirable in these locations, if the merging issues occur primarily during rush hour.
At present, I don't believe NJDOT, NJTA (NJ Turnpike & GSP) and/or SJTA (AC Expressway) has/uses any on their roadways.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2018, 01:17:13 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on December 04, 2018, 11:08:41 PM
On an intersection in Mexico posted by kphoger in another thread: https://goo.gl/maps/o8HULPQXedF2
The ALTO sign is a bit ahead of a slip lane by a signal.
That seems like odd placement for the sign. I hope they don't intend for traffic to stop at that point. Nevermind stopping at all.
My friend, if weird placement of stop signs is something that bothers you, then please do not drive in Mexico.
Quote from: kphoger on December 05, 2018, 02:21:51 PM
My friend, if weird placement of stop signs is something that bothers you, then please do not drive in Mexico.
Point taken.
Are there any roundabouts in Mexico with yield signs? Seems like they all have stop signs, from what I've seen.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2018, 02:44:58 PM
Are there any roundabouts in Mexico with yield signs? Seems like they all have stop signs, from what I've seen.
Not sure. I've only driven through a handful of traffic circles in Mexico and, as I recall, they all were either uncontrolled or had stop signs on some but not all of the approaches (essentially designating a through-route).
So this is fucked.
The off-ramp from the eastbound Boeing Freeway (Hwy 526) to Evergreen Way in Everett, WA has a double right turn: one via a slip lane, another via the intersection (for traffic turning left immediately to the right). The right turn at the intersection is, as you might imagine, signalized. But the right turn via the slip lane has a stop sign. This means that traffic turning right with a green light can proceed without stopping, but traffic via the slip lane must stop...over, and over, and over. Ridiculous.
https://goo.gl/maps/bv6DREFexGH7qK686
(https://i.imgur.com/ZDHZx4b.png)
Quote from: jakeroot on August 24, 2019, 03:02:01 AM
So this is fucked.
The off-ramp from the eastbound Boeing Freeway (Hwy 526) to Evergreen Way in Everett, WA has a double right turn: one via a slip lane, another via the intersection (for traffic turning left immediately to the right). The right turn at the intersection is, as you might imagine, signalized. But the right turn via the slip lane has a stop sign. This means that traffic turning right with a green light can proceed without stopping, but traffic via the slip lane must stop...over, and over, and over. Ridiculous.
https://goo.gl/maps/bv6DREFexGH7qK686
(https://i.imgur.com/ZDHZx4b.png)
The hell? My god WSDot what were y'all thinking, I'd remove the slip lane tbh.
iPhone
Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 24, 2019, 06:52:16 AM
I'd remove the slip lane tbh.
No. You re-stripe it to eliminate the movement through the signal, and replace the stop sign with a yield sign (or perhaps just remove it entirely).
Just after that turn is this odd side. So they don't mind if you just sit around in the grass and weeds prior to this sign? https://goo.gl/maps/UXShAXU59vqoom6ZA
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2018, 11:57:00 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on November 22, 2018, 10:40:01 PM
If we're including on-ramps, then one example I know is the EB on-ramp for Highway 58 from Pine St in Thorold, ON. The merge is short (especially for Ontario), but there's okay visibility leading up to the merge. I'm not sure how I feel about this one.
https://goo.gl/maps/3j7H9aDP3yE2 (https://goo.gl/maps/3j7H9aDP3yE2)
Plenty of room for a proper merge. That goes into the "silly" bin.
Just seeing this now.. I actually use that ramp with some frequency. The problem is that, because of the tunnel, there's no shoulder or any extended margin for error if something goes off the rails. I personally would be fine with a regular merge, or even a yield sign, but I can see why they might not trust the competence of the average driver.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 24, 2019, 07:45:30 AM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 24, 2019, 06:52:16 AM
I'd remove the slip lane tbh.
No. You re-stripe it to eliminate the movement through the signal, and replace the stop sign with a yield sign (or perhaps just remove it entirely).
You don't eliminate the movement through the signal because it's needed to allow for proper access to the left-turn lane. In the screenshot above, the Jeep Cherokee (or similar) beyond the white van is waiting in a left-turn-only lane. There's at least one more vehicle behind the Jeep. If the minivan driver wanted to turn left, he'd have to stop in a thru lane and then try to cut the line (that's what people around here would do!), so the proper way to do it is to turn right at the light so you're at the end of the line waiting to turn left.
I suspect the stop sign is there because people not wanting to go to the turn lane will turn right at the light when it's green (I would, if I knew there were a stop sign!), such that having a "Yield" sign might result in too many crashes? I sort of wonder whether the slip lane is there for times when the left-turn lane around the corner is full and people wanting to access it are unable to turn right, so they provide an alternate movement? But there's really only room for one vehicle to the left of the pork chop island anyway, so who knows how helpful that is.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 24, 2019, 11:12:18 AM
You don't eliminate the movement through the signal because it's needed to allow for proper access to the left-turn lane. In the screenshot above, the Jeep Cherokee (or similar) beyond the white van is waiting in a left-turn-only lane. There's at least one more vehicle behind the Jeep. If the minivan driver wanted to turn left, he'd have to stop in a thru lane and then try to cut the line (that's what people around here would do!), so the proper way to do it is to turn right at the light so you're at the end of the line waiting to turn left.
Huh? There's a dedicated left-turn lane, a straight-through/left turn option lane, and the weird right-turn lane. How does the right-turn lane affect the left-turn lane two lanes away? All I was suggesting was making the right-turn lane
only use the slip lane.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 24, 2019, 04:27:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 24, 2019, 11:12:18 AM
You don't eliminate the movement through the signal because it's needed to allow for proper access to the left-turn lane. In the screenshot above, the Jeep Cherokee (or similar) beyond the white van is waiting in a left-turn-only lane. There's at least one more vehicle behind the Jeep. If the minivan driver wanted to turn left, he'd have to stop in a thru lane and then try to cut the line (that's what people around here would do!), so the proper way to do it is to turn right at the light so you're at the end of the line waiting to turn left.
Huh? There's a dedicated left-turn lane, a straight-through/left turn option lane, and the weird right-turn lane. How does the right-turn lane affect the left-turn lane two lanes away? All I was suggesting was making the right-turn lane only use the slip lane.
I'm talking about access to the left-turn lane around the corner–the one you might want to reach AFTER you turn right. Not the left-turn lanes on the ramp. The slip lane doesn't provide proper access to the turn lane on the other street.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 24, 2019, 04:49:38 PM
I'm talking about access to the left-turn lane around the corner–the one you might want to reach AFTER you turn right. Not the left-turn lanes on the ramp. The slip lane doesn't provide proper access to the turn lane on the other street.
Ooh, okay. That makes much more sense. I didn't see that.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 24, 2019, 05:06:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 24, 2019, 04:49:38 PM
I'm talking about access to the left-turn lane around the corner–the one you might want to reach AFTER you turn right. Not the left-turn lanes on the ramp. The slip lane doesn't provide proper access to the turn lane on the other street.
Ooh, okay. That makes much more sense. I didn't see that.
I didn't see it at first either until I looked at Street View, although jakeroot did mention it in the original post about that spot (reply #57 in this thread). Once I saw it on Street View, the separate turn lane via the signal made more sense.
Jesus, my link got a fair amount of traction.
I would say the easiest fix would just be to replace the right turn with a yield sign. Ideally, both turns would have a signal, but it's fine as-is (minus the STOP sign).
Now that I'm thinking about it from a technical standpoint, right turns (and left turns) are required to "follow the curb" (RCW 46.61.290) but the law does allow exceptions, such as when markings dictate a different maneuver. That's not the case here. If someone turned right from the left-most right turn lane, directly into the right lane, would traffic using the stop sign be required to yield to the other right turn lane?
:spin:
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 24, 2019, 11:12:18 AM
You don't eliminate the movement through the signal because it's needed to allow for proper access to the left-turn lane. In the screenshot above, the Jeep Cherokee (or similar) beyond the white van is waiting in a left-turn-only lane. There's at least one more vehicle behind the Jeep. If the minivan driver wanted to turn left, he'd have to stop in a thru lane and then try to cut the line (that's what people around here would do!), so the proper way to do it is to turn right at the light so you're at the end of the line waiting to turn left.
I suspect the stop sign is there because people not wanting to go to the turn lane will turn right at the light when it's green (I would, if I knew there were a stop sign!), such that having a "Yield" sign might result in too many crashes? I sort of wonder whether the slip lane is there for times when the left-turn lane around the corner is full and people wanting to access it are unable to turn right, so they provide an alternate movement? But there's really only room for one vehicle to the left of the pork chop island anyway, so who knows how helpful that is.
One alternative is to put in a small curb/divider (whatever they're called) to keep motorists from cutting into the turn lane from the slip lane, like here (https://goo.gl/maps/Au83iMJUWmGhEkc37).
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on August 25, 2019, 06:50:48 PM
One alternative is to put in a small curb/divider (whatever they're called) to keep motorists from cutting into the turn lane from the slip lane, like here (https://goo.gl/maps/Au83iMJUWmGhEkc37).
I got totally thrown by that exact curb/divider a few months ago. I didn't see anything mentioning turning right at the signal for that left turn (and it doesn't seem designed for it either); ended up doing a U-turn, though other cars knew what they were doing and turned at the signal.
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on August 25, 2019, 06:50:48 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 24, 2019, 11:12:18 AM
You don't eliminate the movement through the signal because it's needed to allow for proper access to the left-turn lane. In the screenshot above, the Jeep Cherokee (or similar) beyond the white van is waiting in a left-turn-only lane. There's at least one more vehicle behind the Jeep. If the minivan driver wanted to turn left, he'd have to stop in a thru lane and then try to cut the line (that's what people around here would do!), so the proper way to do it is to turn right at the light so you're at the end of the line waiting to turn left.
I suspect the stop sign is there because people not wanting to go to the turn lane will turn right at the light when it's green (I would, if I knew there were a stop sign!), such that having a "Yield" sign might result in too many crashes? I sort of wonder whether the slip lane is there for times when the left-turn lane around the corner is full and people wanting to access it are unable to turn right, so they provide an alternate movement? But there's really only room for one vehicle to the left of the pork chop island anyway, so who knows how helpful that is.
One alternative is to put in a small curb/divider (whatever they're called) to keep motorists from cutting into the turn lane from the slip lane, like here (https://goo.gl/maps/Au83iMJUWmGhEkc37).
Yup. Here's one local to my area: https://goo.gl/maps/eJ4jjPNymeKwTi1aA I just assumed for whatever reason the local DOT in jakeroot's link had ruled out that option.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 06:22:39 PM
Now that I'm thinking about it from a technical standpoint, right turns (and left turns) are required to "follow the curb" (RCW 46.61.290) but the law does allow exceptions, such as when markings dictate a different maneuver. That's not the case here. If someone turned right from the left-most right turn lane, directly into the right lane, would traffic using the stop sign be required to yield to the other right turn lane?
Yes.
Quote from: kphoger on August 26, 2019, 01:18:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 06:22:39 PM
Now that I'm thinking about it from a technical standpoint, right turns (and left turns) are required to "follow the curb" (RCW 46.61.290) but the law does allow exceptions, such as when markings dictate a different maneuver. That's not the case here. If someone turned right from the left-most right turn lane, directly into the right lane, would traffic using the stop sign be required to yield to the other right turn lane?
Yes.
Outrageous. Would never happen IRL but it's funny to think about.
We really need some of those here,
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5909846,-77.3782451,3a,75y,266.09h,88.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWKrk47xEcghFqLyM-jFiMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Because look at this. I'm sure slip lanes with stop signs will do for this intersection! This one is clogged.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 03:45:38 PM
We really need some of those here,
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5909846,-77.3782451,3a,75y,266.09h,88.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWKrk47xEcghFqLyM-jFiMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Because look at this. I'm sure slip lanes with stop signs will do for this intersection! This one is clogged.
Yield signs would work better on this one.
SM-G965U
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 03:45:38 PM
We really need some of those here,
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5909846,-77.3782451,3a,75y,266.09h,88.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWKrk47xEcghFqLyM-jFiMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Because look at this. I'm sure slip lanes with stop signs will do for this intersection! This one is clogged.
Yield signs would work better on this one.
SM-G965U
Guess so, because some times of the day it's clear, and it's crowded. NCDOT needs to come up with an improvement of that intersection or make it a continuous flow intersection. that intersection carries more than 40,000 vehicles per day.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 04:39:36 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 03:45:38 PM
We really need some of those here,
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5909846,-77.3782451,3a,75y,266.09h,88.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWKrk47xEcghFqLyM-jFiMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Because look at this. I'm sure slip lanes with stop signs will do for this intersection! This one is clogged.
Yield signs would work better on this one.
SM-G965U
Guess so, because some times of the day it's clear, and it's crowded. NCDOT needs to come up with an improvement of that intersection or make it a continuous flow intersection. that intersection carries more than 40,000 vehicles per day.
If you have a slip lane, they either need to be signalized (a la Wisconsin practice) or posted with yield signs. The idea is for them to be separate from the main intersection, but drivers can clue-into their priority at the yield point based on the adjacent signal. With stop signs, you'd just have a bunch of drivers who would either ignore the stop sign and turn if safe, or drivers who would turn at the intersection instead, cutting off the slip lane traffic because the stop sign is needlessly slowing traffic down.
With this all in mind, slip lanes are becoming less common. Places like Washington State and British Columbia continue to construct them along expressways and freeway interchanges, but they are becoming less common in urban areas because they A) make intersections quite large, and B) conflict with pedestrians with disabilities, plus drivers a tendency to ignore people waiting to cross the slip lane anyway.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2019, 11:15:47 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 04:39:36 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 03:45:38 PM
We really need some of those here,
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5909846,-77.3782451,3a,75y,266.09h,88.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWKrk47xEcghFqLyM-jFiMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Because look at this. I'm sure slip lanes with stop signs will do for this intersection! This one is clogged.
Yield signs would work better on this one.
SM-G965U
Guess so, because some times of the day it's clear, and it's crowded. NCDOT needs to come up with an improvement of that intersection or make it a continuous flow intersection. that intersection carries more than 40,000 vehicles per day.
If you have a slip lane, they either need to be signalized (a la Wisconsin practice) or posted with yield signs. The idea is for them to be separate from the main intersection, but drivers can clue-into their priority at the yield point based on the adjacent signal. With stop signs, you'd just have a bunch of drivers who would either ignore the stop sign and turn if safe, or drivers who would turn at the intersection instead, cutting off the slip lane traffic because the stop sign is needlessly slowing traffic down.
With this all in mind, slip lanes are becoming less common. Places like Washington State and British Columbia continue to construct them along expressways and freeway interchanges, but they are becoming less common in urban areas because they A) make intersections quite large, and B) conflict with pedestrians with disabilities, plus drivers a tendency to ignore people waiting to cross the slip lane anyway.
That's great to know, because that intersection is a dangerous stretch.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 03:45:38 PM
We really need some of those here,
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5909846,-77.3782451,3a,75y,266.09h,88.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWKrk47xEcghFqLyM-jFiMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Because look at this. I'm sure slip lanes with stop signs will do for this intersection! This one is clogged.
Yield signs would work better on this one.
SM-G965U
Or a sign that says "Stop here on red"! There was one in Goldsboro that got removed for unknown reasons.
2009
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3981809,-78.0072356,3a,75y,42.28h,86.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scNSXNIXLcmQJasfwlQS9ww!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
2016
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3980624,-78.0074131,3a,75y,31.85h,86.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjr9lQy3T-ILaJbmbM_z3Kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Any reasons why that was removed?
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 13, 2020, 09:50:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 12, 2020, 10:17:16 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 12, 2020, 08:11:35 PM
Any reasons why that was removed?
Why what?
The last post I posted. Why the slip lane was removed.
Jesus, what made you ask now? :-D
Slip lanes are usually removed because of pedestrian concerns. Whether it makes a difference or not is debatable.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2020, 02:40:12 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 13, 2020, 09:50:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 12, 2020, 10:17:16 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 12, 2020, 08:11:35 PM
Any reasons why that was removed?
Why what?
The last post I posted. Why the slip lane was removed.
Jesus, what made you ask now? :-D
Slip lanes are usually removed because of pedestrian concerns. Whether it makes a difference or not is debatable.
Just curious, lol
Quote from: kphoger on November 15, 2018, 10:26:37 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 15, 2018, 04:29:09 AM
Quote from: bcroadguy on November 15, 2018, 04:13:47 AM
This one in Tucson, AZ is pretty gross:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1900319,-110.90553,3a,49.8y,97.4h,86.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srvtl6c8N7DzSZyx8Pl-a0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Jesus, no kidding. All that room and that was the best setup they could come up with? Tucson normally has my admiration, but they lost a tiny bit here.
Knowing Arizona drivers, I get the feeling that stop sign is barely acknowledged.
I think it's especially bad because the ramp parallels the through lanes for so long. By the time you reach the actual merge point, if you haven't yet figured out how to merge between two vehicles, you need your license revoked anyway.
Given the vertical curbs and lack of shoulder space downstream of the merge, I am almost certain the standards at the time this road was built warranted the placement of a STOP sign instead of YIELD.
Honestly given the AADT on this portion of Aviation Parkway, it would make sense to either trap the right eastbound lane at the Alvernon exit, or drop the lane prior to this on-ramp and let the entrance ramp utilize the space, since that right lane goes away and the whole thing merges onto Golf Links Road just a few hundred yards downstream anyway.
Then you have this setup on the other side of the same interchange, controlled with a YIELD sign and complete with business driveways to contend with. Needless to say the whole area's kind of messy as far as access control goes.
https://goo.gl/maps/og6p7qFQYoWajP8E7
Elsewhere in Tucson, the right turn at Wilmot and Speedway is controlled with a slip lane and stop signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/zhGP2DuXCkFDin9X8
Golf Links at Houghton:
https://goo.gl/maps/F7rjMF7q1eC4kSnn6
I'm sure there's plenty of other examples throughout the city, though none come to mind. They used to have stop signs at 22nd and Alvernon, finally replaced with YIELD signs several years ago.
Apology if this has been posted already, but here's one
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1542903,-80.8483677,3a,75y,47.71h,76.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh4jLayaBxdCHMISYOqzHTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Although I don't really like how they made this intersection really.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 26, 2021, 08:46:22 PM
Apology if this has been posted already, but here's one
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1542903,-80.8483677,3a,75y,47.71h,76.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh4jLayaBxdCHMISYOqzHTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Although I don't really like how they made this intersection really.
Not posted yet that I can tell.
They could have likely kept that as a yield by reducing the size of the gore area. Painting it in the
WA/CA style (https://goo.gl/maps/1cvFkrfE1B2v6yt39) could have drastically increased the merge area.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 26, 2021, 08:46:22 PM
Apology if this has been posted already, but here's one
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1542903,-80.8483677,3a,75y,47.71h,76.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh4jLayaBxdCHMISYOqzHTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Although I don't really like how they made this intersection really.
Neither do I. That should absolutely be a yield sign there. An accident is waiting to happen from someone not expecting to have to stop.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 29, 2021, 01:16:54 PM
That should absolutely be a yield sign there. An accident is waiting to happen from someone not expecting to have to stop.
It does highlight the odd ways that municipalities approach slip lanes.
For example: quite a few examples in this thread resemble a merge (like the above North Carolina example) rather than a
traditional slip lane (https://goo.gl/maps/xLMwQJoyCcfNjod37). You would think these would be more likely to be a yield, yet they end up as stop signs.
I suspect this is because slip lanes that are more like a merge are (surprise, surprise) more likely to encourage drivers to actually merge rather than yield, as is the case at a traditional slip lane (where you stop right at the edge and wait for a gap as necessary). There's nothing wrong with a merge, unless there's no merge area. And even then, it's only a problem if drivers consistently try to merge regardless of whether a gap exists or not.
Basically: slip lanes with no merge area and excellent visibility likely have much higher rates of successful yielding than a half-assed merge area.
this is the intersection i mentioned earlier in the thread (slow link at home).
https://goo.gl/maps/GeDn9QPLP6zXjTLs9 (https://goo.gl/maps/GeDn9QPLP6zXjTLs9)
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on March 29, 2021, 01:54:02 PM
this is the intersection i mentioned earlier in the thread (slow link at home).
https://goo.gl/maps/GeDn9QPLP6zXjTLs9 (https://goo.gl/maps/GeDn9QPLP6zXjTLs9)
I feel like that stop sign would normally be a yield sign, but was kept as a stop sign because the old intersection (that only had slip lanes in two corners) used a stop sign there as well. The other slip lane was changed to yield sign likely because it was substantially rebuilt enough for them to reconsider the type of control.
But I'm no engineer. That's entirely a guess. Even in situations of high speed limits or even low visibility, it seems like most slip lanes are still yields.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2021, 02:22:09 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on March 29, 2021, 01:54:02 PM
this is the intersection i mentioned earlier in the thread (slow link at home).
https://goo.gl/maps/GeDn9QPLP6zXjTLs9 (https://goo.gl/maps/GeDn9QPLP6zXjTLs9)
I feel like that stop sign would normally be a yield sign, but was kept as a stop sign because the old intersection (that only had slip lanes in two corners) used a stop sign there as well. The other slip lane was changed to yield sign likely because it was substantially rebuilt enough for them to reconsider the type of control.
But I'm no engineer. That's entirely a guess. Even in situations of high speed limits or even low visibility, it seems like most slip lanes are still yields.
i actually posted this to the wrong thread.. was supposed to go to 'things that need to be signaized' or something like that.
regardless... that intersection is a deathtrap.
Or they can put a signal that says "Stop here on Red".
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 29, 2021, 09:26:20 PM
Or they can put a signal that says "Stop here on Red".
Kind of a redundant sign, honestly, unless the stop line is in a weird spot.
Also remember that "stop here on red" is not a substitute for "no turn on red". They both mean what they say, but the former still allows turns on red.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 30, 2021, 02:59:40 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 29, 2021, 09:26:20 PM
Or they can put a signal that says "Stop here on Red".
Kind of a redundant sign, honestly, unless the stop line is in a weird spot.
Also remember that "stop here on red" is not a substitute for "no turn on red". They both mean what they say, but the former still allows turns on red.
Normally those are used if there are MANY cars using that lane. Ramp meters have them and they are activated only at certain times of the day.
How is this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8427259,-78.8877448,3a,75y,255.32h,87.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYDbRMcNa0BaSDhV1LS6Bxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) one and this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8044105,-78.4299866,3a,75y,230.88h,77.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx07VkY5eFOelNTMWrHXOPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) one different?
The first one looks like that if it's safe, you can go.
Seems like with the second one, you DO have to wait until the light turns green.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 30, 2021, 07:04:41 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 30, 2021, 02:59:40 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 29, 2021, 09:26:20 PM
Or they can put a signal that says "Stop here on Red".
Kind of a redundant sign, honestly, unless the stop line is in a weird spot.
Also remember that "stop here on red" is not a substitute for "no turn on red". They both mean what they say, but the former still allows turns on red.
Normally those are used if there are MANY cars using that lane. Ramp meters have them and they are activated only at certain times of the day.
How is this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8427259,-78.8877448,3a,75y,255.32h,87.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYDbRMcNa0BaSDhV1LS6Bxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) one and this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8044105,-78.4299866,3a,75y,230.88h,77.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx07VkY5eFOelNTMWrHXOPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) one different?
The first one looks like that if it's safe, you can go.
Seems like with the second one, you DO have to wait until the light turns green.
I suspect they're common at ramp meters because many ramp meters use stop-line signals, which is quite unusual compared to standard signals which are overhead and usually a few dozen feet ahead of where people stop.
In both of those cases: right on red is likely permitted. It would be easy enough to argue that the overall maneuver is a right turn even if the maneuver beyond the stop line is more of a straight-on movement.
Good example would be
this off-ramp in Tacoma, Wash (https://goo.gl/maps/nqRdrLE5cczndvQa6), where the overall maneuver is more straight but 'no turn on red' signs are still utilized. Because drivers are overall turning "right" off the freeway, they may interpret this movement as more of a right turn and will turn on red.
Nearby is
this movement (https://goo.gl/maps/v2o1JDoxGaTJpNtC7) which many interpret as more of a straight maneuver than a right turn. I personally will proceed here on red, but others don't. It's like a 50-50 split and I'd love a sign to either confirm or deny my suspicion ("right on red OK after stop" or "no turn on red").
Quote
Nearby is this movement (https://goo.gl/maps/v2o1JDoxGaTJpNtC7) which many interpret as more of a straight maneuver than a right turn. I personally will proceed here on red, but others don't. It's like a 50-50 split and I'd love a sign to either confirm or deny my suspicion ("right on red OK after stop" or "no turn on red").
This whole intersection makes me cringe: I don't like the signal poles bolted down at pavement level with no surrounding islands to protect their bases. I'm also not a fan of the slip lane going from Westbound Tacoma Mall to Southbound Steele. If a car, or a truck pulling a trailer turns the tiniest bit wide, they run the risk of sideswiping through traffic on southbound Steele. At least there's a painted median they can drive over if there's concern about deviating from the turn path. Then you have the second turn lane going from southbound Steel to Tacoma Mall, which leaves any car choosing to queue in it vulnerable to having their right rear bumper smashed.
It seems like it would be very easy to reconfigure the s-e and n-w movements as the obvious primary route, put steele south of the intersection on a road diet, and swing it into a T intersection with tighter curb radii.
Here's an interesting location (https://goo.gl/maps/s7qrLf3GM5v9uCxG8) where the stoplight is on a curve, and a 'NO TURN ON RED' sign is used for the seemingly straight-through movement. Technically, the street name changes from Seneca to Central at this intersection, but I don't know if that has anything to do with it.
^^ Could it be that someone was ticketed going through the intersection on red and had the ticket thrown out saying they were making a right turn on red?
Quote from: JKRhodes on March 30, 2021, 11:43:50 PM
Quote
Nearby is this movement (https://goo.gl/maps/v2o1JDoxGaTJpNtC7) which many interpret as more of a straight maneuver than a right turn. I personally will proceed here on red, but others don't. It's like a 50-50 split and I'd love a sign to either confirm or deny my suspicion ("right on red OK after stop" or "no turn on red").
This whole intersection makes me cringe: I don't like the signal poles bolted down at pavement level with no surrounding islands to protect their bases. I'm also not a fan of the slip lane going from Westbound Tacoma Mall to Southbound Steele. If a car, or a truck pulling a trailer turns the tiniest bit wide, they run the risk of sideswiping through traffic on southbound Steele. At least there's a painted median they can drive over if there's concern about deviating from the turn path. Then you have the second turn lane going from southbound Steel to Tacoma Mall, which leaves any car choosing to queue in it vulnerable to having their right rear bumper smashed.
It seems like it would be very easy to reconfigure the s-e and n-w movements as the obvious primary route, put steele south of the intersection on a road diet, and swing it into a T intersection with tighter curb radii.
Agreed. Other cringeworthy features that I noticed was that there are ped signals here. The painted crosswalks have been removed, but it seems like the crosswalks were designed to allow for peds to make some crossings, but the whole intersection seems like a no-man's land, especially where pedestrians are concerned.
southbound Steele has continuous green, so no peds are crossing it. If you are not going to realign the intersection in the way that JKRhodes recommends, at least put in a RYG signal for southbound Steele so that they have red when traffic turning left from Tacoma mall has the right of way.
THere does seem to be a legal (but insane) way to cross from the southeast corner to the northeast corner (so that you continue on the eastside sidewalk of Steele).
Cross the slip ramp so that you are in the triangular painted island. Next use the ped signals to cross the NB Steele traffic to be in the island surrounded by yellow paint. Make a 90 degree turn to cross thru the center of the intersection (during the phase when Tacoma Mall may turn left onto southbound Steele.) to the white trapezoidal island and finally crossing the two lanes right turn of Tacoma Mall to northbound Steele to reach the sidewalk again. I cannot fathom how this can be safe in anyone's estimation.
Assuming that the ped crossing is legal, albeit dangerous, it would seem that the last step of the crossing is basically perpendicular to the curving movement of the NB Tacoma Mall to Steele "right turn". That aspect, indicates to me, that this is more of a straight movement then a right turn, so the movement should not be allowed on red, despite the fact that you are going from Tacoma Mall to Steele. The name of the street changing should not dictate whether this is a right on red. It does seem more like the straight movement, IMO. The fact that the stop line is so far back should also indicate that you cannot go so far forward on red. THe opportunity to turn onto Steele is so far ahead, that you are actually going straight, not right at the stop line.
There is a similar intersection near me, but they do a few things a little better and there it is clear, despite a right turn from Parklawn to Randolph, the movement is treated as a straight and cannot be made on red. There is no NTOR sign, because the layout is clear enough that the sign is not required. It is a straight movement, not a right turn. I have never seen a car make a right from Parklawn to Randolph on red.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0531224,-77.1060242,3a,75y,50.18h,85.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s50G2Oq3I57cr-eZXmPHJXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Regardless, at minimum, as jakeroot has said, they should put up signage to clarify the movment at Steele/Tacoma Mall if it is unclear for drivers. I recomment NTOR there.
Quote from: mrsman on March 31, 2021, 05:08:23 PM
clipped
That intersection at Tacoma Mall Blvd / Steele St certainly got a bit more attention than I would have expected. Although retrospectively, I can see why it did.
As far as the pedestrian situation, I actually saw a group of four crossing from the southeast corner to the western edge. I realized a few things when I saw them do this:
(1) although there were crosswalk markings, they have simply faded to being nearly invisible. You can see some of the edges in
this GSV shot (https://goo.gl/maps/kksRKRrTbSM3jxkRA). I'm not sure why they were not repainted as the newer piano-style markings that Tacoma has been used for almost twenty years. Perhaps they are planning a rethink of this intersection.
(2) The crossings that go to that yellow island are
very close to the travel lanes. As you're making that "left turn" from Steele to Tacoma Mall, which can easily be made at 35+, you get very close to pedestrians.
(3) I slowed down to watch them continue. After they crossed to the yellow island, they wanted to continue to the western side of the intersection, but seem confused why they had a signal to cross to the middle but no signal to finish crossing to the far edge.
Both southbound lanes (https://goo.gl/maps/VLF56jAEmw83PeZP8) had to stop and yield to allow them to finish crossing. There was
once a painted crossing here (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/47.22096354016786/-122.467911517425/2002/20) (transverse style as with the others) but was genuinely removed at some point in the last 15 years.
In terms of the traffic flow:
* The awkwardness of having the middle lane split but then immediately have a protected left turn somehow works in practice, but there is the chance of a close call on occasion. Most people end up using the far/outside lane to continue southbound.
* the movement between westbound Tacoma Mall Blvd and northbound Steele may seem more like a straight movement, but in practice, it does feel like more of a right turn. Best reason would be to
look at the maneuver from a ways back (https://goo.gl/maps/tLHDd9VJUFmbbqTn6). At the intersection itself, the movement beyond the stop line feels very straight, but the overall maneuver feels more like a turn, so you end up with that 50-50 stay-go split that I mentioned before.
* the huge neutral area to the north of the intersection results in
messes like this (https://goo.gl/maps/yGWyD1fVVFHk9cGP7). Choosing not to turn on red during high-traffic periods means that you sometimes aren't able to go at all.
As a side-note: I actually redesigned this intersection a while back, but I cannot figure out where I posted it:
(https://i.imgur.com/IQv1FOO.png)
Why can't they just put a yield sign here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8337129,-77.3741887,3a,75y,130.57h,75.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCJWew0sxPGyASa-0twMEuQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
I drove through this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0424381,-94.5883699,3a,78.6y,188.61h,79.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy4XQ7fc7bgn5N2voxhfY5w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) at KC's Country Club Plaza today.
They are in the process of removing the slip lane pictured here. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/4200+Kirby+Ave,+Cincinnati,+OH+45223/@39.167074,-84.5465202,133m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841b4edb5f34f29:0x3f9857b2e143961!8m2!3d39.1645236!4d-84.5470955)
This is in a residential neighborhood, with a fairly low traffic count. It is controlled by a 2-way stop (Bruce stops; Kirby does not), plus a stop sign at the end of the slip lane. After removal of the slip lane, traffic turning right will have a very sharp turn to make.
This does not make sense to me - can someone explain what the value in removing the slip lane is? I can see putting in an island to improve the crossing for pedestrians, but not complete removal of the slip lane.
Quote from: frankenroad on July 28, 2021, 03:58:06 PM
They are in the process of removing the slip lane pictured here. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/4200+Kirby+Ave,+Cincinnati,+OH+45223/@39.167074,-84.5465202,133m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841b4edb5f34f29:0x3f9857b2e143961!8m2!3d39.1645236!4d-84.5470955)
This is in a residential neighborhood, with a fairly low traffic count. It is controlled by a 2-way stop (Bruce stops; Kirby does not), plus a stop sign at the end of the slip lane. After removal of the slip lane, traffic turning right will have a very sharp turn to make.
This does not make sense to me - can someone explain what the value in removing the slip lane is? I can see putting in an island to improve the crossing for pedestrians, but not complete removal of the slip lane.
For one thing, it's going to be an all-way stop once they're done.
Quote from: HAM CR 617 2.59 KIRBY & BRUCE, PID 111252
Specifications
Specifications include, but are not limited to: This contract includes realigning existing Kirby & Bruce intersection and converting to an all-stop condition. Work includes demolition of existing pavement, curb, and walk, construction of curb, walk, and driveway. Drainage work includes installation of conduit and inlet structures. All work shall be completed to current City Standards and in accordance with the Special Provisions and Plans.
Quote from: frankenroad on July 28, 2021, 03:58:06 PM
They are in the process of removing the slip lane pictured here. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/4200+Kirby+Ave,+Cincinnati,+OH+45223/@39.167074,-84.5465202,133m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841b4edb5f34f29:0x3f9857b2e143961!8m2!3d39.1645236!4d-84.5470955)
This is in a residential neighborhood, with a fairly low traffic count. It is controlled by a 2-way stop (Bruce stops; Kirby does not), plus a stop sign at the end of the slip lane. After removal of the slip lane, traffic turning right will have a very sharp turn to make.
This does not make sense to me - can someone explain what the value in removing the slip lane is? I can see putting in an island to improve the crossing for pedestrians, but not complete removal of the slip lane.
Probably to increase green space. They could make it an island, but they probably didn't want to have one so small. As long as the corner radius is big enough, it doesn't look too unreasonable of a turn to negotiate.
For a residential neighborhood, I think what's there now is overkill.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 28, 2021, 04:10:22 PM
As long as the corner radius is big enough, it doesn't look too unreasonable of a turn to negotiate.
(https://i.imgur.com/ijigq2l.jpg)
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2021, 04:19:10 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 28, 2021, 04:10:22 PM
As long as the corner radius is big enough, it doesn't look too unreasonable of a turn to negotiate.
(https://i.imgur.com/ijigq2l.jpg)
Yeah, I'm no P.E. (yet) but that looks pretty good to me. And again, it sounds like it's a low volume road where this sort of thing isn't really a problem.
From my original post:
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 11:08:56 PM
And below, a nearly brand-new slip lane with a stop sign in Coquitlam, BC (https://goo.gl/ZoMx1r) (the other three slip lanes at this intersection feature yield signs or nothing (add-lane) -- no idea why this particular movement is special).
(https://i.imgur.com/ksdcat0.png)
This was finally replaced by a yield sign in the last few months. The stop bar remains, but it may eventually be removed and replaced with a dashed edge extension line along the arterial (Marine Way) or maybe a bike lane crossing
like this (https://goo.gl/maps/XHKnkRAjeS3cFMfd6).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51396402380_aaee8c7289_o.png)
Coquitlam Slip Lane (https://flic.kr/p/2miHZNC) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr