Traffic Signals that make no sense

[UCFKnights]

In the same vein as the stop signs that make no sense... I've seen a few traffic signals that were either installed for future roadways that have never been built, or for roadways that were removed/closed, but the phase/signals are still left active.

Here's one for a future road that has not been built, but still stops traffic even though there is no possible conflict
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.427773,-81.226419,3a,75y,86.21h,64.6t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sM4x-mZybJNm_dPIyTobgmg!2e0

[jakeroot]

Exact same situation as above just outside Victoria, BC (below). Though, admittedly, this type of situation (unfinished arterial) is rather common in newer areas.



A better example might be a signal to an unused road or a signal installed because it was part of the plan, that at present, serves little purpose.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Edina, MN: Valley View Road at MN 62. The left turn arrow goes to the westbound on-ramp to 62, and the side street beyond that is right in/right out. So the "main" mast with the WEST 62 sign serves no purpose. (I am NOT saying the left turn arrow is meaningless, though)

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.887177,-93.333636,3a,75y,7.1h,89.08t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sduahtu9wIn25fwh-Tx9h7g!2e0

[roadman65]

In Linden, NJ you have one on US 1 & 9 at the entrance to the Bayway Refinery that stops traffic S Bound for no known reason.  For years the signal was always green as traffic exiting the refinery would not turn directly into the SB lanes of US 1 & 9, but into the lanes from I-278, which did stop for the signal as it is separated from the main SB US 1 & 9 lanes by a barrier.  Since 1988, NJDOT configured the signal to turn red whenever the 278 traffic and NB US 1 & 9 stopped to allow refinery traffic to enter the busy arterial.

Then NJ 28 E Bound in Roselle Park, always made you stop at Faitoute Avenue despite it is a three way intersection with traffic entering NJ 28 from Faitoute Avenue exclusively to WB NJ 28 as the EB Left Turn Signal operated simultaneously.  The SB to EB movements were made by the nearby Gordon Street jughandle so that the signal only had two movements.  Meanwhile EB traffic is stopped while its left turning motorists are moving to make their turns at the same location.

Oh yes and NYC along Central Park West with the signals operating on on way inward streets making you stop for no cars whatsoever to pass into the intersection because its one way!  Oh I'm sorry, I forgot about the pedestrians in NYC that NYDOT could easily install a activation button for if they need assistance crossing the street, but heck they still will not move into the 21st Century with the controlling devices still using the old analogue signal controllers mounted on the signal poles themselves using 1940 technology to operate the signal.

[jakeroot]

Just remembered another. See if you can figure it out:

[Zeffy]

Is that set in the background for the right lane really needed?

[Big John]

A couple of those above would have a signal turn red only if a pedestrian was trying to cross at the crosswalk by pushing the pedestrian button.

[jakeroot]

Is that set in the background for the right lane really needed?

A couple of those above would have a signal turn red only if a pedestrian was trying to cross at the crosswalk by pushing the pedestrian button.

Yes, exactly. They're for pedestrians. But the slight-right arrow in the foreground is the error. The former intersection had a pedestrian crossing from the right edge of the image to near the guardrail in the left of the image (so a long, sort of diagonal crossing). When they improved the intersection in 2005 and added the right-turn island, they moved the crosswalk to where the mast-arm signals are located (just upstream). The problem is that they didn't remove the right arrow, which was formerly used to stop traffic for the pedestrian crossing phase.

[KEK Inc.]

Ah, Tacoma...

[M3019C LPS20]

Oh yes and NYC along Central Park West with the signals operating on on way inward streets making you stop for no cars whatsoever to pass into the intersection because its one way!  Oh I'm sorry, I forgot about the pedestrians in NYC that NYDOT could easily install a activation button for if they need assistance crossing the street, but heck they still will not move into the 21st Century with the controlling devices still using the old analogue signal controllers mounted on the signal poles themselves using 1940 technology to operate the signal.

Are you referring to this intersection?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.76994,-73.980531,3a,75y,228.11h,110.95t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1s_2x1hqodaNmBfQji4Hdxww!2e0!5s20141001T000000

That one is an interesting setup, and it has been like that for a long time. I'm fairly sure that one, like some other intersections on Central Pk. W., uses the "Barnes Dance." When both directions are red, pedestrians would have the right-of-way. All four crosswalks.

If pedestrian actuation was in use there, then it would probably ruin the flow of traffic and signal-system on Central Pk. W.

By the way, a new A.S.T.C. solid-state signal controller replaced the old mechanical unit recently. NYCDOT have been replacing mechanical units left and right with the new computerized controllers for over 10 years.

[mrsman]

Exact same situation as above just outside Victoria, BC (below). Though, admittedly, this type of situation (unfinished arterial) is rather common in newer areas.



A better example might be a signal to an unused road or a signal installed because it was part of the plan, that at present, serves little purpose.

Yes.  It surprises me that the signal is actually turned on before the intersection is completed.  Who is paying for the electricity?

[M3019C LPS20]

Exact same situation as above just outside Victoria, BC (below). Though, admittedly, this type of situation (unfinished arterial) is rather common in newer areas.



A better example might be a signal to an unused road or a signal installed because it was part of the plan, that at present, serves little purpose.

I like that 8" green arrow on the far right.

[ekt8750]

Is that set in the background for the right lane really needed?

A couple of those above would have a signal turn red only if a pedestrian was trying to cross at the crosswalk by pushing the pedestrian button.

Yes, exactly. They're for pedestrians. But the slight-right arrow in the foreground is the error. The former intersection had a pedestrian crossing from the right edge of the image to near the guardrail in the left of the image (so a long, sort of diagonal crossing). When they improved the intersection in 2005 and added the right-turn island, they moved the crosswalk to where the mast-arm signals are located (just upstream). The problem is that they didn't remove the right arrow, which was formerly used to stop traffic for the pedestrian crossing phase.

Here's a similar one in Marple Twp, PA where PA 320 branches off of Springfield Road:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.947019,-75.349285,3a,75y,160.83h,79.27t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sstQO6bjUh8VyUHx8pWvcbQ!2e0

I don't see the reason why the right lane arrow has a full set of aspects on it when only a green arrow is needed.

[jakeroot]

Yes.  It surprises me that the signal is actually turned on before the intersection is completed.  Who is paying for the electricity?

City of Langford. It [Leigh Road] was one of their major projects recently (so major for the size of the city, they couldn't even afford a southbound off-ramp during the first phase). As to why it's on, I have no idea (maybe if they turned off the signal, they could afford to build the missing ramp).

I like that 8" green arrow on the far right.

BC is the last place I know of that only uses 8-inch signals on the signal masts, even for arrows.

[lepidopteran]

Note the two R-Y-G signals on the right.  Any reason for them to turn red, ever?

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.777403,-84.052609,3a,75y,347.07h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1smxJisZaLG7gwZSJZ0ZyGEg!2e0

[kphoger]

Aren't green-ball-only signal heads prohibited now? If I'm right about that, then the signals above the right two lanes are to reassure drivers that the left-turn signal that might be red doesn't mean they have to stop, and a full RGY was the only permitted option.

[jakeroot]

Aren't green-ball-only signal heads prohibited now? If I'm right about that, then the signals above the right two lanes are to reassure drivers that the left-turn signal that might be red doesn't mean they have to stop, and a full RGY was the only permitted option.

What about a single green up arrow?

[Big John]

^^ Wisconsin uses that setup too in that situation though the signal always stays green.  IMO a better setup is to use a one-section green through arrow for the through lanes (2 section yellow ball and green through arrow if flash mode is used)

[kphoger]

Are green up arrows permitted?

[jakeroot]

Are green up arrows permitted?

I see them all the time where I live, so I would think?

EDIT: Example near where I live:

[kphoger]

Their existence doesn't mean that current rules allow them. There are green-ball-only heads here in Wichita, but I remember someone on here saying something about a prohibition. Don't remember any details, too lazy to look it up.

[jakeroot]

Their existence doesn't mean that current rules allow them. There are green-ball-only heads here in Wichita, but I remember someone on here saying something about a prohibition. Don't remember any details, too lazy to look it up.

According to the MUTCD:

08 -- Arrows shall be pointed:

* Vertically upward to indicate a straight-through movement, or
* Horizontally in the direction of the turn to indicate a turn at approximately or greater than a right angle, or
* Upward with a slope at an angle approximately equal to that of the turn if the angle of the turn is substantially less than a right angle, or
* In a manner that directs the driver through the turn if a U-turn arrow is used (see Figure 4D-1).

[cl94]

Are green up arrows permitted?

In addition to the already-mentioned examples, New York uses them quite often when a right turn is prohibited, permitted only when protected, channelized away from the main intersection, or not possible. They'll occasionally have one on the left if there's a protected-only left, as well. At a few places, there's an up arrow over a right arrow, all on divided highways.

[PurdueBill]

Are green up arrows permitted?

In addition to the already-mentioned examples, New York uses them quite often when a right turn is prohibited, permitted only when protected, channelized away from the main intersection, or not possible. They'll occasionally have one on the left if there's a protected-only left, as well. At a few places, there's an up arrow over a right arrow, all on divided highways.

Despite the Ohio example linked above, Ohio DOT does install single green up arrows.  (This specimen is notable because it replaced a full circular RYG head over the far right lane in the new signals installed only recently; somehow someone figured out that didn't make sense.  If you move street view over to that lane, you can see the "old" signal!)

[KEK Inc.]

Green up arrows are also common in California where thru traffic signals are on the mast arm and the left turn signal is on a mast pole on the median island.  The left most thru traffic signal is an up arrow. 

Seattle uses it to emphasize no turns are allowed at that intersection.


iPhone