Traffic lights in total rural areas

[mrsman]

US-395 and CA-58: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.991714,-117.541412,3a,75y,342.41h,94.18t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEGxW7As_TXAjKuQ9LTVSNQ!2e0?hl=en
It may not look like a rural area from the street view, but it most certainly is. It's just such a major junction that truck stops, gas stations, and fast food decided to show up there.

I wonder how we're defining rural for purposes of this thread.  KEK earlier had two examples that had nothing at the corner except the signal.  Here, it's arguable that while no one lives that close to the intersection, there is still activity at this intersection, given the businesses that exist at the corner. 

One stark difference between the two situations, is that this corner has pedestrian signals and cross-walks.  Maybe some of the workers at the Chevron will walk to Burger King for lunch.  Whereas at 33/41, there is absolutely nothing.

In any event, this is not too surprising.  The warrants for traffic lights deal with the traffic, not the surrounding area.  The junction of two busy highways may need a traffic light, even if there are no homes or businesses around. 

[realjd]

US-395 and CA-58: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.991714,-117.541412,3a,75y,342.41h,94.18t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEGxW7As_TXAjKuQ9LTVSNQ!2e0?hl=en
It may not look like a rural area from the street view, but it most certainly is. It's just such a major junction that truck stops, gas stations, and fast food decided to show up there.

I wonder how we're defining rural for purposes of this thread.  KEK earlier had two examples that had nothing at the corner except the signal.  Here, it's arguable that while no one lives that close to the intersection, there is still activity at this intersection, given the businesses that exist at the corner. 

One stark difference between the two situations, is that this corner has pedestrian signals and cross-walks.  Maybe some of the workers at the Chevron will walk to Burger King for lunch.  Whereas at 33/41, there is absolutely nothing.

In any event, this is not too surprising.  The warrants for traffic lights deal with the traffic, not the surrounding area.  The junction of two busy highways may need a traffic light, even if there are no homes or businesses around. 

I've stopped at the 76 station on the corner there. Both of those roads are well traveled even if this particular intersection is in the middle of the desert. I usually see a large number of trucks in particular.

[myosh_tino]

I've stopped at the 76 station on the corner there. Both of those roads are well traveled even if this particular intersection is in the middle of the desert. I usually see a large number of trucks in particular.

That makes sense since CA-58 is a major trucking corridor that links the agricultural areas in central California to the desert southwest and interior mountain west (via I-15 and I-40).

[Scott5114]

This one in Kansas threw me for a loop. I'd think a four-way stop, a traffic light, or two-way stops on the intersecting route would be sufficient, rather than them having spent the money to turn this into a roundabout.

https://goo.gl/maps/FSr0o

The size of the roundabout reminded me of a question I wanted to ask you (as you are a DOT employee). Do DOTs sometimes build things large on purpose to preserve future right-of-way?

Are you asking if they buy more ROW than they need in case future expansion is done, or if they actually build projects large to use up that ROW?

Kind of both. My thought is that they buy AND use all the available right of way, because the way I think of it, the closer the roads and such come to the edge of the ROW, the harder it is for somebody else to buy that land (like a restaurant wanting to expand a parking lot). I have no experience in land buying, but I'd imagine land in use is more expensive to acquire then empty land (obviously).

Not a DOT employee, but the way I understand it, there would be no need to do so. My understanding is that the title to the ROW is owned by the DOT itself. If the DOT doesn't want people buying up the land, it can simply decline to sell it to them. This is why DOTs will buy up land in anticipation of future projects, even when there won't be funding to actually build them for years.

[doorknob60]

US-395 and CA-58: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.991714,-117.541412,3a,75y,342.41h,94.18t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEGxW7As_TXAjKuQ9LTVSNQ!2e0?hl=en
It may not look like a rural area from the street view, but it most certainly is. It's just such a major junction that truck stops, gas stations, and fast food decided to show up there.

I wonder how we're defining rural for purposes of this thread.  KEK earlier had two examples that had nothing at the corner except the signal.  Here, it's arguable that while no one lives that close to the intersection, there is still activity at this intersection, given the businesses that exist at the corner. 

One stark difference between the two situations, is that this corner has pedestrian signals and cross-walks.  Maybe some of the workers at the Chevron will walk to Burger King for lunch.  Whereas at 33/41, there is absolutely nothing.

In any event, this is not too surprising.  The warrants for traffic lights deal with the traffic, not the surrounding area.  The junction of two busy highways may need a traffic light, even if there are no homes or businesses around. 

I've stopped at the 76 station on the corner there. Both of those roads are well traveled even if this particular intersection is in the middle of the desert. I usually see a large number of trucks in particular.

I wasn't arguing that. Both these highways are very important highways in this region and get decent amounts of traffic. Anything besides a traffic light (or maybe a roundabout) would be a disaster. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this gets replaced by a grade separated interchange of some kind (maybe a diamond, but a lot of things could work). And I can see how rural could be a bit ambiguous in this interchange. I see a difference between being "rural" or "in the middle of nowhere" and there being nothing there. This intersection falls under the former.

[mrsman]

US-395 and CA-58: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.991714,-117.541412,3a,75y,342.41h,94.18t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEGxW7As_TXAjKuQ9LTVSNQ!2e0?hl=en
It may not look like a rural area from the street view, but it most certainly is. It's just such a major junction that truck stops, gas stations, and fast food decided to show up there.

I wonder how we're defining rural for purposes of this thread.  KEK earlier had two examples that had nothing at the corner except the signal.  Here, it's arguable that while no one lives that close to the intersection, there is still activity at this intersection, given the businesses that exist at the corner. 

One stark difference between the two situations, is that this corner has pedestrian signals and cross-walks.  Maybe some of the workers at the Chevron will walk to Burger King for lunch.  Whereas at 33/41, there is absolutely nothing.

In any event, this is not too surprising.  The warrants for traffic lights deal with the traffic, not the surrounding area.  The junction of two busy highways may need a traffic light, even if there are no homes or businesses around. 

I've stopped at the 76 station on the corner there. Both of those roads are well traveled even if this particular intersection is in the middle of the desert. I usually see a large number of trucks in particular.

I wasn't arguing that. Both these highways are very important highways in this region and get decent amounts of traffic. Anything besides a traffic light (or maybe a roundabout) would be a disaster. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this gets replaced by a grade separated interchange of some kind (maybe a diamond, but a lot of things could work). And I can see how rural could be a bit ambiguous in this interchange. I see a difference between being "rural" or "in the middle of nowhere" and there being nothing there. This intersection falls under the former.

Exactly.  I guess I was focused on the subject "total rural areas" to mean that there was nothing there except for the intersection and the traffic light, yet many of the examples posted on this thread like 395/58 have roadside businesses at the junction.

[Ned Weasel]

If you wouldn't put a stop sign on the road, don't put a roundabout on it. Because it's essentially the same in terms of having to slow down from high speed to near zero.

there are high-speed multilane roundabouts that can be safely navigated at around 35mph.  not much in the US, but in Europe for sure.

as for "essentially the same" ... not if you drive manual.  then the difference is glaring.

Assume that you will have to yield when you get the roundabout. That's what I'm saying.

I'm 10 days late on this one, but shouldn't one assume one might have to stop when approaching a traffic signal?  Isn't that what the term "stale green" means?

For this reason, I still don't see a problem with roundabouts on high-speed roads.  Each four-way intersection treatment, whether it's a two-way stop, a four-way stop, a roundabout, or a traffic signal, just has its own advantages and disadvantages.

[Alps]

US 50 in central Indiana (Loogootee to Seymour) becomes a quite rural road with little traffic compared to the segments on either end. Maybe about 10 miles from Seymour, there's a random traffic light at an unpopulated crossroads. Perfectly fine sight distance in all directions, absolutely no reason for that signal. I noticed, because it turned red on me in the middle of an otherwise undisturbed drive between cities.

[DandyDan]

One other one I forgot for Nebraska is NE 133 and NE 36 NW of Omaha.  I don't seem to recall much residential development near there.

[vdeane]

The US 20/NY 80 light felt like it came out of nowhere.  US 20 is totally rural on either side and at the light.

[getemngo]

Blinker lights are all over the place in rural Michigan, even in the UP.

Something like this, however, is less common: M-43 @ M-40, Paw Paw, MI

The most rural signal in Michigan had to be US 127 & M-57 before it was converted to an interchange.

M-57 & M-66 south of Sheridan has one.

M-91 & Sidney Road north of Greenville is the most unnecessary I've seen.

The M-66/M-50/M-43 junction on the Barry/Eaton county line is a 4-way stop that needs to be a signal. This assumes you consider "the southern outskirts of Woodbury" totally rural. I do. There's nothing to indicate a town on the western, eastern, or southern legs except for the gas station.

[hbelkins]

The last time I was through the intersection of US 19 and Alternate US 58 northwest of Abingdon, Va., it looked as if preparations were underway for some sort of installation. I don't know if it was for a full signal or for caution/stop flashers, as I haven't been back. I had planned to travel that intersection on the way to Hampton Roads, but alas, that trip is probably not going to happen now.

[rawmustard]

I've always thought Ontario has an unusual amount of rural signals. I don't know if the warrants have a lower threshold, but it seemed that some of the signals I've seen there would only be flashing beacons if the intersections were in Michigan.

SPH-L710

[hbelkins]

Drove through the US 19/Alternate US 58 intersection this morning. There is a traffic light there now.

[jbnv]

There's a signal at US 90 at LA 318 in rural St. Mary Parish, LA. It's the point where the freeway stretch of US 90 begins/ends. It's also awaiting conversion to an interchange.

[The High Plains Traveler]

This one in Kansas threw me for a loop. I'd think a four-way stop, a traffic light, or two-way stops on the intersecting route would be sufficient, rather than them having spent the money to turn this into a roundabout.

https://goo.gl/maps/FSr0o

I was through there last week, and had the opposite conclusion. I like the roundabout as a substitute for a 4-way stop in a rural area. I wish the other 4-way stops along the eastern piece of 400 would be like this intersection.