Jersey Jughandles

[agentsteel53]

I know from going there in 2009, that there are roads along the westernmost few miles of I-40 in the Smokies.  I think they are mainly forest roads.  I don't recall seeing any mailboxes, but I've only gone that way once.

that's what I recall as well.  there's at least in Tennessee from what I remember. 

they also exist in the Grapevine on I-5 in California, but in NC, I definitely remember seeing one street blade, which tends not to be the case elsewhere with forest roads.

[mightyace]

but in NC, I definitely remember seeing one street blade, which tends not to be the case elsewhere with forest roads.

I remember seeing several street blades.  I didn't get any pictures because they came up too fast and I was driving and I wanted to keep my eyes on the road in that narrow, twisting stretch of I-40.

[1995hoo]

I find jughandles to be annoying most of the time for the reason others have mentioned about how backups on the road fed by the jughandle can mess up the whole setup. But there is one thing that I think jughandles do a lot better than regular left-turn lights, and that is improving the flow of U-turning traffic by turning the U-turns into left turns off either the jughandle or the other road. It reduces what can be a serious problem at some intersections where people make a left turn with a green arrow only to encounter a conflict with people who are making right turns on red. Yes, the people going right on red are supposed to stop and yield in this circumstance because the U-turner has a green arrow (or, come to think of it, if the U-turner has a green circle the same would apply because right on red must yield to anyone else who has a green). Problem is, seemingly 95% of drivers don't understand that they have to yield when going right on red and aren't looking for U-turning traffic–instead they're looking for traffic coming from their left, whereas U-turn traffic is often coming from the right of where the right turn begins.
I see near-misses in that kind of situation fairly frequently at one intersection near my house where a lot of people make U-turns to get to a McDonald's. (There used to be no U-turn there, but when the median was rebuilt the restriction was removed.) What makes it even worse is that many of the U-turners stop to yield to the right-on-red crowd, thus preventing other people from making the left turn (there is no permissive green cycle there). I'm quite surprised there haven't been any rear-endings.

The jughandle eliminates that problem by converting the U-turn maneuver into a conventional left turn, and most drivers looking to go right on red normally do look for people turning left from the other direction. Of course the jughandle is hardly an ideal solution to this problem in all circumstances and it also wastes space and land that could better be put to other (possibly tax-generating) uses. I suppose the issue of turns on red getting out of control in a lot of places is an issue best addressed in a separate topic.

Off the top of my head I can think of one jughandle in Northern Virginia, and it was converted into a hybrid partial jughandle arrangement during a recent reconstruction of the area in that there is still a jughandle for some traffic but there are now two median-separated left-turn lanes as well. Froggie would be able to say more about the current design than I would because I normally go through there in the other direction and have little reason ever to use or even notice the jughandle. It's at the intersection of US-1 and Fort Hunt Road just south of Old Town Alexandria. Traffic coming from Alexandria generally uses the new left-turn lanes; traffic coming off the Outer Loop of the Beltway uses the jughandle (bad idea to have them cut across four lanes to try to turn left); traffic coming off the Inner Loop can use either (which is best depends on the traffic at any given time).

[agentsteel53]

people need to learn how to drive

fixed that for ya

[1995hoo]

people need to learn how to drive

fixed that for ya

Pretty much. We have a few intersections around here with signs saying "U-Turn Yield to Right Turn" in situations where the U-turners have a green but the right-turners also have a green arrow. In that case, the normal rule that "U-turns always yield" applies by default, but it's enough of a problem that they've put up signs. So I don't see why they won't put up signs at problem intersections saying "Right on Red Yield to U-Turn" under the same theory.


Edited to add: The conflicting U-turn/right on red scenario DOES pose a serious problem for those of us who DO know the rules, though, because of the high probability of getting run into by idiots who don't know the rules and so refuse to yield.

[agentsteel53]

actually, green right arrow without a "U-turn yield to oncoming right turn" is quite a challenging situation, because generally no one thinks to see if the right-turning traffic has a green arrow, or the green arrow is located at such an angle that, due to the shielding of the light, it is impossible to tell from the side which color it is.

around here, there are green right arrows occasionally, and I've never seen a "U-turn yield to oncoming right turn" sign.

the way I tend to do things is, if a right-turning vehicle is stopping before making its right turn, I go.  if they clearly show no intention of stopping, I let them go, figuring they have right of way by either having the green arrow, or being a maniac.

[Ned Weasel]

Pretty much. We have a few intersections around here with signs saying "U-Turn Yield to Right Turn" in situations where the U-turners have a green but the right-turners also have a green arrow. In that case, the normal rule that "U-turns always yield" applies by default, but it's enough of a problem that they've put up signs. So I don't see why they won't put up signs at problem intersections saying "Right on Red Yield to U-Turn" under the same theory.


Edited to add: The conflicting U-turn/right on red scenario DOES pose a serious problem for those of us who DO know the rules, though, because of the high probability of getting run into by idiots who don't know the rules and so refuse to yield.

I've noticed that different jurisdictions handle U-turn and right turn conflicts differently.  Lenexa, Kansas actually does use "Right Turn Yield to U-Turn" signs.  I don't have a proper photo, but you can see one on Street View, although it's difficult to make out the text:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lenexa,+KS&hl=en&ll=38.971171,-94.728305&spn=0.009426,0.021136&sll=38.953617,-94.733571&sspn=0.149513,0.338173&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.971107,-94.728305&panoid=v--S71ccianzCpy2o1_OIw&cbp=12,27.49,,0,-1.49

Neighboring city Overland Park, on the other hand, prohibits U-turns at many intersections on arterial roads, and at intersections where U-turns are permitted, it prohibits conflicting RTORs (with a "No Right Turn on Red [red ball]" sign).  I've seen "U-Turn Yield to Right Turn" signs at one intersection in Lawrence, KS where there were protected left turns and (IIRC) green-arrow right turns (US 40 and Wakarusa Dr. for anyone who's wondering), but those signs have since been removed and replaced with U-turn prohibitions.

I think jughandles and Michigan Lefts are some of the most effective approaches to handling U-turns, and I tend to favor the jughandle approach because it keeps the left lanes of the arterial clear for faster through traffic (although I've never actually used a Michigan Left, and the only one I've ever seen was temporary).  Of course, both are only practical under a very specific set of circumstances, and in most cases, conventional left turns and U-turns seem to be the norm.

[1995hoo]

....

Neighboring city Overland Park, on the other hand, prohibits U-turns at many intersections on arterial roads, and at intersections where U-turns are permitted, it prohibits conflicting RTORs (with a "No Right Turn on Red [red ball]" sign).  I've seen "U-Turn Yield to Right Turn" signs at one intersection in Lawrence, KS where there were protected left turns and (IIRC) green-arrow right turns (US 40 and Wakarusa Dr. for anyone who's wondering), but those signs have since been removed and replaced with U-turn prohibitions.

I think jughandles and Michigan Lefts are some of the most effective approaches to handling U-turns, and I tend to favor the jughandle approach because it keeps the left lanes of the arterial clear for faster through traffic (although I've never actually used a Michigan Left, and the only one I've ever seen was temporary).  Of course, both are only practical under a very specific set of circumstances, and in most cases, conventional left turns and U-turns seem to be the norm.

I generally like the Overland Park solution of prohibiting the right on red, or a variant where the right on red is prohibited during high-traffic hours. We have some intersections around here where turns on red are prohibited from 7 AM to 7 PM but allowed otherwise, and on the whole that's usually a reasonable solution in my view. Obviously the idea of using a jughandle SOLELY for purposes of addressing the U-turn conflict problem would be horrible overkill and I hope nobody read my post as suggesting that they should be more widely adopted in that context–although I must say I can envision situations where something akin to a jughandle-style maneuver might be desirable, say if one road branches off another (like a fork in the road) and another road crosses both of them. In that situation the road that branches off to the right can be used as sort of a "virtual jughandle," if that makes any sense.

Come to think of it, the US-1/Fort Hunt Road jughandle I mentioned is a little bit like a "virtual jughandle" in a sense in that the jughandle also feeds a short street called "Old Richmond Highway" (US-1 is "Richmond Highway"). I assume the original jughandle maneuver there was created when Old Richmond Highway was bypassed by the current route.

(I tend to say "turns on red" in recognition of intersections where left on red is allowed, but U-turns and jughandles would both be irrelevant in those cases because in almost every jurisdiction allowing left on red, both streets are one-way. Most drivers tend not to know it's allowed, either.)


Edited to add: I looked at the Street View link you posted and that sign is more or less what I had in mind. It looks very similar to the "U-Turn Yield to Right Turn" signs posted at a few intersections here.

....

the way I tend to do things is, if a right-turning vehicle is stopping before making its right turn, I go.  if they clearly show no intention of stopping, I let them go, figuring they have right of way by either having the green arrow, or being a maniac.

What makes me wary is that I don't trust anyone. I mentioned before the situation of a U-turn with a green arrow and a right on red. My concern has always been that if I were to make a U-turn and take the right of way, as I'm entitled to do, I risk getting hit by the guy going right on red, but if I yield because the guy is clearly an idiot, I risk getting rear-ended by someone who sees the green light and is in "go" mode. In either situation, I'm the one in the right and the other driver is at fault in the accident (because even if I'm entitled to the right of way on the green arrow, the guy behind me isn't entitled to rear-end me just because of a green light), but in either situation that's small consolation if my car gets damaged in an accident!

The intersection I'm thinking of has two left turn lanes, so as a general rule I use the right-hand one of those when I go left precisely to avoid the issue as much as possible. (I don't think I've ever actually made a U-turn there. I used to use a dry-cleaner located near there and the U-turn was the most direct way home, but I usually went around the block instead because the exit from the car park was so close to the turn lane that it was often hard to get all the way across to make the U-turn.)

[agentsteel53]

I do not get any extra worries for stopping in a U-turn situation vs. just making the U-turn, because I figure that drivers behind me will notice I'm slowing down to make a U-turn.

The difference between making a U-turn at 5mph vs stopping at 0mph to let a right-turner go is much smaller than the difference between that U-turn and making a left turn at 20mph.

In the case of a conflict with a right-turn driver, I tend to be about halfway through my U-turn when I attempt to negotiate "go vs do not go", so left-turning traffic can just go around me as their arc is sufficiently different, and a car behind me also doing a U-turn is sufficiently slow that I doubt they lack the reaction time to avoid rear-ending me.

[realjd]

Some parts of Florida have "U Turn Yield" signs. I've been seeing more and more though where there is a high amount of U-turns, there will be a light-up no right turns sign (arrow with red slash) that lights up during the left turn phase to prevent cars from turning right on red. After the cross traffic protected left phase has ended, the sign turns off allowing RTOR again.

[1995hoo]

I do not get any extra worries for stopping in a U-turn situation vs. just making the U-turn, because I figure that drivers behind me will notice I'm slowing down to make a U-turn.

The difference between making a U-turn at 5mph vs stopping at 0mph to let a right-turner go is much smaller than the difference between that U-turn and making a left turn at 20mph.

In the case of a conflict with a right-turn driver, I tend to be about halfway through my U-turn when I attempt to negotiate "go vs do not go", so left-turning traffic can just go around me as their arc is sufficiently different, and a car behind me also doing a U-turn is sufficiently slow that I doubt they lack the reaction time to avoid rear-ending me.

Yeah, I hear you; the intersection I'm thinking of is kind of tight so it's more of a problem. No doubt the presence of the McDonald's, which spurs a LOT of U-turns, contributes to the problem (that and the lazy people who will wait on line with 10 other cars at the drive-thru when there's no line inside, backing up the drive-thru queue into the road, but that's another discussion too.....)

I've never been to California, only seen it from the air en route to Hawaii, but from what I understand the roads there tend to be a bit wider in this respect.

Some parts of Florida have "U Turn Yield" signs. I've been seeing more and more though where there is a high amount of U-turns, there will be a light-up no right turns sign (arrow with red slash) that lights up during the left turn phase to prevent cars from turning right on red. After the cross traffic protected left phase has ended, the sign turns off allowing RTOR again.

This sounds like an excellent idea, though perhaps more expensive than conventional signs.

[agentsteel53]

Yeah, I hear you; the intersection I'm thinking of is kind of tight so it's more of a problem. I've never been to California, only seen it from the air en route to Hawaii, but from what I understand the roads there tend to be a bit wider in this respect.

I think that arterials and boulevards tend to be about the same widths generally across the country, but that width has increased with time.  A lot of suburbs were developed in the 60s and 70s, so the roads there are wider than city roads built in the 30s or before.  Plenty of narrow boulevards in downtown LA or San Francisco, for example, where you wonder how they squeeze in four lanes and two sidewalks between the buildings.

And plenty of wide boulevards out east as well, I feel like.  I definitely remember driving US-360 into the suburbs of Richmond, VA and thinking "this arterial is exactly like so many in CA" - lots of traffic lights, box stores, heavy traffic, remind me why I'm driving this while on vacation???  (I had been looking for cutouts.  Good luck with that.)

[Scott5114]

I've noticed that different jurisdictions handle U-turn and right turn conflicts differently.  Lenexa, Kansas actually does use "Right Turn Yield to U-Turn" signs.  I don't have a proper photo, but you can see one on Street View, although it's difficult to make out the text:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lenexa,+KS&hl=en&ll=38.971171,-94.728305&spn=0.009426,0.021136&sll=38.953617,-94.733571&sspn=0.149513,0.338173&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.971107,-94.728305&panoid=v--S71ccianzCpy2o1_OIw&cbp=12,27.49,,0,-1.49

Wait, why the hell is Lenexa posting stoplights parallel to the ground? Nowhere else in Kansas (or even Johnson County for that matter) is this done, to my knowledge.

(Also part of the problem with Lenexa having its own rules for this is that Lenexa is basically indistinguishable from Overland Park or Shawnee or Mission. I know I have a hard time remembering which municipality I'm in, if asked I could usually do no better than "Johnson County". Traffic laws should really be the same across a metro area, or in Kansas City's case, they should be the same on all of the Kansas side and all of the Missouri side.)

[agentsteel53]

Wait, why the hell is Lenexa posting stoplights parallel to the ground? Nowhere else in Kansas (or even Johnson County for that matter) is this done, to my knowledge.

is it becoming generally accepted that "red is on the top, or the left"?  if so, I see no problem with horizontal traffic lights, as even color-blind people can identify the signal phase by position.

if some jurisdictions were doing "red is on the right" and others "red is on the left" then I'd see a very grave problem, but all the horizontally mounted traffic signals I've ever seen in my life (including Canada*) have had red on the left.

* Canada has the added feature of assigning a different shape to each color - red circle, yellow square, green diamond, if I recall correctly.  this is a very positive feature that would be useful to have, at minimal additional cost, on all traffic lights in the US as well.  (yes, the total surface area of light is diminished when you have a square in a circle, as opposed to using the full circle, but since red - the most critical color - is the full circle, I think this is not a problem.)

(also, Lenexa sounds like the name of a company which would manufacture my cable modem.)

[Scott5114]

"Red on top or left" is what the MUTCD says, yes. However, I have had some colorblind friends remark how difficult a trip to Texas (a horizontal state) is when they're used to the OK method of posting lights vertically. I'm sure colorblind people who live in Texas are used to it, though. The issue with Lenexa is that it's one intersection (or jurisdiction if they've decided to switch the whole city to horizontal) in a sea of vertical, which is pretty jarring to come across.

(This is far from a unique thing, though–there are a few locations in southern OK that prefer the TX method of doing things. Davis, OK has its one signalized intersection posted horizontally, and Lawton has a few horizontal intersections–hell, Lawton tries to split the difference sometimes by posting the left turn signals horizontal and all the other signal heads vertical!)

[Ian]

* Canada has the added feature of assigning a different shape to each color - red circle, yellow square, green diamond, if I recall correctly.  this is a very positive feature that would be useful to have, at minimal additional cost, on all traffic lights in the US as well.  (yes, the total surface area of light is diminished when you have a square in a circle, as opposed to using the full circle, but since red - the most critical color - is the full circle, I think this is not a problem.)

Actually, Quebec has recently stopped using the shaped lens signals. I contacted the MTQ and they said said its original purpose was to aid the color blind but found it wasn't really effective plus they weren't seen very well from a distance.

[agentsteel53]

and now I know.  I for one liked the shapes, but if the color-blind folks can tell just by position, then using the full available circle is the best idea indeed.

[Ian]

Yeah, those shaped lenses were awesome. Prince Edward Island mostly has signals with the shaped lenses, which makes me wonder if they are still using them or not.

[Ned Weasel]

Wait, why the hell is Lenexa posting stoplights parallel to the ground? Nowhere else in Kansas (or even Johnson County for that matter) is this done, to my knowledge.

(Also part of the problem with Lenexa having its own rules for this is that Lenexa is basically indistinguishable from Overland Park or Shawnee or Mission. I know I have a hard time remembering which municipality I'm in, if asked I could usually do no better than "Johnson County". Traffic laws should really be the same across a metro area, or in Kansas City's case, they should be the same on all of the Kansas side and all of the Missouri side.)

As far as I know, Lenexa's only horizontal traffic signals are on the one-mile stretch of 87th Street Parkway between Pflumm Road and Quivira Road.  That segment was rebuilt a few years ago, and the project included replacing all of the traffic signals.  I don't know whether Lenexa plans to use horizontal traffic signals anywhere else, though.  I guess Lenexa just wants to be different.

[Ned Weasel]

"Red on top or left" is what the MUTCD says, yes. However, I have had some colorblind friends remark how difficult a trip to Texas (a horizontal state) is when they're used to the OK method of posting lights vertically. I'm sure colorblind people who live in Texas are used to it, though. The issue with Lenexa is that it's one intersection (or jurisdiction if they've decided to switch the whole city to horizontal) in a sea of vertical, which is pretty jarring to come across.

(This is far from a unique thing, though–there are a few locations in southern OK that prefer the TX method of doing things. Davis, OK has its one signalized intersection posted horizontally, and Lawton has a few horizontal intersections–hell, Lawton tries to split the difference sometimes by posting the left turn signals horizontal and all the other signal heads vertical!)

I think the standard for left-driving countries is to have red on the right, in horizontal traffic signals.  It makes sense.

[froggie]

Not much for me to add about the Route 1/Fort Hunt Rd jughandle, but there are two more in Alexandria on Duke St, at the signal just east of Telegraph Rd.

[1995hoo]

Not much for me to add about the Route 1/Fort Hunt Rd jughandle, but there are two more in Alexandria on Duke St, at the signal just east of Telegraph Rd.

Indeed you are right, just outside the mail-sorting facility! Dove and Roberts as the cross-streets, I think? Forgot about that because unless you live on the north side there's little reason to turn there. I turned in once looking for a mailbox because I saw the Postal Service sign. There was no mailbox.

[realjd]

I think the standard for left-driving countries is to have red on the right, in horizontal traffic signals.  It makes sense.

The horizontal signals in the Bahamas have red on the left even though they drive on the left. But then again, that part of the world isn't exactly known for strictly following standards of any type.

[roadfro]

is it becoming generally accepted that "red is on the top, or the left"?  if so, I see no problem with horizontal traffic lights, as even color-blind people can identify the signal phase by position.

Actually, the MUTCD has two lists of how signal indications appear in standard order in a single signal face. The two lists vary slightly depending on if the signal head is vertically or horizontally aligned--circular red is always top/left followed by red arrows then circular yellow, but circular green and the various green and yellow turn arrows vary slightly in arrangement depending on signal head orientation. (See MUTCD 2009, Sec. 4D.09 & 4D.10.) I believe these standard arrangements are in place for the benefit of color-blind drivers.

[Jerseyman4]

I approve of Jughandles and would like to see them expand nationwide. 3 way intersections that see a lot of left turns would be a good place to start.