Frankenstein Installations

[traffic light guy]

I can't help but to notice that Pennsylvania has a lot of mismatched installations. Examples would be an original signal head being placed with a modern signal on the same mast/pole. If not that then mixes and matches of different signal brands, (example: TCT doghouse placed with two McCain's or Durasig). If not that, then a whole intersection with new signals that happens to be mounted on the older masts.  This is a rare occurrence in Central and Western PA, but is very common in the Philadelphia area, especially in Bucks County.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28925161@N02/5965550131
In this picture we see newly installed McCain signals on old rusted PennDOT mast-arm, however the 8-inch side-mounted signal is incandescent, unlike it's modern counterparts. Even in the far front we see more modern signals, which happen to be post-mounted LED McCain signals, and oddly enough in the far back, in the next intersection over, you can see an ancient set of 1970s-era 12" Eagle Flatbacks, which have the original mast-arms and everything, infact they're in the same exact condition as they were when they were originally installed in the '70s, minus the missing backplates. This is odd because in the front we see new McCain signals, but in the background we see much older material. In this case, usually the whole area would be replaced, even they'd get new masts, but nope, it's just an odd mismatch of classic and modern material.

[freebrickproductions]

Plenty like that around here in Alabama, especially in the larger cities. Here are a few examples around here in the Tennessee Valley area:
At this intersection in Huntsville, all of the Winkomatic signals (the ones that have faded to white) are the original signals, but a couple of them were hit and replaced with Siemens signals:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6275686,-86.5668937,3a,66.8y,351.93h,92.24t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spHmtnUrVwedqhUsSsINHCg!2e0
Another intersection here in Huntsville. All of the Econolite signals here are the originals, but one of them got replaced with a Siemens doghouse:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7400324,-86.5947342,3a,79.3y,343.2h,91.64t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZ4dTC1jvJG3p_nEJOweOYw!2e0
Another similar intersection here in Decatur; the LFEs are original and the two Siemens signals were installed later:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6125255,-86.9809342,3a,79.3y,295.21h,91.48t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDn9OTPZ18d3UoT3j94Qf3Q!2e0
This intersection in Madison is similar to the one in Decatur, except the Siemens signals were installed to provide an extra head for the extra left turn lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6762586,-86.751875,3a,79.3y,351.27h,92.77t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1siTgJ9-g6FMad70_JXne3Ng!2e0

I can post more if you want me too.

[jakeroot]

I know very little about traffic lights, and their manufacturers, but I know old signals when I see them. Here's a couple of old signals next to some "newer" counterparts:

S Meridian @ 35 Ave, Puyallup, Wash:



48 St E @ River Road & 66 Ave E, Tacoma, Wash:



This is really common in Seattle when flashing yellow arrows are installed. Most often, the old three-head display is tossed, but the through signals are kept.

[Pink Jazz]

I know very little about traffic lights, and their manufacturers, but I know old signals when I see them. Here's a couple of old signals next to some "newer" counterparts:

S Meridian @ 35 Ave, Puyallup, Wash:



48 St E @ River Road & 66 Ave E, Tacoma, Wash:



This is really common in Seattle when flashing yellow arrows are installed. Most often, the old three-head display is tossed, but the through signals are kept.

Those with the square visors are 3M High Visibility Signals.  They are specifically designed where the indication is only viewed from head on, and were an alternative to using louvers to prevent birds from forming nests inside.  The second photo you posted are an appropriate use for such signals, since you don't want drivers coming from other directions to see the indications of those signals due to their oblique orientation.

[traffic light guy]

I know very little about traffic lights, and their manufacturers, but I know old signals when I see them. Here's a couple of old signals next to some "newer" counterparts:

S Meridian @ 35 Ave, Puyallup, Wash:



48 St E @ River Road & 66 Ave E, Tacoma, Wash:



This is really common in Seattle when flashing yellow arrows are installed. Most often, the old three-head display is tossed, but the through signals are kept.

Are the 3M heads the original ones?

[jakeroot]

I know very little about traffic lights, and their manufacturers, but I know old signals when I see them. Here's a couple of old signals next to some "newer" counterparts:

S Meridian @ 35 Ave, Puyallup, Wash:
http://i.imgur.com/a7ckUQr.png

48 St E @ River Road & 66 Ave E, Tacoma, Wash:
http://i.imgur.com/OQjVyt2.png

This is really common in Seattle when flashing yellow arrows are installed. Most often, the old three-head display is tossed, but the through signals are kept.

Those with the square visors are 3M High Visibility Signals.  They are specifically designed where the indication is only viewed from head on, and were an alternative to using louvers to prevent birds from forming nests inside.  The second photo you posted are an appropriate use for such signals, since you don't want drivers coming from other directions to see the indications of those signals due to their oblique orientation.

They both are definitely louvered signals, but I still have a couple of questions:

For the first photo, why was the left turn signal louvered? It's a standard three-head protected left turn display, with all-arrow faces. I don't think there's any mistaking a left green arrow for a through signal.

For the second photo, why do the louvered signals have backplates? Wouldn't they install backplates on all approaches, not just the louvered ones? This is why I originally suspected an age-difference, though looking at the back of the signals, they appear to be the same age as the rest of the lights they look to be slightly different heads: https://goo.gl/pys9QX

[traffic light guy]

Go on Google Maps, go to the intersection of 2nd Street Pike/Industrial Blvd at Southampton, PA

You'll see yet another example of a Frankenstein installation. The signal on the left is a fairly modern doghouse signal , which has only been around for about a decade. The signal hanging from the pole however is an ancient Eagle Flatback. Unfortunately while on vacation, I saw that the Eagle signal recently got replaced with modern equipment.

[Scott5114]

For the first photo, why was the left turn signal louvered? It's a standard three-head protected left turn display, with all-arrow faces. I don't think there's any mistaking a left green arrow for a through signal.

Back in the 90s, it was standard practice in OK, and perhaps elsewhere, to have programmable-visibility signal heads for all protected left turn signals. This was back in the day when a red ball was typical on left-turn signals. Here's a GSV example of such an installation in Del City, which is kind of an interesting place to troll around on GSV because they've apparently not replaced anything substantial since I moved out in 1996.

(Not on topic, but still neat: check out this installation in front of the Del City fire station.)

[cl94]

I don't think we can mention "Frankenstein installations" without heading over to NY 2 in Latham. The green balls are 3M and everything else on the heads are standard. GSV is miserable at this intersection, but the same thing minus the doghouse exists WB as well.

[paulthemapguy]

They both are definitely louvered signals, but I still have a couple of questions:

For the first photo, why was the left turn signal louvered? It's a standard three-head protected left turn display, with all-arrow faces. I don't think there's any mistaking a left green arrow for a through signal.

For the second photo, why do the louvered signals have backplates? Wouldn't they install backplates on all approaches, not just the louvered ones? This is why I originally suspected an age-difference, though looking at the back of the signals, they appear to be the same age as the rest of the lights they look to be slightly different heads: https://goo.gl/pys9QX

In response to the first question, some DOT's consider it standard operating procedure to use the louvered signals with a concentrated viewing area for the protected left turn signal; this is to ensure that traffic in the straight lanes aren't looking at the indications for the left turn lane.  I assume this is because the left turn signal uses a red ball and they don't want straight-ahead traffic getting confused, though I'm doubtful of how effective this is...

Your second question I can't answer; I would assume like you did, that this is a difference in the age of the signal heads.  It could also just be a difference in materials or requirements, i.e. the signal heads were just ordered from a supplier that puts backplates on them by default.

To possibly clear things up, here's an example of an intersection where louvered and typical signal heads were intentionally placed side-by-side.  Louvered signals, for those who don't know, are used to narrow the range of space where the indication can be seen.  The louvered signal head at this diagonal intersection is placed to prevent traffic from the right from seeing the indication they shouldn't be seeing:
https://goo.gl/maps/SN6E7xydFM92

[roadfro]

They both are definitely louvered signals, but I still have a couple of questions:

For the first photo, why was the left turn signal louvered? It's a standard three-head protected left turn display, with all-arrow faces. I don't think there's any mistaking a left green arrow for a through signal.

For the second photo, why do the louvered signals have backplates? Wouldn't they install backplates on all approaches, not just the louvered ones? This is why I originally suspected an age-difference, though looking at the back of the signals, they appear to be the same age as the rest of the lights they look to be slightly different heads: https://goo.gl/pys9QX

In response to the first question, some DOT's consider it standard operating procedure to use the louvered signals with a concentrated viewing area for the protected left turn signal; this is to ensure that traffic in the straight lanes aren't looking at the indications for the left turn lane.  I assume this is because the left turn signal uses a red ball and they don't want straight-ahead traffic getting confused, though I'm doubtful of how effective this is...

Your second question I can't answer; I would assume like you did, that this is a difference in the age of the signal heads.  It could also just be a difference in materials or requirements, i.e. the signal heads were just ordered from a supplier that puts backplates on them by default.

To possibly clear things up, here's an example of an intersection where louvered and typical signal heads were intentionally placed side-by-side.  Louvered signals, for those who don't know, are used to narrow the range of space where the indication can be seen.  The louvered signal head at this diagonal intersection is placed to prevent traffic from the right from seeing the indication they shouldn't be seeing:
https://goo.gl/maps/SN6E7xydFM92

Both jakeroot and paulthemapguy posted examples of 3M programmable visibility signal heads, with the square visors. These are NOT louvers. The 3M programmable visibility heads use some special optics in the signal housing/lens to limit the angles from which the signal indication can be seen.

"Louvers" are angled slats placed inside the signal visor of a traditional signal head that limit the visibility of the light from a side angle. (Think of a closet door with slats, where you can't see to the other side of the door by looking straight through, but you can when moving your head up or down to look through the slats.)

Example of louvered signals: Ramp meter, I-15 SB on-ramp from WB Lake Mead Blvd, North Las Vegas, NV. Note that all the red aspects have slats. The slat angle reduces visibility from the left, reducing likelihood of seeing the signals from the nearby freeway mainline lanes.

[paulthemapguy]

^ I don't know what to call those signal heads then.  I'd like a one-word descriptor I can use to describe them, so I don't have to say "3M programmable visibility signal heads" time and time again lol.  I'm not doing that.  I was thinking of "narrow-focus" or "focused-visibility" or something...there has to be an easier term for them.

[Big John]

^^ I have seen "optically protected" used.

[cl94]

^^ I have seen "optically protected" used.

I just refer to them as 3Ms, as that's the only signal they produced. The knockoff McCain PVs I refer to by name. Those are identifiable because they have round visors.

Programmable visibility signals basically have a piece of aluminum foil tape covering part of the lens, restricting the view from certain angles, usually straight-on or a few yards in front of the signal. Certain areas use them more than others. Quite common in northeast New York with the many skewed and split intersections around here.

[jakeroot]

Are the 3M heads the original ones?

Sorry for the slow reply. Based purely on the look of the heads, and other similar heads used around my area, I suspect the 3M heads are original, and the others are newer.

Here's a street view of the 3M head in the Puyallup example, which shows the red arrow in the 3M head. Why on earth they bothered with constricted-view signals, I have no idea. Honestly, that's why I posted the signal here. It never struck me as a signal that was intentionally "louvered" (you all know what I mean). This whole time, I just thought the signals were really old. I get why signals have their faces' views constricted, but this isn't a situation where I would have considered it necessary. I can only assume that WSDOT went through a phase in the 80s (around when this signal was installed -- note the rust on the mast arm) where 3M heads were used for left turn heads on all approaches (there are several other 3M heads for left turn lights in my area).

FWIW, the Seattle area has very few left turn heads with red balls. Frankly, I can't think of any, though I'm sure they exist. There are some signals with red balls and green arrows, but they are for right turns.

[cl94]

FWIW, the Seattle area has very few left turn heads with red balls. Frankly, I can't think of any, though I'm sure they exist. There are some signals with red balls and green arrows, but they are for right turns.

That's because they actually follow the MUTCD. New York switched over to all arrows pretty early as well and there are very few left turn signals with red balls, all of which I know of dating back to the 80s. Ohio, on the other hand, used red balls until very recently. Green arrows are a new thing there as well.

As far as the MUTCD is concerned, red balls are allowed if turns on red are allowed. But I digress...

[jakeroot]

As far as the MUTCD is concerned, red balls are allowed if turns on red are allowed. But I digress...

No, I insist. Does the MUTCD suggest banning right turns on red arrows? Washington allows for right turns on red arrows, so I don't see why we bother with red balls for right turn signals. Though I get the feeling that dedicated right turn heads are changing over to all-arrow heads. Sometimes, you get signs like this, which must have been standard at one point (when turns may not have used arrow faces), but are becoming redundant as signals are replaced.

[Revive 755]

As far as the MUTCD is concerned, red balls are allowed if turns on red are allowed. But I digress...

No, I insist. Does the MUTCD suggest banning right turns on red arrows?

. . .Except when a traffic control device is in place prohibiting a turn on red or a steady RED ARROW signal indication is displayed, vehicular traffic facing a steady CIRCULAR RED signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign.

2. Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed.

When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign.

Washington allows for right turns on red arrows, so I don't see why we bother with red balls for right turn signals.

Illinois also allows rights on red arrows after stopping, but the Illinois Supplement to the MUTCD recommends using circular reds in these situations instead of red arrows.  There are a few other states that also allow rights on red arrows as well, such as Missouri and IIRC Wisconsin.

I would be curious if this will be changed in the next edition of the MUTCD, and if in the cases where rights on red arrows are permitted a flashing red arrow should be used instead of a steady one.

[cl94]

As far as the MUTCD is concerned, red balls are allowed if turns on red are allowed. But I digress...

No, I insist. Does the MUTCD suggest banning right turns on red arrows?

. . .Except when a traffic control device is in place prohibiting a turn on red or a steady RED ARROW signal indication is displayed, vehicular traffic facing a steady CIRCULAR RED signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign.

2. Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed.

When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign.

Washington allows for right turns on red arrows, so I don't see why we bother with red balls for right turn signals.

Illinois also allows rights on red arrows after stopping, but the Illinois Supplement to the MUTCD recommends using circular reds in these situations instead of red arrows.  There are a few other states that also allow rights on red arrows as well, such as Missouri and IIRC Wisconsin.

I would be curious if this will be changed in the next edition of the MUTCD, and if in the cases where rights on red arrows are permitted a flashing red arrow should be used instead of a steady one.

According to the MUTCD, it appears that turns on red should be disallowed with a red arrow unless explicitly allowed. This appears to be the case in Ohio, where a red arrow indicates "no turn on red", but there are locations with signs explicitly allowing turns on red.

New York only uses a red arrow if turns on red are prohibited. As such, they are quite rare for right turns and right turn protected-only signals typically have red balls.

[M3019C LPS20]

^^ I have seen "optically protected" used.

I just refer to them as 3Ms, as that's the only signal they produced. The knockoff McCain PVs I refer to by name. Those are identifiable because they have round visors.

3M also produced two-section pedestrian signals (hand and man and "DONT WALK" and "WALK"). McCain doesn't offer them to my knowledge, and the company also offers cutaway type visors for its PV signals as well; however, they seem uncommon than standard tunnel visors. At skewed intersections, those that are in use typically have long tunnel visors in use, in which defeats the whole purpose of the PV signal. *facepalm*

[cl94]

^^ I have seen "optically protected" used.

I just refer to them as 3Ms, as that's the only signal they produced. The knockoff McCain PVs I refer to by name. Those are identifiable because they have round visors.

3M also produced two-section pedestrian signals (hand and man and "DONT WALK" and "WALK"). McCain doesn't offer them to my knowledge, and the company also offers cutaway type visors for its PV signals as well; however, they seem uncommon than standard tunnel visors. At skewed intersections, those that are in use typically have long tunnel visors in use, in which defeats the whole purpose of the PV signal. *facepalm*

Funny, most NYSDOT installations I've seen use cutaway visors.