Traffic signal

[hotdogPi]

Unfortunately, by the time I took a photo, the upside-down "5" looked like a "2"

An upside-down 2 is still a 2, and an upside-down 5 is still a 5.

[7/8]

Unfortunately, by the time I took a photo, the upside-down "5" looked like a "2"

An upside-down 2 is still a 2, and an upside-down 5 is still a 5.

Good catch, thanks. I've edited my post.

[jakeroot]

Most protected left turns over here in BC have three left turn heads. But this intersection has five. The one I find most baffling is the far-left, near-side signal. I mean, I'm all for redundant signals, especially at busy intersections, where some signals may not be visible due to other vehicles. But this placement is a little unusual, even for here (where left turns are required to have at least three signals, except where impossible). BC's heavy use of 8-inch signals does mean that, unlike other provinces and most states, there can be lots of signals at intersections, without too much "visual pollution" (if that makes any sense).

United Blvd @ Mary Hill Bypass, Coquitlam, BC

[traffic light guy]

Here's a set of some very old 12-inch Eagle flatbacks that I found the other day, I took these photos myslef. It was worth the long walk, since these will be gone within the next five years. I like the diagnal mast-arms!

[Brandon]

Most protected left turns over here in BC have three left turn heads. But this intersection has five. The one I find most baffling is the far-left, near-side signal. I mean, I'm all for redundant signals, especially at busy intersections, where some signals may not be visible due to other vehicles. But this placement is a little unusual, even for here (where left turns are required to have at least three signals, except where impossible). BC's heavy use of 8-inch signals does mean that, unlike other provinces and most states, there can be lots of signals at intersections, without too much "visual pollution" (if that makes any sense).

United Blvd @ Mary Hill Bypass, Coquitlam, BC

For a moment, I thought that was from Illinois.  IDOT does similar regarding signals.  They require a minimum of two for each turning direction, and three for the through direction.

[steviep24]

Came across this in Canandaigua, NY on NY 332. Featuring doghouse signals with 8 in. balls and 12 in. arrows.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8879846,-77.2815768,3a,37.5y,137h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RE-1UZARniCHugp-38wmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[Revive 755]

Came across this in Canandaigua, NY on NY 332. Featuring doghouse signals with 8 in. balls and 12 in. arrows.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8879846,-77.2815768,3a,37.5y,137h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RE-1UZARniCHugp-38wmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Also has a railroad crossing in the background with traffic signals instead of the usual crossing flashers.

[cl94]

Came across this in Canandaigua, NY on NY 332. Featuring doghouse signals with 8 in. balls and 12 in. arrows.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8879846,-77.2815768,3a,37.5y,137h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RE-1UZARniCHugp-38wmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Also has a railroad crossing in the background with traffic signals instead of the usual crossing flashers.

Both are actually not uncommon in New York. Little-used crossings over major roads get signals, while I can think of a ton of 8/12 doghouses throughout the state. Want to know what's weirder? This thing.

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

Came across this in Canandaigua, NY on NY 332. Featuring doghouse signals with 8 in. balls and 12 in. arrows.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8879846,-77.2815768,3a,37.5y,137h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RE-1UZARniCHugp-38wmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Also has a railroad crossing in the background with traffic signals instead of the usual crossing flashers.

Both are actually not uncommon in New York. Little-used crossings over major roads get signals, while I can think of a ton of 8/12 doghouses throughout the state. Want to know what's weirder? This thing.

That thing is ugly. They should hve done what NYC does and stick the arrow off to the side of the 3 8" lights

[cl94]

Came across this in Canandaigua, NY on NY 332. Featuring doghouse signals with 8 in. balls and 12 in. arrows.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8879846,-77.2815768,3a,37.5y,137h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RE-1UZARniCHugp-38wmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Also has a railroad crossing in the background with traffic signals instead of the usual crossing flashers.

Both are actually not uncommon in New York. Little-used crossings over major roads get signals, while I can think of a ton of 8/12 doghouses throughout the state. Want to know what's weirder? This thing.

That thing is ugly. They should hve done what NYC does and stick the arrow off to the side of the 3 8" lights

Colonie has a ton of those things. I actually lost count.

[jakeroot]

How often do you guys notice mast arms that extend past the outer-most signal head? I seem to see this mostly when the mast arm has pre-cast wiring holes to support a dedicated left turn signal, but one is not installed immediately (i.e. pro/per 4/5-section signal installed in lieu of a dedicated left turn signal). But I'm starting to see this an awful lot, even when the signal is installed with a dedicated left turn signal straight-away.

Initially, my suspicion was that the mast arm extended past the outer-most signal to counter-balance the weight of the signal heads, but if that were true, wouldn't almost all mast arms extend past the outer-most signal?

Realistically, this isn't a problem -- it only bugs me because it looks lazy. Some agencies, such as those in British Columbia and California, seem to rarely do it. But others, like here in Washington or Oregon, seem to do it almost religiously. It's almost like they use pre-set mast arm lengths, and they just don't bother to shorten them.

Another observation: older mast arms don't seem to demonstrate this overhang as much as newer mast arms.

Here's several new-ish examples from various agencies here in Washington:

[Revive 755]

How often do you guys notice mast arms that extend past the outer-most signal head?

In northeastern Illinois, at least outside of Chicago, it is standard to have at least two feet of mast arm beyond the centerline of the outer-most signal head.

[SignBridge]

I'm with you Jakeroot. I think it looks sloppy and unprofessional when the arm extends past the left-most signal head. As you said, some states custom-cut them; others do not. California and Nevada are among those with smart-looking configurations.

[cl94]

New York often cuts masts to length or within a foot or two, but it's not uncommon for an intersection with a permissive left turn and a dedicated LT lane to have some extra space to allow for future installation of a protected signal or allow for widening. In some cases, this extra length has been used to install an FYA.

[DaBigE]

Initially, my suspicion was that the mast arm extended past the outer-most signal to counter-balance the weight of the signal heads, but if that were true, wouldn't almost all mast arms extend past the outer-most signal?

Huh?? I must be missing something when you say "counter-balance the weight". The longer the arm, the greater the moment force the support pole has to endure. A counter-balance would have to be on the exact opposite side of the pole to do anything (think teeter-totter).

[jakeroot]

Initially, my suspicion was that the mast arm extended past the outer-most signal to counter-balance the weight of the signal heads, but if that were true, wouldn't almost all mast arms extend past the outer-most signal?

Huh?? I must be missing something when you say "counter-balance the weight". The longer the arm, the greater the moment force the support pole has to endure. A counter-balance would have to be on the exact opposite side of the pole to do anything (think teeter-totter).

Counter-balance may not be the correct term. My thinking was that too much weight on the left edge of the arm might cause the arm to sag (if that makes any sense), so you extend the arm past the left-most signal to keep the signals more centered along the arm (due to all the dead space on the right edge of the arm where it connects to the mast).

A couple years ago, I asked WSDOT to replace a protected-only left turn signal with an FYA (S 272 St @ I-5 north of Federal Way, WA). They said they couldn't because the FYA was too heavy for the arm to support. I thought that was horse shit, but I'm not an engineer. Up until then, I was under the impression that signals weren't all that heavy (never having seen one up close). My thought here, then, was that signal placement along an arm is important because those suckers are heavy, and could cause the arm to sag if installed in the wrong place.

[DaBigE]

A couple years ago, I asked WSDOT to replace a protected-only left turn signal with an FYA (S 272 St @ I-5 north of Federal Way, WA). They said they couldn't because the FYA was too heavy for the arm to support. I thought that was horse shit, but I'm not an engineer. Up until then, I was under the impression that signals weren't all that heavy (never having seen one up close). My thought here, then, was that signal placement along an arm is important because those suckers are heavy, and could cause the arm to sag if installed in the wrong place.

It's not just the weight of the signal that's the issue, it's the overall loading of the structure. The further out the point load is on the arm, the greater the moment force. Do the math: http://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/tsdm/06/06-01-11.pdf (see page 3).

FWIW, a typical poly signal weighs around 24-pounds for three sections + lenses & mounting hardware.

[Revive 755]

A couple years ago, I asked WSDOT to replace a protected-only left turn signal with an FYA (S 272 St @ I-5 north of Federal Way, WA). They said they couldn't because the FYA was too heavy for the arm to support. I thought that was horse shit, but I'm not an engineer.

Does WSDOT not allow any bimodal indications?  Granted a quick search is not providing an answer to how much more a bimodal green arrow/flashing yellow arrow LED indication would weigh compare to a green arrow LED indication, but I would think the indication plus any extra wiring would not overload the mast arm.

I was also going to mention this corner as a location to try the new bimodal flashing yellow arrow/steady yellow arrow design, but it appears from FHWA's listing of agencies which have gotten interim approvals WSDOT does not want to use this on their signals.

[freebrickproductions]

You'd probably hate some of Huntsville's latest signal installs then! Though, to be fair, IIRC, the first link is planned to have a fourth leg added to the intersection in the future.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7113187,-86.5887652,3a,32.2y,265.31h,90.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjXjIxWigKto7-8fNAHW3Aw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6453434,-86.4841455,3a,60y,326.32h,95.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s11xvVViliWpWsFmtaHGURw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

It can also be found on older installs too:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.73009,-86.6001663,3a,43.3y,140.91h,80.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv9AJ0oOlHrtyWJ_stx1kPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Though in a slightly opposite direction, there is this one in downtown Huntsville where there used to be a few extra signal heads at one point, but all but one of them were removed:
2013:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7270325,-86.594868,3a,36.2y,221.44h,95.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sph5VXNCB05LiKoTF0dP67g!2e0!5s20130801T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
2016:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7269908,-86.5949795,3a,60y,207.35h,95.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3Z0kyJDjC8YSzGFjLkOuLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

IIRC, I remember hearing that there is (or at least was) some kind of recommendation made by the MUTCD or FHWA saying that extra space should be left on mast-arms so extra signals could easily be added if necessary.

[jakeroot]

Does WSDOT not allow any bimodal indications?  Granted a quick search is not providing an answer to how much more a bimodal green arrow/flashing yellow arrow LED indication would weigh compare to a green arrow LED indication, but I would think the indication plus any extra wiring would not overload the mast arm.

Besides below, WSDOT is not quick to approach the FYA in any capacity, regardless. I figured it was a stretch to ask them. Glad the only issue was mechanical. The turn lane is only like three cars long for the WB to SB (onto the 5), and the left turners back up into the left through lane constantly. Total mess. Needs to be fixed. I asked them to install a "left turn on red okay after stop" sign, because Washington permits lefts onto one way roads on red (and nobody knows about the law), but they never got back to me.

As for bimodal indications, WSDOT does use bimodal green/yellow right turn filters (instead of the 5-section towers utilized in most other states). Not sure why they're scared of bimodal FYAs...

I was also going to mention this corner as a location to try the new bimodal flashing yellow arrow/steady yellow arrow design, but it appears from FHWA's listing of agencies which have gotten interim approvals WSDOT does not want to use this on their signals.

I see the three-head FYAs around the area, but indeed, never on a state highway. Most of the one's I see are in the city of Lakewood, and occasionally Seattle (including one location (Mercer @ Queen Anne) where there is a three-head FYA with no protected movement (I guess the signal is just for emphasis)).

[JMAN_WiS&S]

Initially, my suspicion was that the mast arm extended past the outer-most signal to counter-balance the weight of the signal heads, but if that were true, wouldn't almost all mast arms extend past the outer-most signal?

Huh?? I must be missing something when you say "counter-balance the weight". The longer the arm, the greater the moment force the support pole has to endure. A counter-balance would have to be on the exact opposite side of the pole to do anything (think teeter-totter).

Counter-balance may not be the correct term. My thinking was that too much weight on the left edge of the arm might cause the arm to sag (if that makes any sense), so you extend the arm past the left-most signal to keep the signals more centered along the arm (due to all the dead space on the right edge of the arm where it connects to the mast).

A couple years ago, I asked WSDOT to replace a protected-only left turn signal with an FYA (S 272 St @ I-5 north of Federal Way, WA). They said they couldn't because the FYA was too heavy for the arm to support. I thought that was horse shit, but I'm not an engineer. Up until then, I was under the impression that signals weren't all that heavy (never having seen one up close). My thought here, then, was that signal placement along an arm is important because those suckers are heavy, and could cause the arm to sag if installed in the wrong place.

An intersection downtown in Eau Claire WI got brand new signals a year or so ago, and they used dual arms mounted kitty corner, so the arms for the side streets were extended from the left vs the right. The arms are extremely beefy and extend past their needed point, but I think this is to balance the mast since one pole is holding two masts.

[jakeroot]

How often do you guys notice mast arms that extend past the outer-most signal head?

In northeastern Illinois, at least outside of Chicago, it is standard to have at least two feet of mast arm beyond the centerline of the outer-most signal head.

Any idea why that's the standard? It's one thing to do it because the agency is (perhaps) lazy, but it's another thing to do it intentionally.

[DaBigE]

How often do you guys notice mast arms that extend past the outer-most signal head?

In northeastern Illinois, at least outside of Chicago, it is standard to have at least two feet of mast arm beyond the centerline of the outer-most signal head.

Any idea why that's the standard? It's one thing to do it because the agency is (perhaps) lazy, but it's another thing to do it intentionally.

Allow room to place a sign?

[jakeroot]

How often do you guys notice mast arms that extend past the outer-most signal head?

In northeastern Illinois, at least outside of Chicago, it is standard to have at least two feet of mast arm beyond the centerline of the outer-most signal head.

Any idea why that's the standard? It's one thing to do it because the agency is (perhaps) lazy, but it's another thing to do it intentionally.

Allow room to place a sign?

I usually see "left turn yield on flashing yellow/green" or left turn only signs posted to the right of the signal (if one is used at all). Though in cases where the arm extends past the farthest signal, I have seen the sign posted to the left (though I often see the sign posted to the right even when the arm extends to the left a considerable distance).

I'm not overly familiar with Illinois, but I don't seem to recall an abundance of R3-series signs on overhead mast arms in my time cruising around Street View (though IIRC, "yield on flashing yellow arrow" is used at least in St Charles).

[plain]

Came across this in Canandaigua, NY on NY 332. Featuring doghouse signals with 8 in. balls and 12 in. arrows.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8879846,-77.2815768,3a,37.5y,137h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3RE-1UZARniCHugp-38wmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Also has a railroad crossing in the background with traffic signals instead of the usual crossing flashers.

Both are actually not uncommon in New York. Little-used crossings over major roads get signals, while I can think of a ton of 8/12 doghouses throughout the state. Want to know what's weirder? This thing.

That thing is ugly. They should hve done what NYC does and stick the arrow off to the side of the 3 8" lights

Colonie has a ton of those things. I actually lost count.

And if those wasn't ugly enough for you....
http://maps.google.com/maps?layer=c&panoid=2vBfkrstVfMK8lU_ZFoRcQ&cbp=1%2C59.19576%2C%2C3.0%2C5.5681143&cbll=37.575326%2C-77.480413