Traffic signal

[roadman65]

Here is an odd looking signal in Henderson, KY.

[jakeroot]

That's a lot of work for just a FYA. This is what MA does Lmao:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201129/9325791912bf490baeffb6cb3cf908e2.jpg

This is what I've seen in WA as well. Rather than go through the pain in the ass process of installing a bunch of new metal, just move one of the signal heads to the mast, and replace the other overhead signal with the FYA. Way easier, and makes the whole setup better for visibility anyways.

Example here for large intersection (previously a doghouse); example here for smaller intersection (use GSV time-slider to compare before and after).

Yeah, MassDOT examples:
Before: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4613807,-71.1676569,3a,75y,272.75h,88.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skOWQluw_XhGVDnoP0r6gHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
After: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4613706,-71.1676358,3a,60y,273.72h,88.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT8e1tyFEhfbqCAoZciB0Cg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Before: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4343327,-71.2414597,3a,75y,259.93h,90.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPSzNl7oluojRYJ14eE1RHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
After: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4343052,-71.2414508,3a,75y,261.11h,90.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUlNhe4GmvOA8xAoqCmYP1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Before: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4250913,-71.2503733,3a,75y,264.7h,89.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY9bUtoxm3rX3zPKAs-TQMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
After: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4250966,-71.2503896,3a,75y,269.09h,92.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWCWoHO0-fxYTyIZ6McsgAw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Before (larger intersection): https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6286703,-71.274291,3a,46.9y,118.68h,95.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq3Xa6i91L47IzMNeEWTA-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
After (intersecting upgrade here): https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6286351,-71.2742982,3a,32.6y,116.2h,94.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMKxe8TK2Ab_CN6rOfWY7hg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I did just remember another example from Puyallup. This one was odd because there was already a post-mounted signal on the right. So the entire install was as easy as replacing the far-left RYG signal with an FYA. Presto!

More examples with post-mounted RYG signals I can think of: compact example in Puyallup, WA; this entire corridor in Puyallup, WA (note the bizarre mismatched backplates...yuck -- I don't know how that happened); most intersections in Federal Way, WA, but perhaps this one most prominently which was upgraded not once, but twice (to match the current NV-esque standards of the city).

[jakeroot]

Rather than go through the pain in the ass process of installing a bunch of new metal, just move one of the signal heads to the mast, and replace the other overhead signal with the FYA. Way easier, and makes the whole setup better for visibility anyways.

It's not a bad idea, but UDOT has never used a configuration like that. It would appear their standard is to always have at least two overhead signals, and it's very rare for them to put one on the far-side mast (though there are a couple exceptions, like this one on SR 36).

The configuration does exist in Utah at a handful of intersections (example), but those are all Salt Lake City installs and I can't think of one that's not right next to a light rail line. Since the above intersection is on SR 186, the lights are maintained by UDOT.

UDOT does a lot of things that are very unlike surrounding states. At first, it was that split-phasing rule; I remember you mentioning that intersections without left turn lanes are almost always split-phased. That's definitely not something I've seen anywhere else except as required by heavy left turns or whatever. Yet another thing: they seem to simply refuse to use post-mounted signals even when they would make sense, despite being used by every state surrounding it. I won't sit here and tell you how big of a user of post-mounted signals WSDOT is, because they aren't (although secondary left turn signals are becoming more common along state highways now), but there's a lot of cities in WA that will. Utah, on the other hand, seems to have a very homogenous design used by basically every city.

I guess my point being that I don't fully understand UDOT practices. Although not to spend an entire post shitting on Utah, I find their signing practices to be quite innovative, and I really like their standard road markings (especially compared to Colorado).

[plain]

Here is an odd looking signal in Henderson, KY.

KY has quite a few of these setups throughout the state. Here's one on US 27 Nickolasville Rd at KY 4 New Circle Rd in Lexington

Image from GSV



moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

[jeffandnicole]

Here is an odd looking signal in Henderson, KY.
(image snipped)

Delaware likes using this signal as well...

https://goo.gl/maps/S8JjrFPXpDp16uGf8

In cases like this, it was their version of the FYA long before the FYA was a thing:

https://goo.gl/maps/HNNDkn8wxLSMs6qXA

[Caps81943]

UDOT does a lot of things that are very unlike surrounding states. At first, it was that split-phasing rule; I remember you mentioning that intersections without left turn lanes are almost always split-phased. That's definitely not something I've seen anywhere else except as required by heavy left turns or whatever. Yet another thing: they seem to simply refuse to use post-mounted signals even when they would make sense, despite being used by every state surrounding it.

Wait, do you mind explaining this? The way I know of split phasing is an intersection like this] (on the approaches from I-81 and the side street) where one side gets protected green for all directions (including arrows and the like), and then if necessary the other approach also gets all-protected green. I know occasionally this is done with just green balls (no arrows...I believe 7's two Berryville lights about 15 miles east of this intersection give the side streets arrow-less split phasing). How exactly did Utah do their split phasing?

[jakeroot]

UDOT does a lot of things that are very unlike surrounding states. At first, it was that split-phasing rule; I remember you mentioning that intersections without left turn lanes are almost always split-phased. That's definitely not something I've seen anywhere else except as required by heavy left turns or whatever. Yet another thing: they seem to simply refuse to use post-mounted signals even when they would make sense, despite being used by every state surrounding it.

Wait, do you mind explaining this? The way I know of split phasing is an intersection like this] (on the approaches from I-81 and the side street) where one side gets protected green for all directions (including arrows and the like), and then if necessary the other approach also gets all-protected green. I know occasionally this is done with just green balls (no arrows...I believe 7's two Berryville lights about 15 miles east of this intersection give the side streets arrow-less split phasing). How exactly did Utah do their split phasing?

What I mean is an intersection like this. In WA, and many other states, this would be permissive (as it is in that link): left turns would yield to through traffic, and traffic continuing straight or turning right would either wait for that car, or go around them using what is typically a wide-enough area of the intersection to the right of the waiting vehicle to perform those maneuvers. In Utah, however, the general practice seems to be that all left turns without a dedicated left turn lane are split-phased: movements from that approach will have a green ball and green arrow, and no permissive phase, even if the approach is just a single lane. Example here of what I assume is a very quiet intersection but yet split-phasing is used. I don't get it. Utah is very conservative in this regard.

I have seen intersections like this in other states where its just a single lane approach but the decision was made to split-phase, but this is typically done on a case-by-case basis usually because of issues with overlapping left turns or very heavy approaches (although even then, leading green arrows for one approach seem more common). In Utah, it seems to be the opposite: approaches without a dedicated left turn lane but with the option to turn left (aka, an "option lane") are automatically split-phased from the off, and only become permissive-only "concurrent green" intersections later on as required due to issues with traffic or pedestrian flow.

[Caps81943]

Oh okay, that makes sense, thanks. I actually don't find that too weird because Virginia loves split phasingexample, but now that I think about it, I don't see split phasing that much in other states, and yeah, even your example seems a little excessive.

[jakeroot]

Oh okay, that makes sense, thanks. I actually don't find that too weird because Virginia loves split phasingexample, but now that I think about it, I don't see split phasing that much in other states, and yeah, even your example seems a little excessive.

Funny you'd mention Virginia, as that is probably the second place that I see it as often. Especially at those side approaches to divided highways. Although I spend most of my time in the DMV area where permissive-only is far more common than anything else, so I easily forget that.

[mrsman]

That's a lot of work for just a FYA. This is what MA does Lmao:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201129/9325791912bf490baeffb6cb3cf908e2.jpg

This is what I've seen in WA as well. Rather than go through the pain in the ass process of installing a bunch of new metal, just move one of the signal heads to the mast, and replace the other overhead signal with the FYA. Way easier, and makes the whole setup better for visibility anyways.

Example here for large intersection (previously a doghouse); example here for smaller intersection (use GSV time-slider to compare before and after).

Yeah, MassDOT examples:
Before: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4613807,-71.1676569,3a,75y,272.75h,88.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skOWQluw_XhGVDnoP0r6gHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
After: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4613706,-71.1676358,3a,60y,273.72h,88.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT8e1tyFEhfbqCAoZciB0Cg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Before: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4343327,-71.2414597,3a,75y,259.93h,90.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPSzNl7oluojRYJ14eE1RHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
After: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4343052,-71.2414508,3a,75y,261.11h,90.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUlNhe4GmvOA8xAoqCmYP1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Before: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4250913,-71.2503733,3a,75y,264.7h,89.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY9bUtoxm3rX3zPKAs-TQMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
After: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4250966,-71.2503896,3a,75y,269.09h,92.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWCWoHO0-fxYTyIZ6McsgAw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Before (larger intersection): https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6286703,-71.274291,3a,46.9y,118.68h,95.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq3Xa6i91L47IzMNeEWTA-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
After (intersecting upgrade here): https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6286351,-71.2742982,3a,32.6y,116.2h,94.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMKxe8TK2Ab_CN6rOfWY7hg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I did just remember another example from Puyallup. This one was odd because there was already a post-mounted signal on the right. So the entire install was as easy as replacing the far-left RYG signal with an FYA. Presto!

More examples with post-mounted RYG signals I can think of: compact example in Puyallup, WA; this entire corridor in Puyallup, WA (note the bizarre mismatched backplates...yuck -- I don't know how that happened); most intersections in Federal Way, WA, but perhaps this one most prominently which was upgraded not once, but twice (to match the current NV-esque standards of the city).

Difficult to understand why they changed this last signal two times.  IMO, the second situation did the job adequately, having one post mounted thru signal, one mastarm mounted thru signal, and the FYA signal at the end of the mastarm.  While I am a fan of lest sidemounted signals (especially for permissive left turns so that drivers are looking in the direction of that signal to watch for opposing traffic and pedestrians) and I'm glad to see the left sidemount in the third situation, the additional signal head on the mast arm seems like a waste of money.  Perhaps Federal Way has money to burn on these things (and we all know that it is indeed the federal way to waste money).

[mrsman]

UDOT does a lot of things that are very unlike surrounding states. At first, it was that split-phasing rule; I remember you mentioning that intersections without left turn lanes are almost always split-phased. That's definitely not something I've seen anywhere else except as required by heavy left turns or whatever. Yet another thing: they seem to simply refuse to use post-mounted signals even when they would make sense, despite being used by every state surrounding it.

Wait, do you mind explaining this? The way I know of split phasing is an intersection like this] (on the approaches from I-81 and the side street) where one side gets protected green for all directions (including arrows and the like), and then if necessary the other approach also gets all-protected green. I know occasionally this is done with just green balls (no arrows...I believe 7's two Berryville lights about 15 miles east of this intersection give the side streets arrow-less split phasing). How exactly did Utah do their split phasing?

What I mean is an intersection like this. In WA, and many other states, this would be permissive (as it is in that link): left turns would yield to through traffic, and traffic continuing straight or turning right would either wait for that car, or go around them using what is typically a wide-enough area of the intersection to the right of the waiting vehicle to perform those maneuvers. In Utah, however, the general practice seems to be that all left turns without a dedicated left turn lane are split-phased: movements from that approach will have a green ball and green arrow, and no permissive phase, even if the approach is just a single lane. Example here of what I assume is a very quiet intersection but yet split-phasing is used. I don't get it. Utah is very conservative in this regard.

I have seen intersections like this in other states where its just a single lane approach but the decision was made to split-phase, but this is typically done on a case-by-case basis usually because of issues with overlapping left turns or very heavy approaches (although even then, leading green arrows for one approach seem more common). In Utah, it seems to be the opposite: approaches without a dedicated left turn lane but with the option to turn left (aka, an "option lane") are automatically split-phased from the off, and only become permissive-only "concurrent green" intersections later on as required due to issues with traffic or pedestrian flow.

The situation in Utah that you highlighted seems to be one of the better uses of split phasing.  Split phasing is certainly to be discouraged because by increasing the number of signal phases, you decrease the green time for everyone else.  But in situations where left turns from the side street to the main street are a heavy movment, they are useful.  The two most common situations where I see split phasing is where one or both of the side streets leads to a shopping center and the other situation is where one of the side streets is a collector but dwindles down to a very small residential upon crossing the intersection.  The Utah case is the latter case, where 500 North is a collector to the east of Columbus but a very small residential to the west.  The majority of traffic from the east will turn.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the intersection is designed with a right lane must turn right.  If that lane wasn't designated, then it would be fairly easy is someone wanted to go westbound on 500 north across the intersection to use the right lane to bypass left turning cars, if there was regular signalization.  But given the right turn lane, they are not allowed to.  If so much of the traffic does turn onto Columbus, it makes sense to prioritize right turns with their own lane, so that right turners can make a right on red (as well as green arrow during corresponding left from Columbus) and not be blocked by cars going straight.  Also, for cars coming eastbound, the part of 500 north west of Columbus is very narrow and may not be able to pass a left turner on the right.

Another area that makes widespread use of split-phasing is the unincorporated areas of suburban Sacramento county, especially Arden-Arcade and Carmichael.

Here is an example where the side street (Hurley) is a collector on one side, but a small residential (San Ysidro) on the other side, at the intersection of Watt Avenue.  Somewhat similar to the situation in Utah:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5885923,-121.3830467,3a,75y,106.81h,86.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjlqMr-CQRZsN7kh6bBYS0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Here is another example a few blocks away.  Morse is a collector on both sides.  Here, it seems the motivation for split-phasing was to prevent the need to paint left turn pockets so that the bike lane can be continuous through the intersection without widening the street.  Hurley/Morse.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5886642,-121.3922476,3a,75y,173.39h,89.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_7e5u3ypOD5JfKzbLY9RVA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Here is one more nearby that is a treat for those who like 12-8-8, 8-8-12, and even a 12-8-8-12 signal faces.  Hurley/Fulton.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5887543,-121.4014607,3a,75y,241.46h,92.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUej78Q7CcFetuJU6PW-mfw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DUej78Q7CcFetuJU6PW-mfw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D222.91882%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

This part of town is great in that all collectors and major streets in the area east of Ethan and north of El Camino are named after inventors:  Howe, Bell, Wright, Fulton, Morse, Watt, Marconi, Pope, Whitney, Edison.

[jakeroot]

More examples with post-mounted RYG signals I can think of: compact example in Puyallup, WA; this entire corridor in Puyallup, WA (note the bizarre mismatched backplates...yuck -- I don't know how that happened); most intersections in Federal Way, WA, but perhaps this one most prominently which was upgraded not once, but twice (to match the current NV-esque standards of the city).

Difficult to understand why they changed this last signal two times.  IMO, the second situation did the job adequately, having one post mounted thru signal, one mastarm mounted thru signal, and the FYA signal at the end of the mastarm.  While I am a fan of lest sidemounted signals (especially for permissive left turns so that drivers are looking in the direction of that signal to watch for opposing traffic and pedestrians) and I'm glad to see the left sidemount in the third situation, the additional signal head on the mast arm seems like a waste of money.  Perhaps Federal Way has money to burn on these things (and we all know that it is indeed the federal way to waste money).

I would generally agree that "through minus one" is sufficient for traffic signals, whether left or through signals. CA being the most prominent example of this.

As to Federal Way: the city traffic engineer, who I would consider an acquaintance of mine, explained that the city did have a policy of using through minus one for a good six or seven years (great example being this intersection which I share pretty frequently as I consider it to be one of the best signalized intersections in the city). The policy changed about five years ago to be "signal per lane" instead; this upgraded intersection is an example of their current policy (which also includes single-lane FYAs opposite a double protected left). He didn't really explain why, but I suspect it's because of MUTCD recommendations* around signal-per-lane. He originally adopted CA-style placement as he is originally from CA, interestingly enough. Neighboring Auburn's head engineer is also from CA, which explains their excellent signal placement strategies. I guess one of the great things about WA is that many of our engineers come from other western states which largely have better practices than WSDOT.

* Great example of a "recommendation" implementation is this intersection down in Clark County, WA, where each approach has a near-side 5-section tower. Their engineer told me that it was installed due to preliminary MUTCD suggestions in the late 2000s that all approaches along 40+ mph roads would require near-side signals. This policy was not implemented, but the signals were installed as so regardless. Kind of too bad, to be honest!

[Amtrakprod]

More examples with post-mounted RYG signals I can think of: compact example in Puyallup, WA; this entire corridor in Puyallup, WA (note the bizarre mismatched backplates...yuck -- I don't know how that happened); most intersections in Federal Way, WA, but perhaps this one most prominently which was upgraded not once, but twice (to match the current NV-esque standards of the city).

Difficult to understand why they changed this last signal two times.  IMO, the second situation did the job adequately, having one post mounted thru signal, one mastarm mounted thru signal, and the FYA signal at the end of the mastarm.  While I am a fan of lest sidemounted signals (especially for permissive left turns so that drivers are looking in the direction of that signal to watch for opposing traffic and pedestrians) and I'm glad to see the left sidemount in the third situation, the additional signal head on the mast arm seems like a waste of money.  Perhaps Federal Way has money to burn on these things (and we all know that it is indeed the federal way to waste money).

I would generally agree that "through minus one" is sufficient for traffic signals, whether left or through signals. CA being the most prominent example of this.

As to Federal Way: the city traffic engineer, who I would consider an acquaintance of mine, explained that the city did have a policy of using through minus one for a good six or seven years (great example being this intersection which I share pretty frequently as I consider it to be one of the best signalized intersections in the city). The policy changed about five years ago to be "signal per lane" instead; this upgraded intersection is an example of their current policy (which also includes single-lane FYAs opposite a double protected left). He didn't really explain why, but I suspect it's because of MUTCD recommendations* around signal-per-lane. He originally adopted CA-style placement as he is originally from CA, interestingly enough. Neighboring Auburn's head engineer is also from CA, which explains their excellent signal placement strategies. I guess one of the great things about WA is that many of our engineers come from other western states which largely have better practices than WSDOT.

* Great example of a "recommendation" implementation is this intersection down in Clark County, WA, where each approach has a near-side 5-section tower. Their engineer told me that it was installed due to preliminary MUTCD suggestions in the late 2000s that all approaches along 40+ mph roads would require near-side signals. This policy was not implemented, but the signals were installed as so regardless. Kind of too bad, to be honest!

Haha Jake I think we ought to start calling you the Federal Way Fanboy !

[jakeroot]

Haha Jake I think we ought to start calling you the Federal Way Fanboy !

I deserve that label.

They do so many interesting things, I find myself using them as a reference a lot.

[fwydriver405]

I have seen intersections like this in other states where its just a single lane approach but the decision was made to split-phase, but this is typically done on a case-by-case basis usually because of issues with overlapping left turns or very heavy approaches (although even then, leading green arrows for one approach seem more common). In Utah, it seems to be the opposite: approaches without a dedicated left turn lane but with the option to turn left (aka, an "option lane") are automatically split-phased from the off, and only become permissive-only "concurrent green" intersections later on as required due to issues with traffic or pedestrian flow.

I wonder if TOD phasing can be utilised at these kind of intersections mentioned above with the standard 4-section signal (R-Y-G-GA*) to switch between the following phasings especially when traffic volumes are light, so traffic doesn't have to wait for the split phase and phasing can be shorter in low traffic periods especially at night:

- Permissive only phasing (only R-Y-G used) during lighter periods.
- Split phasing (R-Y-G-GA used) during peak periods.

*Especially NHDOT, they sometimes like to use a 4-section bimodal signal (R-Y-G-GA/YA) for left turn (and left/thru movements) even when approaches are split phased... with the yellow arrow, more phasings could be implmented for such TOD phasing.

[Dirt Roads]

I have seen intersections like this in other states where its just a single lane approach but the decision was made to split-phase, but this is typically done on a case-by-case basis usually because of issues with overlapping left turns or very heavy approaches (although even then, leading green arrows for one approach seem more common). In Utah, it seems to be the opposite: approaches without a dedicated left turn lane but with the option to turn left (aka, an "option lane") are automatically split-phased from the off, and only become permissive-only "concurrent green" intersections later on as required due to issues with traffic or pedestrian flow.

I wonder if TOD phasing can be utilised at these kind of intersections mentioned above with the standard 4-section signal (R-Y-G-GA*) to switch between the following phasings especially when traffic volumes are light, so traffic doesn't have to wait for the split phase and phasing can be shorter in low traffic periods especially at night:

- Permissive only phasing (only R-Y-G used) during lighter periods.
- Split phasing (R-Y-G-GA used) during peak periods.

*Especially NHDOT, they sometimes like to use a 4-section bimodal signal (R-Y-G-GA/YA) for left turn (and left/thru movements) even when approaches are split phased... with the yellow arrow, more phasings could be implmented for such TOD phasing.

Like this? AARoads Forum > Traffic Control > Unusual Time-of-Day Signals

[CoreySamson]

Bay City, Texas has some horizontal pole mounted signals such as this one...
SH 35 @ SH 60

Not sure how common these are. I've only seen them in Bay City.

[fwydriver405]

I have seen intersections like this in other states where its just a single lane approach but the decision was made to split-phase, but this is typically done on a case-by-case basis usually because of issues with overlapping left turns or very heavy approaches (although even then, leading green arrows for one approach seem more common). In Utah, it seems to be the opposite: approaches without a dedicated left turn lane but with the option to turn left (aka, an "option lane") are automatically split-phased from the off, and only become permissive-only "concurrent green" intersections later on as required due to issues with traffic or pedestrian flow.

I wonder if TOD phasing can be utilised at these kind of intersections mentioned above with the standard 4-section signal (R-Y-G-GA*) to switch between the following phasings especially when traffic volumes are light, so traffic doesn't have to wait for the split phase and phasing can be shorter in low traffic periods especially at night:

- Permissive only phasing (only R-Y-G used) during lighter periods.
- Split phasing (R-Y-G-GA used) during peak periods.

*Especially NHDOT, they sometimes like to use a 4-section bimodal signal (R-Y-G-GA/YA) for left turn (and left/thru movements) even when approaches are split phased... with the yellow arrow, more phasings could be implemented for such TOD phasing.

Like this? AARoads Forum > Traffic Control > Unusual Time-of-Day Signals

Yeah, something like that as described on that topic.

[plain]

This is definitely something you don't see everyday, a 4-section T-signal. The top aspect is a red orb & red arrow. This is on Washington St at Queen St in Alexandria, VA. There's another one in the opposite direction at the previous intersection (Washington at Princess St)

Image from GSV



moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

[Amtrakprod]

This is definitely something you don't see everyday, a 4-section T-signal. The top aspect is a red orb & red arrow. This is on Washington St at Queen St in Alexandria, VA. There's another one in the opposite direction at the previous intersection (Washington at Princess St)

Image from GSV



moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Woah!? Probably a TOD signal with protected only during rush hour?

[fwydriver405]

This is definitely something you don't see everyday, a 4-section T-signal. The top aspect is a red orb & red arrow. This is on Washington St at Queen St in Alexandria, VA. There's another one in the opposite direction at the previous intersection (Washington at Princess St)

Image from GSV



moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Woah!? Probably a TOD signal with protected only during rush hour?

It could also be an LPI during the walk phase (example).

[STLmapboy]

Noticed these very close-together lights at FIU in Miami.

[CoreySamson]

Noticed these very close-together lights at FIU in Miami.

Is the one on the right for the bike lane?

[US 89]

Noticed these very close-together lights at FIU in Miami.

Is the one on the right for the bike lane?

I would assume it is there because MUTCD requires two through signal heads.

[plain]

This is definitely something you don't see everyday, a 4-section T-signal. The top aspect is a red orb & red arrow. This is on Washington St at Queen St in Alexandria, VA. There's another one in the opposite direction at the previous intersection (Washington at Princess St)

Image from GSV



moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Woah!? Probably a TOD signal with protected only during rush hour?

It could also be an LPI during the walk phase (example).

Ahh I see now. Now I wonder what the bottom aspect is? Maybe a bi-modal green/yellow?