Traffic signal

[UnumProvident101]

both of these intersections in Red Bank, TN have new traffic lights
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1227338,-85.2977813,3a,49y,134.44h,89.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPl3gzZvkGeSla027X4j20w!2e0!5s20230601T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1217753,-85.2957346,3a,47.1y,279.31h,90.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sl1mF9jgqGHedVzybo9da3g!2e0!5s20230601T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[burgess87]

College Station, TX - using one signal on a dual left turn lane to a frontage road:  <R <R Y <G <G

One arrow for each lane, it appears!

https://goo.gl/maps/JwcYGwyBodBRs5g39

[SilverMustang2011]

College Station, TX - using one signal on a dual left turn lane to a frontage road:  <R <R Y <G <G

One arrow for each lane, it appears!

https://goo.gl/maps/JwcYGwyBodBRs5g39

States that use two signal heads for one lane (GA off the top of my head) are sweating bullets just looking at that thing

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

This signal in Union City NJ shows the lengths the city will go to to avoid replacing signals. This portion of Central Avenue has been totally redone, but the old signals remain. They also added what looks like a 360 degree detection camera, which looks weird on this old signal. I'm surprised if this signal is actuated, I assumed everything around here was pre-timed.

It also looks like the pole was originally a guy-wire design but a standard arm was retrofitted at some point.

[LilianaUwU]

This signal in Union City NJ shows the lengths the city will go to to avoid replacing signals. This portion of Central Avenue has been totally redone, but the old signals remain. They also added what looks like a 360 degree detection camera, which looks weird on this old signal. I'm surprised if this signal is actuated, I assumed everything around here was pre-timed.

It also looks like the pole was originally a guy-wire design but a standard arm was retrofitted at some point.

I mean... if it ain't broke, don't fix it?

[Rothman]

This signal in Union City NJ shows the lengths the city will go to to avoid replacing signals. This portion of Central Avenue has been totally redone, but the old signals remain. They also added what looks like a 360 degree detection camera, which looks weird on this old signal. I'm surprised if this signal is actuated, I assumed everything around here was pre-timed.

It also looks like the pole was originally a guy-wire design but a standard arm was retrofitted at some point.

Paving and signal contracts are typically let separately, albeit not always.

[jeffandnicole]

This signal in Union City NJ shows the lengths the city will go to to avoid replacing signals. This portion of Central Avenue has been totally redone, but the old signals remain. They also added what looks like a 360 degree detection camera, which looks weird on this old signal. I'm surprised if this signal is actuated, I assumed everything around here was pre-timed.

It also looks like the pole was originally a guy-wire design but a standard arm was retrofitted at some point.

The camera is a police closed circuit camera for detecting and recording crime and incidents. Doesn't have connection to the signal.

The signal itself is in good shape, so why does it need to be replaced? It's just a housing unit. The lights themselves have been upgraded to LEDs. The intersection is missing a second light per direction which is really the only main issue here.

[SignBridge]

This signal in Union City NJ shows the lengths the city will go to to avoid replacing signals. This portion of Central Avenue has been totally redone, but the old signals remain. They also added what looks like a 360 degree detection camera, which looks weird on this old signal. I'm surprised if this signal is actuated, I assumed everything around here was pre-timed.

It also looks like the pole was originally a guy-wire design but a standard arm was retrofitted at some point.

The camera is a police closed circuit camera for detecting and recording crime and incidents. Doesn't have connection to the signal.

The signal itself is in good shape, so why does it need to be replaced? It's just a housing unit. The lights themselves have been upgraded to LEDs. The intersection is missing a second light per direction which is really the only main issue here.

Well that in itself should result in either a rebuild or adding of an add'l signal head in each direction. The Manual requires two signal faces in each direction for good reasons. This requirement is not new. The signal should have been upgraded long ago.

[jakeroot]

College Station, TX - using one signal on a dual left turn lane to a frontage road:  <R <R Y <G <G

One arrow for each lane, it appears!

https://goo.gl/maps/JwcYGwyBodBRs5g39

States that use two signal heads for one lane (GA off the top of my head) are sweating bullets just looking at that thing

Never understood why two turn lanes can only have one signal; every exclusive movement should have two signals, especially double turns (ideally more than five feet apart ... looking at you Georgia ). Worth noting that Georgia only requires two signal heads on protected-only left turns, permissive is allowed to have only one. Never understood that exception.

For years, Utah was a big abuser of double left turns with only one overhead signal. I think that practice has ended though. Shame MUTCD permits it at all.

[Big John]

^^ Georgia requires 2 red turn arrows for protected left turns, but is usually done by 2 signal heads, though a single T-head with 2 red arrows is occasionally used to meet that requirement.  And MUTCD calls for a minimum 8' separation (center to center).

[SignBridge]

^^ Georgia requires 2 red turn arrows for protected left turns, but is usually done by 2 signal heads, though a single T-head with 2 red arrows is occasionally used to meet that requirement.  And MUTCD calls for a minimum 8' separation (center to center).

I believe the eight-foot separation rule between signal heads only applies to the two circular-green heads for the thru movement. I checked this out after observing several installations in New York City where the left or right turn signal head was hung right next to the thru movement head on mast-arms, separated by only a couple of feet. It's getting to be a common sight in Midtown Manhattan. 

[US 89]

For years, Utah was a big abuser of double left turns with only one overhead signal. I think that practice has ended though. Shame MUTCD permits it at all.

Yeah, design standards seem to have been updated to require 2 overhead signals for any double left turns in the last 6 years or so. However, there are still a huge number of intersections across the Wasatch Front that still use the old way and UDOT is certainly in no hurry to upgrade them.

^^ Georgia requires 2 red turn arrows for protected left turns, but is usually done by 2 signal heads, though a single T-head with 2 red arrows is occasionally used to meet that requirement.  And MUTCD calls for a minimum 8' separation (center to center).

That 8 foot separation is definitely not always followed. Here's a prime example: https://goo.gl/maps/UGPFs8Mp29xZVte8A

[jakeroot]

^^ Georgia requires 2 red turn arrows for protected left turns, but is usually done by 2 signal heads, though a single T-head with 2 red arrows is occasionally used to meet that requirement.  And MUTCD calls for a minimum 8' separation (center to center).

I believe the eight-foot separation rule between signal heads only applies to the two circular-green heads for the thru movement. I checked this out after observing several installations in New York City where the left or right turn signal head was hung right next to the thru movement head on mast-arms, separated by only a couple of feet. It's getting to be a common sight in Midtown Manhattan.

I believe the rule is that same-type signals have to be eight feet apart, but unrelated signals can be adjacent (example in Los Angeles of a right and left turn display right next to each other). This makes sense, as there could be situations where unrelated signals may need to be placed right next to each other due to limited space (especially post-mounted situations), where it may be infeasible or unnecessary to keep them eight feet apart.

Maryland seems to require more than eight feet, seemingly twelve or more feet.

That 8 foot separation is definitely not always followed. Here's a prime example: https://goo.gl/maps/UGPFs8Mp29xZVte8A

That is a prime example...of when a through signal should just go on the signal mast. But since it's not downtown Atlanta, that doesn't seem to be allowed (not literally...just barely ever see post-mounted signals in Georgia outside of downtown Atlanta).

Kind of related: I don't understand why that second required protected-only left turn arrow/signal isn't more often post-mounted on the far left corner. Why not spread them out? Why make them both equally invisible when another vehicle could block them? Every other state that requires a second left turn signal puts it on the far left corner, with South Carolina being the exception I believe.

[US 89]

That 8 foot separation is definitely not always followed. Here's a prime example: https://goo.gl/maps/UGPFs8Mp29xZVte8A

That is a prime example...of when a through signal should just go on the signal mast. But since it's not downtown Atlanta, that doesn't seem to be allowed (not literally...just barely ever see post-mounted signals in Georgia outside of downtown Atlanta).

Kind of related: I don't understand why that second required protected-only left turn arrow/signal isn't more often post-mounted on the far left corner. Why not spread them out? Why make them both equally invisible when another vehicle could block them? Every other state that requires a second left turn signal puts it on the far left corner, with South Carolina being the exception I believe.

^ In this case, it might be to avoid confusion with the dedicated signals for the bike path to the left. But even if that weren't there I doubt they'd mount the second left turn signal over there. At any rate, from my own experience with that intersection in particular, there is zero reason that should be fully protected. Honestly fully permissive (no arrow movements at all) would be fine 90% of the time.

Georgia's standards for left turn signals are basically identical to South Carolina's, with the T-head very common for single-lane protected lefts to cover the requirement for two red arrows. Far-post signals of any kind are quite rare in Georgia, with the exception of downtown Atlanta as you stated.

[SilverMustang2011]

That 8 foot separation is definitely not always followed. Here's a prime example: https://goo.gl/maps/UGPFs8Mp29xZVte8A

That is a prime example...of when a through signal should just go on the signal mast. But since it's not downtown Atlanta, that doesn't seem to be allowed (not literally...just barely ever see post-mounted signals in Georgia outside of downtown Atlanta).

Kind of related: I don't understand why that second required protected-only left turn arrow/signal isn't more often post-mounted on the far left corner. Why not spread them out? Why make them both equally invisible when another vehicle could block them? Every other state that requires a second left turn signal puts it on the far left corner, with South Carolina being the exception I believe.

^ In this case, it might be to avoid confusion with the dedicated signals for the bike path to the left. But even if that weren't there I doubt they'd mount the second left turn signal over there. At any rate, from my own experience with that intersection in particular, there is zero reason that should be fully protected. Honestly fully permissive (no arrow movements at all) would be fine 90% of the time.

Georgia's standards for left turn signals are basically identical to South Carolina's, with the T-head very common for single-lane protected lefts to cover the requirement for two red arrows. Far-post signals of any kind are quite rare in Georgia, with the exception of downtown Atlanta as you stated.

Far-post signals are pretty rare in general in the Southeast, I didn't realize how common they could be until I went out to Arizona and California.

[fwydriver405]

Interesting.........where is the recent flashing green installation in Quincy?

Could this be the one? If so, this is on School St at Hancock St:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hhhyUuWb8c

Update on this signal. Passed by it last Friday and the flashing circular green was changed back to a flashing circular yellow, like it was with the older signals. I'll post a video and update this when I get the chance.

I'm sorry they changed it back to flashing yellow. I actually liked the flashing green though I admit it serves no real purpose. Also, re: the side street signal, how can it go from flashing yellow to steady-red? Doesn't the MUTCD require a steady-yellow change interval?

A new flashing green appearing in Massachusetts was quite the thing while it lasted...so many have gone away over the years. 
There is a problem with all directions having yellow at the same time that they probably wanted to avoid, although there were bigger problems like the main drag having flashing green while the side street had flashing yellow at the same time--yikes! The old setup (which included fun 12-12-8 and 12-8 signals) had a 12-inch red at the top for steady and an 8-inch red for flashing for the side street as I recall...no yellow at all.

Here is what this intersection looks like now with the flashing greens removed. Unsure if the controller got replaced too when the heads were replaced:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlgJHc3LFNo

Also, found some interseting things in the latest editions of the Massachusetts Amendments to the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, discuraging the use and installation of any new or reconstructed bi-modal green / yellow arrow indications, and requiring the FYA to be used at locations where PPLT is to be used with a dedicated left turning lane, making any shared signal indications no longer permitted for PPLT use in MA. Wonder why the FYA requirement doesn't extend to approaches that are fully permissive (no protected phase) with a dedicated left turning lane?

Section 4D.06 Signal Indications — Design, Illumination, Color, and Shape
Insert the following paragraph:
Guidance: New or reconstructed signal installations should not use alternate display (bimodal, or dual-arrow signal section) of a GREEN ARROW and a YELLOW ARROW.

Section 4D.20 Signal Indications for Protected/Permissive Mode Left-Turn Movements
Insert the following paragraph:
Standard: Where a mandatory left-turn lane exists and the signal operates with a protected/permissive mode for left turns on that approach, a shared signal face shall not be used. A separate left-turn signal face with a flashing left-turn yellow arrow signal face per Paragraph 03 of this section shall be provided.

[SignBridge]

V-e-r-y i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g. I'm pleasantly surprised to see Massachusetts taking such a forward thinking approach.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/nKwZ8go9T9gNZAsa8
This Emergency Signal has no indications that it's such a signal. Plus it doesn't flash or stay green when no EMS vehicle is leaving the fire house.

In my home state of Florida a signal that is not working by law is a four way stop.  Some other states have the same law as well. NJ, though, I'm not sure, but I am aware that many firehouse or EMS facilities that have signals do not display a red green yellow and only operate during an emergency. Many emergency signals don't even have three sections, but just two. One for the red and the other for yellow with not even a third section for a second ( bottom) yellow.

Does the MUTCD allow the way some NJ communities with a complete non working signal, or is a green or bottom flasher supposed to be. Plus, aren't emergency signals to be signed?

[SignBridge]

https://goo.gl/maps/nKwZ8go9T9gNZAsa8
This Emergency Signal has no indications that it's such a signal. Plus it doesn't flash or stay green when no EMS vehicle is leaving the fire house.

In my home state of Florida a signal that is not working by law is a four way stop.  Some other states have the same law as well. NJ, though, I'm not sure, but I am aware that many firehouse or EMS facilities that have signals do not display a red green yellow and only operate during an emergency. Many emergency signals don't even have three sections, but just two. One for the red and the other for yellow with not even a third section for a second ( bottom) yellow.

Does the MUTCD allow the way some NJ communities with a complete non working signal, or is a green or bottom flasher supposed to be. Plus, aren't emergency signals to be signed?

I believe the MUTCD does not permit dark signals. In my area fire station signals normally show flashing yellow or steady green between activations. But we do have some legacy installations in a few places that have dark signals like the one in your Edison, N.J. photo.

But the concept of no dark signals permitted has been blown sky high by the new HAWK signals. On one hand the FHWA says no dark signals, but on the other hand allows dark HAWK signals. So the concept has been lost.

[chrisg69911]

https://goo.gl/maps/nKwZ8go9T9gNZAsa8
This Emergency Signal has no indications that it's such a signal. Plus it doesn't flash or stay green when no EMS vehicle is leaving the fire house.

In my home state of Florida a signal that is not working by law is a four way stop.  Some other states have the same law as well. NJ, though, I'm not sure, but I am aware that many firehouse or EMS facilities that have signals do not display a red green yellow and only operate during an emergency. Many emergency signals don't even have three sections, but just two. One for the red and the other for yellow with not even a third section for a second ( bottom) yellow.

Does the MUTCD allow the way some NJ communities with a complete non working signal, or is a green or bottom flasher supposed to be. Plus, aren't emergency signals to be signed?

Many in jersey have two 12 inch heads for the typical red and yellow, and then an 8 in flashing yellow on the bottom. That should either have the green illuminated or have a flashing yellow instead of the green

[PurdueBill]

https://goo.gl/maps/nKwZ8go9T9gNZAsa8
This Emergency Signal has no indications that it's such a signal. Plus it doesn't flash or stay green when no EMS vehicle is leaving the fire house.

In my home state of Florida a signal that is not working by law is a four way stop.  Some other states have the same law as well. NJ, though, I'm not sure, but I am aware that many firehouse or EMS facilities that have signals do not display a red green yellow and only operate during an emergency. Many emergency signals don't even have three sections, but just two. One for the red and the other for yellow with not even a third section for a second ( bottom) yellow.

Does the MUTCD allow the way some NJ communities with a complete non working signal, or is a green or bottom flasher supposed to be. Plus, aren't emergency signals to be signed?

I believe the MUTCD does not permit dark signals. In my area fire station signals normally show flashing yellow or steady green between activations. But we do have some legacy installations in a few places that have dark signals like the one in your Edison, N.J. photo.

But the concept of no dark signals permitted has been blown sky high by the new HAWK signals. On one hand the FHWA says no dark signals, but on the other hand allows dark HAWK signals. So the concept has been lost.

Is it only an optical illusion, or is the green on the left for the eastbound signals? 

At least a couple approaches have FIRE SIGNAL signs, but a couple also do not.  Those that do have signs that are faded so much as to not be very useful anyway.

[jakeroot]

https://goo.gl/maps/nKwZ8go9T9gNZAsa8
This Emergency Signal has no indications that it's such a signal. Plus it doesn't flash or stay green when no EMS vehicle is leaving the fire house.

In my home state of Florida a signal that is not working by law is a four way stop.  Some other states have the same law as well. NJ, though, I'm not sure, but I am aware that many firehouse or EMS facilities that have signals do not display a red green yellow and only operate during an emergency. Many emergency signals don't even have three sections, but just two. One for the red and the other for yellow with not even a third section for a second ( bottom) yellow.

Does the MUTCD allow the way some NJ communities with a complete non working signal, or is a green or bottom flasher supposed to be. Plus, aren't emergency signals to be signed?

I believe the MUTCD does not permit dark signals. In my area fire station signals normally show flashing yellow or steady green between activations. But we do have some legacy installations in a few places that have dark signals like the one in your Edison, N.J. photo.

But the concept of no dark signals permitted has been blown sky high by the new HAWK signals. On one hand the FHWA says no dark signals, but on the other hand allows dark HAWK signals. So the concept has been lost.

HAWKs are beacons, not signals, so they are legally allowed to rest in dark. Yeah, that's dumb as hell. As though anyone would know the difference on the road.

I think emergency signals may also be considered beacons, so they can legally rest in dark. But I could have that wrong. I've never actually seen a rest-in-dark emergency signal before. I'm convinced the NJ signal above may just be broken.

[SignBridge]

https://goo.gl/maps/nKwZ8go9T9gNZAsa8
This Emergency Signal has no indications that it's such a signal. Plus it doesn't flash or stay green when no EMS vehicle is leaving the fire house.

In my home state of Florida a signal that is not working by law is a four way stop.  Some other states have the same law as well. NJ, though, I'm not sure, but I am aware that many firehouse or EMS facilities that have signals do not display a red green yellow and only operate during an emergency. Many emergency signals don't even have three sections, but just two. One for the red and the other for yellow with not even a third section for a second ( bottom) yellow.

Does the MUTCD allow the way some NJ communities with a complete non working signal, or is a green or bottom flasher supposed to be. Plus, aren't emergency signals to be signed?

I believe the MUTCD does not permit dark signals. In my area fire station signals normally show flashing yellow or steady green between activations. But we do have some legacy installations in a few places that have dark signals like the one in your Edison, N.J. photo.

But the concept of no dark signals permitted has been blown sky high by the new HAWK signals. On one hand the FHWA says no dark signals, but on the other hand allows dark HAWK signals. So the concept has been lost.

HAWKs are beacons, not signals, so they are legally allowed to rest in dark. Yeah, that's dumb as hell. As though anyone would know the difference on the road.

I think emergency signals may also be considered beacons, so they can legally rest in dark. But I could have that wrong. I've never actually seen a rest-in-dark emergency signal before. I'm convinced the NJ signal above may just be broken.

The manual specifies that emergency signals are traffic signals and must meet the standard requirements. However, an Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacon which is almost the same as a HAWK beacon is also permitted, which can rest in dark.

Also, I don't think that signal in Edison is broken. I have seen legacy signals like that in the past in New Jersey. That signal looks very old as does Edison's Headquarters Fire Station. 

[roadman65]

Don't forget about rail road signals. They rest in dark while having no amber either.

Some older drawbridges in Florida used red flashers similar to railroad flashers. They would be dark until the bridge tender operates the bridge raising procedures.

[Big John]

^^ MUTCD allows for 2 kinds of drawbride signals - the standard RYG signal that shows green when the bridge is not in operation, and 2 vertical red beacons separated by a stop here on red sign which flash alternately when the drawbridge is in operation and dark when not.