Botched Traffic Signals

Discussion about street lighting, road signs, traffic signals - and all other street furniture - goes here.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Chris Bertram »

Alderpoint wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:26 Which of these roads doesn't go through?
The straight-ahead road, which leads to a Lidl distribution centre, but the sign isn't well-positioned.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

L.J.D wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:50 I think those doubling up installations (I've seen a few) are to give the illusion that it's a 4 pole installation when approaching from a distance as opposed to the 2 poles they used. If you scroll backwards and zoom in it just looks like a normal 4 pole pedestrian signal site maybe that's the idea behind it. Possibly an attempt to get away with just using two poles.
Indeed, I imagine that's the intention. I personally prefer it given it creates less pole clutter, assuming the third lantern is actually required. Despite the latest guidance, it seems that locally to me, 4-pole crossings with 6 lanterns have become the standard this year.
Alderpoint wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:26 Which of these roads doesn't go through?
I think this is the wrong thread! But either way, is that a new overheight vehicle warning on a new-build bridge?
Simon
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by jervi »

In Brighton they have recently redone the road layout around valley gdns (A23), so now N&S traffic is on the East side, while the wets side carries buses, taxis, cycles and resident access. However, on a cycle a few days ago I looked at the signage & traffic signals, and they are appalling. (To the point when I'm going to head down there, take photos of everything wrong, put it in a report and send it to the highways department)

Here is the clip = https://youtu.be/qbpLnl2Ck2s

At the start of the clip there is a junction. Here all traffic from my direction must turn right to avoid the virtual bus-gate (traffic from the left can turn left though). However the signals only say that traffic must turn right (except buses, taxis, cycles), however there isn't anything saying no left turn, even though it is a one-way street. Also on the right (on the road going across) there is this sign:
t junction.PNG
t junction.PNG (213.83 KiB) Viewed 2347 times
, which is wrong as both left and right is the A23, which is a primary route all the way to the sea front (ever since 2012 when it was extended from Preston Circus)

A bit further along (at 2 minutes) is the next junction, again covered in errors. The signals here don't have any plates saying no right turn (except buses, taxis & cycles), and even worse, on the exit side of the junction there is a stop line before the ped crossing, but 0 signals to control it. There is also a marked cycle lane here, but that just ends moments after the crossing.
cross.PNG
cross.PNG (39.67 KiB) Viewed 2347 times
Also on the sign on approach it shows the left being the "A270", when it isn't actually the A270, or actually has any number, so older signs show it correctly as (A270). (All traffic except cycles cannot go E-W on the A270 without using "Cheapside", since left turns are prohibited at preston circus, except cycles). And again the A23 is being shown as (A23), even though it is the A23 and as such London should be in the primary patch too.

Or maybe the signals are right, and I'm just over thinking it.
User avatar
ReissOmari
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 21:51
Location: Birmingham

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by ReissOmari »

traffic-light-man wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 09:57 These are the most reinforced ones I'm aware of that are still going, in the depths of Kirkby. They've got anti-climbing guards and the controller cabinet is in its own large cage.
Woah that's extreme!!! It makes you think what the area was like around the time of installation for something like that to spring up at the board table.
ReissOmari..
Skipsy
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2019 19:53

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Skipsy »

This signal: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.40733 ... 384!8i8192
And this signal: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.40986 ... 384!8i8192
Do not have right turn filter arrows, even though opposing traffic is stopped near the end of the green light. Is this a common problem and is it actually wrong according to any regulation?
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

Skipsy wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 17:09 This signal: Link
<snip>
Do not have right turn filter arrows, even though opposing traffic is stopped near the end of the green light. Is this a common problem and is it actually wrong according to any regulation?
It seems unusual not to have the indicative arrow, though I don't think there's any specific regulation that says that you must use any arrows in any situation.

I can think of numerous sites where there two opposing phases are in their own stages and they aren't fitted with right turn arrows, but I can't think of any early cut-offs that don't have an arrow.
Skipsy wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 17:09And this signal: Link
That head appears to be fitted with a substitute green arrow, so wouldn't need an indicative arrow as well.
Simon
User avatar
Gareth
Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:16
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Gareth »

I think right turn arrows were traditionally only ever used where there was a permissive/protected stage. Where oncoming flows had totally separate stages, there was just the standard green. That's certainly how I remember it with tin lantern and 70s/80s mellor installations. Even now it's still common.

I think an arrow should always be included for consistency, if the right turn is protected.

These signals in Old Swan are somewhat inconsistent in this respect. Derby Ln & St Oswalds St have separate green stages yet only one has a right turn green arrow, whilst the other doesn't and also has its secondary on the nearside of the intersection. It's the sort of setup you'd expect for a "late finish" permissive/protected stage but these signals have never operated like that.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/2ZVVbTtsER5mFJQbA
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

Not so much a botch, but definitely a missed opportunity.

The signals here in Liverpool were removed last year as works began to install a cycle route from The Strand across the northern part of the city centre to Lime Street Station. The achilles heel of the plan was that it used the northern-most Churchill Way flyover, of course now demolished. As a result, some large excavations happened, and then not much happened for a while, until this summer when the junction was essentially reinstated almost exactly how it was before with no signs of any new cycle route.

New signals were installed in almost the same arrangement as previously. However, there were now additional duplicate primaries and Hatton Garden got an additional advanced cycle stage in the form of a fourth aspect on all the signal heads.

IMG_20200921_125115.jpg

However, the Tithebarn Street approach was fitted with standard NRT signs despite there being a contraflow cycle lane away from the junction along Hatton Garden, meaning cyclists cannot access the cycle lane from Tithebarn Street. Meanwhile, the Vauxhall Road approach has had the cycle lanes re-jigged so that the cycle lane crosses the junction from the left hand side of the carriageway (it used to be between the left turn and right turn lanes), but no assistance has been added to the signals. I just feel like if effort has been made to add cycle provisions to the Hatton Garden approach, it might have been useful to add it to the other approaches.

IMG_20200930_103517.jpg
IMG_20200921_125015.jpg
Simon
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

traffic-light-man wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 09:17I can think of numerous sites where there two opposing phases are in their own stages and they aren't fitted with right turn arrows, but I can't think of any early cut-offs that don't have an arrow.
Completely by chance, on my walk today I stumbled across a late-start installation without a green arrow! I can't see any other reason why one approach might be delayed in this case.

It's an old Mellor site here and I decided to take a video.

Edited to change link from Dropbox to YouTube.
Last edited by traffic-light-man on Thu Oct 29, 2020 17:58, edited 3 times in total.
Simon
Skipsy
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2019 19:53

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Skipsy »

Why are these signals like this? I thought it may have something to do with the car park on the left closing at a certain time but I honestly have no clue.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4530527 ... 384!8i8192
Skipsy
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2019 19:53

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Skipsy »

And these signals are setup in such an unorthodox way:

1. Left turn and straight filter
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5615907 ... 384!8i8192

2. Full green along with the traffic light next to it going full green with a right turn filter
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5619242 ... 384!8i8192

Proof that both signals go green like this at the same time: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5617727 ... 384!8i8192
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

Skipsy wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 20:42 Why are these signals like this? I thought it may have something to do with the car park on the left closing at a certain time but I honestly have no clue.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4530527 ... 384!8i8192
The only thing I can think of there is that it's perhaps to avoid an actual in-line 5 aspect arrangement for fear of the signal heads buckling in the middle, but there's plenty of those around in TfL land, so I'm too sure. I'm not sure why right turns from the left lanes need to be explicitly banned in the first place, but removing those would save all the bother.
Skipsy wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 22:53 And these signals are setup in such an unorthodox way:

1. Left turn and straight filter
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5615907 ... 384!8i8192

<snip>
I'm not sure why the RAGs of the offside secondaries need duplicating on one pole, but the ahead (& left) filter before a protected right turn isn't too uncommon, or at least, it wasn't during the Mellor era. Having said that, most of the ones I can think of are actually now two separately signalled movements, which is better for capacity as the right turn doesn't have to run to terminate the ahead & left filters even when there's no demand for it.
Simon
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

I'd forgotten I'd taken this image until I noticed it when looking through my photos. One of the curious double-buttons in Warrington - they both appeared to be operational, too.
Attachments
IMG_20201008_141026.jpg
Simon
User avatar
Gareth
Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:16
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Gareth »

Skipsy wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 22:53Full green along with the traffic light next to it going full green with a right turn filter
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5619242 ... 384!8i8192

Proof that both signals go green like this at the same time: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5617727 ... 384!8i8192
Think the tea lady was allowed to design that one.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by jervi »

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.22511 ... 312!8i6656
Went over this today and I feel like it has too many signal heads. Especially since this is a listed structure.
Jonathan24
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 19:45

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Jonathan24 »

Skipsy wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 22:53 And these signals are setup in such an unorthodox way:

1. Left turn and straight filter
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5615907 ... 384!8i8192

2. Full green along with the traffic light next to it going full green with a right turn filter
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5619242 ... 384!8i8192

Proof that both signals go green like this at the same time: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5617727 ... 384!8i8192
They both go green at the same time, but do they both go red at the same time?
Al__S
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:56

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Al__S »

jervi wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 22:07 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.22511 ... 312!8i6656
Went over this today and I feel like it has too many signal heads. Especially since this is a listed structure.
One in each direction should be ample.
Al__S
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:56

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Al__S »

I just stare in horror at the british creations and then go and look at the much cleaner Dutch approach

Five lanes(!), no splitter islands, each lane has a clear signal that applies to it and only the right & left lanes get secondary heads. Even a pedestrian crossing and parallel two way cycle crossing.

Our rules create these monsters.
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

Al__S wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:31
jervi wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 22:07 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.22511 ... 312!8i6656
Went over this today and I feel like it has too many signal heads. Especially since this is a listed structure.
One in each direction should be ample.
Except that TSRGD requires two. On the westbound approach, I'd suggest the duplicate primary serves a purpose. As does the opposing one, however I imagine it'd be less justified with some management of the foliage.


Elsewhere, I've (virtually) stumbled across two single-aspect filter arrows in one hit, that I don't think have been mentioned on SABRE before. The first is this left filter in Bournemouth and the second is this strange one in Leeds that I assume is an ahead filter. Bonus points for the latter as well, given there are no dedicated lanes for the filter.

Edit: It seems the latter Leeds example has some quite clever staging using filters to allow walk-with-traffic pedestrian crossings. Firstly, the A660 city-bound runs an ahead and right filter, allowing the ped crossing on Woodhouse Street (left) to run. Then it would appear Woodhouse Street runs a 'Humberside right' (though not back-to-back), allowing the ped crossing on the A660 and Hyde Park Road to run concurrently.
Simon
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

Al__S wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:41 I just stare in horror at the british creations and then go and look at the much cleaner Dutch approach

Five lanes(!), no splitter islands, each lane has a clear signal that applies to it and only the right & left lanes get secondary heads. Even a pedestrian crossing and parallel two way cycle crossing.

Our rules create these monsters.
I'm generally a fan of Dutch signal design, though I really, really don't like the idea that the main movement on a given approach might only have signals overhead, or indeed only one signal in the first place. There is also a huge reliance on mast-arm signals in the Netherlands - I'm not against mast-arms at all, I just don't like the idea that they have to become commonplace in the urban environment in order to make the designs work.

Having said that, this type of design combats that sufficiently. It still poses the problem with single-head safety critical movements, but in my opinion looks much neater and clearer than a mast arm full of individual heads.
Simon
Post Reply