Design Intersections for

Safety and Efficiency

Transportation Planning & Logistics
TTE 4005
Intersections

Why are they important?

Types:

At-grade intersections

Interchanges

Grade separation
At-grade Intersections

At-grade: same level
Interchanges

utilize grade separation
Additional illustrations at
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/interchanges/index.html
Type and Location of Crashes Nationwide (Traffic
Safety Facts 99)
Crash
Severity
Intersection and
Intersection
Related
At Signalized
Intersections
At Non-
Signalized
Intersections &
Others
Fatal 8,514 (23%) 2,734 (32%) 5,780(68%)
Injury 1,015,000 (49%) 476,000 (47%) 539,000 (53%)
Total 2,806,000 (45%) 1,279,000 (46%) 1,527,000 (54%)

Review of FARS Data
22 % of all fatal crashes occur at
intersections.
Mostly multi-vehicle fatalities 74 %, in angle
crashes (65 %).

47 % of multi-vehicles fatalities are due to left-turns
(Table 5).

Single-vehicle fatalities 26 %, with pedestrians
(13 %) and run-off-road (8 %).
Other Statistics from Minnesota and California

Crashes per intersection with T design are
30 to 40 % less than X design.

Rural Crashes are more hazardous.
Other Statistics from Minnesota and California
(Contd)

Alcohol related are 7 to 9 % of total crashes,
higher in rural areas.

Alcohol related are 52 to 60 % of fatal/injury
crashes, higher in rural areas.
Safety Effectiveness of Left- and
Right-Turn Lanes
Reduction of crashes from adding left-turn
phase to signal setting

Mean reduction for adding a protected phase or arrow to left-
turns at existing signals is 36%
(from 23 to 48%)
A possible low costly remedy is to provide separator islands, that may reduce
crossing accidents by 30-40% (according to French and New Zealand
experience and analysis).
OFFSET T-INTERSECTIONS
WITH GUIDELINES
Safety Advantages

Reduce conflict locations without requiring a signal.

Angle collisions are reduced.

Injury accidents are reduced

The L-R designs had larger reductions in injury crashes than R-L
designs.












Right-Left (R-L) and Left-Right (L-R) configurations.
Potential Conflict Points for 2x2-Lanes
Cross intersection has 32 points, offset T has 22 points
Accident Models Comparison for 2x2-Lanes Offset
T with Cross Intersection

Accident reduction for rural 2x2-lanes TWSC
intersections with 10% minor street flow.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Total Ent er ing ADT
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
i
o
Injury accidents Total accidents
Accident Models Comparison for 2x4-Lanes offset T
with Cross Intersection

Accident reduction for rural 2x4-lanes TWSC intersections
with 10% minor street flow.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Total Entering ADT
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
i
o
Total Accidents Injury Accidents
Capacity Benefits

Capacity for R-L is higher than L-R design. A higher
capacity of 200 vph is derived for the minor road
traffic in comparison to X-intersections.

However, the capacity of the major road left-turning
traffic is reduced by 30 to 100 vhp.
Offset Guidelines
Offset 2x2-Lane Intersection
Skewed 2x2-Lane Intersection
Signalized Intersections

For L-R design only. Avoid R-L geometry.

Longer effective green time yields lower delay.
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
800 1300 1800 2300 2800 3300
Total Entering Flow (vph)
T
o
t
a
l

T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

(
s
e
c
s
/
v
e
h
)
Cross Offset T
Superstreet Design
Superstreet Design
Typical
Intersection
Design
Improvements
for Capacity and
Safety
Assessment of Conventional Design

Increase in demand leads to decrease in marginal
capacity of additional lanes.

Bigger conventional designs, are Less effective in
providing additional capacity.

Seek other approaches to solve traffic congestion
problems
Displaced left-turn designs in lieu of direct left
turns
Median U-Turn Design
Potential conflict points for a conventional intersection with dual
left-turn lanes (68 points), and a median u-turn treatment (44
points).
Network travel time derived from simulation at
20% left turn volume
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Total Enter ing Flow (vph)
N
e
t
w
o
r
k

T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

(
s
e
c
s
/
v
e
h
)
Direct single left turn lane Median u-turn Dual left turn lane
Percent stops derived from
CORSIM simulation
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Tot al Ent er ing Flow (vph)
%

S
t
o
p
Direct single left turn lane Median u-turn
20%
10%
U-Turn crossover on median arterial
Reid, and Hummer
Michigan median U-turn
U-Turn crossover on both arterial and cross-
road
Reid, and Hummer
Superstreet arterial design
Reid, and Hummer
Benefits
- According to Reid, and Hummer, median U-turn designs
reduce the system travel time by 17% for total diversion of
left-turns.
- For the superstreet design the system travel time was
reduced by 10%.
Operational Performance of the Crossover
displaced left-TURN (XDL) intersection (Also
Called Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI))
Case A
Signal
setting of
phases

XDL/CFI site in Mexico
MD-210, and MD-228
XDL/CFI Conclusions

Planning models provide estimates of delay and queue for the 3 cases.

Delays are reduced from 20 to 85%, stops reduced from 20 to 80%,
and queue reduced from 50 to 85% compared to conventional designs.

Capacities are increased from 15 to 30%.

One pre-timed signal setting is applicable to most flows at low and high
volumes, balanced and unbalanced flows.
Split
Intersection
52
conflicts
locations
50 conflicts
locations
15% Left-Turning Traffic
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Tot al Enter ing Flow, Veh/hr
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

T
r
a
v
e
l

D
e
l
a
y
,

S
e
c
/
v
e
h
Split Intersection
Single Intersection
30% Left-Turning Traffic
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Total Enteri ng Fl ow, Veh/Hr
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

T
r
a
v
e
l

D
e
l
a
y
,

S
e
c
/
V
e
h
Single Intersection
Split Intersection
Quadrant Roadway
Intersection
Lowers travel time in
comparison to conventional
design from 7 to 20%.
Increases move time from 15 to
40%.
By Reid, and Hummer
Phasing
sequence
Reid and Hummer concluded not better performance than conventional
design
Reverse Jughandles
Modern Roundabouts

Modern Roundabouts became an effective
Traffic Control strategy in 1966 when the
British adopted the Yield upon Entry rule.

Modern Roundabouts are part of the Family of
Circular Intersections
SINGLE POINT AND TIGHT DIAMOND
INTERCHANGE
Single Point Interchange
Tight Diamond Interchange
SPI/TDI Conclusions

When considering SPI and TDI configurations the six derived models provide
useful tools to estimate control delay, stop time, and percent stops for a planning
level analysis, and assist in the selection process.

In general, when the flows are high (starting at 2800 vph total highest entering
flows) a typical SPI will have lower control delay, stop time, and percent stops
than a TDI.

Significantly higher percent stops are estimated for TDIs because vehicles are
more likely to slow down or stop at both signalized intersections of the TDI than
at the single crossing of an SPI.

At higher left-turning volumes, vehicles traveling on TDIs are more likely to stop
or slow down than at lower off-ramp left-turning volumes.
Intersection Design

Reduce conflicts between road users

Improve efficiency and safety

Consider

Human factors

Traffic

Geometrics

Economics
Conflicts
Four-leg intersection
Staggered-T intersection
Intersection Sight Triangle
Hidden Vehicle
Intersection Sight Triangle
Intersection Sight Triangle
Traffic Control Devices

Devices used to regulate, warn, or guide
traffic, placed on, over, or adjacent to a street,
highway, pedestrian facility, or shared-use
path by authority of a public agency having
jurisdiction

Promote safety and efficiency by providing for
the orderly movement of all road users
Average Control Delay

The basis for LOS determination

For a given lane group:
Uniform Delay
Assuming uniform
arrivals, stable flow,
and no initial queue
Incremental Delay
K=0.50 for pre-
timed signals
I=1.0 for
isolated
intersection
Initial Queue Delay
If there is no residual queue from a previous time period
to cause additional delay to vehicles arriving in the
period of analysis
d
3
= 0
Otherwise, calculate using the procedure given in HCM,
Chapter 16, Appendix F
Estimating LOS

Intersection LOS is related to average control
delay per vehicle, aggregated by approach
and for the intersection as a whole

if v/c > 1, actual or potential breakdown has
occurred
Determine LOS

measure of the acceptability of delay levels to
motorists

Use the total control delay for the given
intersection:
Thank you

Questions?

Reading: Chapter 8 Design of Intersections