National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 5: Conclusions and Suggested Research
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25344.
×
Page 93

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

50 A P P E N D I X A : L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W Literature Review Introduction This appendix summarizes the literature review conducted during the research project. This review was conducted in three stages. During the first stage, a large number of documents were reviewed that address access management (AM) techniques commonly used to reduce or eliminate conflicts between motor vehicles and non-auto roadway users. The objective of this review was to (1) identify AM techniques being used and (2) characterize the expected effect of each technique on the safety or operation of motor vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and trucks. The focus of the review was on authoritative reference documents. The findings from the first-stage review are documented in the next two sections. More than 70 techniques were identified in the first stage of the literature review. The information obtained was subsequently used to identify 20 techniques to be investigated further during the project’s second phase. The motor vehicle mode was also removed from consideration due to the relatively large amount of research that has been conducted for this mode. During the second stage of the review process, the literature review focused on 20 AM techniques that had been identified as candidates for further study during Phase 2 of the project. The objective of this review was to identify the existence of published quantitative relationships that could be used to predict the effect of a technique on the performance of the pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck travel modes. Techniques of interest could affect performance through either of the following cases: (1) the AM technique (e.g., add turn bay) is installed at the location of interest, and (2) a change in roadway design (e.g., offset turn bay) or traffic control is implemented for the purpose of improving the access management function. The focus of this portion of the review was on authoritative reference documents and research publications. The findings from this review are documented in the third section (titled “Technique Effect on Performance of Selected Travel Modes”). During the third stage of the review process, additional research publications were reviewed that related to the AM techniques that had been selected for further study. The objective of this review was to identify traffic characteristics and design elements that may have an effect on pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck safety or operation. The findings from this review were used to develop the final study designs. . The findings from this review are documented in Appendix E. Documents Reviewed Table 21 lists the documents included in the literature review that contained information relevant to the project objectives.

51 Table 21. Relevant documents identified by the literature review. ID Title Authors 1 Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Highway Capacity Manual 6th ed. TRB (2010), TRB (2016) 2 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th ed. (“Green Book”) AASHTO (2011) 3 Access Management Applications Guide Dixon et al. (2016) 4 Access Management Manual, 2nd ed. Williams et al. (2014) 5 NCHRP Synthesis 332: Access Management on Crossroads in the Vicinity of Interchanges Butorac and Wen (2004) 6 National Highway Institute Course 133078: Access Management, Location, and Design. Course notebook and slides S & K Transportation Consultants, Inc. (2000) 7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines. Chapter 7: Pedestrian and Bicycle Access at Interchanges and Bridges MSHA (2015) 8 NCHRP Report 395: Capacity and Operational Effects of Midblock Left-Turn Lanes Bonneson and McCoy (1997) 9 Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians Greene-Roesel and Ledbetter (2010) 10 Recommended Design Guidelines to Accommodate Pedestrians and Bicycles at Interchanges ITE (2016) 11 Designing for Transit: A Manual for Integrating Transportation and Land Development in the San Diego Metropolitan Area MTDB (1993) 12 Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach—An ITE Recommended Practice ITE (2010) 13 Effect of Urban and Suburban Median Types on Both Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety Bowman and Vecellio (1994) 14 NCHRP Report 659: Guide for the Geometric Design of Driveways Gattis et al. (2010) 15 TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops Texas Transportation Institute (1996) 16 Highway Safety Manual, 1st ed. AASHTO (2010) 17 NCHRP Report 420: Impacts of Access Management Techniques Gluck et al. (1999) 18 Synthesis on Channelized Right Turns on Urban and Suburban Arterials Potts et al. (2006) 19 NCHRP Report 745: Left-Turn Accommodations at Unsignalized Intersections Fitzpatrick et al. (2013) NCHRP Web-Only Document 193: Development of Left-Turn Lane Warrants for Unsignalized Intersections. Fitzpatrick et al. (2010) 20 Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity Mekuria et al. (2012) 21 Median Handbook Florida DOT (2014) 22 Planning Urban Roadway Systems—An ITE Recommended Practice ITE (2014) 23 TCRP Report 176: Quantifying Transit’s Impact on GHG Emissions and Energy Use—The Land Use Component Gallivan et al. (2015) 24 Safety Benefit of Raised Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Areas FHWA (2014) 25 Methodology to Quantify the Effects of Access Management on Roadway Operations and Safety (3 volumes) Lu et al. (2001) 26 Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide, 2nd ed. Chandler et al. (2013) 27 Smart Transportation Guidebook: Planning and Designing Highways and Streets to Support Sustainable and Livable Communities NJDOT and PennDOT (2008) 28 NCHRP Synthesis 404: State of the Practice in Highway Access Management Gluck and Lorenz (2010) 29 TCRP Report 165: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd ed. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. et al. (2013) 30 Transportation and Land Development, 2nd ed. Stover and Koepke (2002) 31 Urban Bikeway Design Guide NACTO (2012)

52 ID Title Authors 32 Urban Street Design Guide NACTO (2013) 33 Understanding Interactions Between Drivers and Pedestrian Features at Signalized Intersections Lin et al. (2015) 34 Unsignalized Intersection Improvement Guide McGee et al. (2015) 35 Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations Zegeer et al. (2005) 36 NCHRP Web-Only Document 208: Design Guidance for Channelized Right- Turn Lanes Potts et al. (2011) 37 Driveways, Parking, Bicycles, and Pedestrians: Balancing Safety and Efficiency Dixon et al. (2008) 38 Vehicle and Pedestrian Accident Models for Median Locations Bowman et al. (1994) 39 Before-and-After Study of Roadways Where New Medians have been Added Alluri et al. (2012) 40 Using Cumulative Logistic Regression Model for Evaluating Bicycle Facilities on Urban Arterials Ali et al. (2012) 41 Prediction and Measurement of Travel Time along Pedestrian Routes Virkler (1998) 42 Disaggregate Exposure Measures and Injury Frequency Models for Analysis of Cyclist Safety at Signalized Intersections Miranda-Morena et al. (2011) 43 Operational Effects of U-Turns on Four-Lane Divided Roadways Liu et al. (2007) 44 NCHRP Report 672 – Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd ed. Rodegerdts et al. (2010) 45 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Intersection Safety Indices Carter et al. (2006) 46 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Impacts of Access Management Layton et al. (1998) 47 Pedestrian Crossing Characteristics on Exclusive Right-Turn Lane with Island Chen et al. (2015) 48 Georgia Study Confirms the Continuing Safety Advantage of Raised Medians Over Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes Parsonson, Waters, and Fincher (2000) 49 NCFRP Report 31: Incorporating Truck Analysis into the Highway Capacity Manual Dowling et al. (2014) 50 NCHRP Report 825: Planning and Preliminary Engineering Applications Guide to the Highway Capacity Manual Dowling et al. (2016) 51 Safety Analysis of Driveway Characteristics along Major Urban Arterial Corridors in South Carolina Stokes et al. (2016) 52 Operational Evaluation of Right Turns Followed by U-Turns at Signalized Intersections (6 or More Lanes) as an Alternative to Direct Left Turns Lu et al. (2005) 53 Operational Evaluation of Right Turns Followed by U-Turns at Signalized Intersections (4 Lane Arterials) as an Alternative to Direct Left Turns Lu and Liu (2005) 54 Don’t Cut Corners: Left Turn Pedestrian & Bicyclist Crash Study Brunson et al. (2017) 55 Safety Effectiveness of Intersection Left- and Right-Turn Lanes Harwood et al. (2002) 56 NCHRP Report 650: Median Intersection Design for Rural High-Speed Divided Highways Maze et al. (2010) 57 Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational Report Hughes et al. (2010) 58 TCRP Report 183: A Guidebook on Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies Ryus et al. (2016) 59 Effects of Inadequate Driveway Corner Clearances on Traffic Operations, Safety, and Capacity Gan and Long (1997) 60 Predicting the Performance of Automobile Traffic on Urban Streets Bonneson et al. (2008) 61 NCHRP Web-Only Document 151: Geometric Design of Driveways Gattis et al. (2009) 62 NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Volume 12: A Guide for Reducing Collisions at Signalized Intersections Antonucci et al. (2004)

53 Identified AM Techniques Table 22 summarizes the documented effects of the 74 AM techniques identified during the literature review on the five roadway travel modes (i.e., motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and truck). The techniques are organized using the system developed by NCHRP Report 420 (Gluck et al., 1999), with primary techniques listed first, followed by other techniques listed by category (e.g., interchanges, frontage roads, traffic control). The technique ID code shown for a given technique (e.g., 1a, B-1-1) can also be referenced back to the codes used in NCHRP Report 420. The document reference ID numbers given in the table are referenced to the list in Table 21. The documented effects of a technique were identified as quantitative, qualitative, or both. Table 22. Documented effects on roadway travel modes by access management techniques. Technique (listed by ID code1) Reference ID Number Documenting the Effect of a Technique on... Documen- tation Type the Operation (or LOS) of... the Safety of... M ot or Ve hi cl e Pe d B ik e Tr an si t Tr uc k M ot or Ve hi cl e Pe d B ik e Tr an si t Tr uc k Primary Techniques Identified in NCHRP Report 420 1a. Establish traffic signal spacing criteria Quantitative 17, 30 1 1 1 49,50 17, 26         Qualitative 1, 3, 5, 22, 30 3, 30 1,30 3   3, 5, 30 30 30     1b. Establish spacing for unsignalized access Quantitative 1, 17, 26 1 1   49, 50 2, 17 13       Qualitative 3, 5, 26, 30 30 30 3   3, 5, 30, 51 3, 30 3, 30     1c. Establish corner clearance criteria Quantitative 4, 17, 30         17,16         Qualitative 5         5         1d. Establish access separation distances at interchanges Quantitative 17, 30         4, 17         Qualitative 3, 17 3 3 3   17         2a.& 2b. Install non-traversable median on undivided highway and replace TWLTL with non-traversable median Quantitative 1, 5, 8, 17 1, 24 1, 27 1 49, 50 8, 13, 16, 17, 21, 39 8, 13, 17, 21, 24, 39, 48       Qualitative 3, 5, 8, 26, 27, 28, 30 3, 5, 26 3, 5, 26 3   3, 5, 26 3, 5, 8, 26, 27, 30 3, 39, 42     2c. Close existing median openings Quantitative 1                   Qualitative 3, 21 3 3     3, 21         2d. Replace full median opening with median designed for left turns from the major roadway Quantitative 1, 52, 53                   Qualitative 14                   3a. Install left-turn deceleration lanes where none exists Quantitative 1, 17, 19 1 1   21, 49, 50 16, 17, 19, 55       21 Qualitative 3 3 3 3 3           3b. Install left-turn acceleration lane at unsignalized intersection Quantitative                     Qualitative 56         56         3c. Install continuous two-way left-turn lane on Quantitative 1, 8, 30 1, 8 1 1 49, 50 8, 17, 30 13      

54 Technique (listed by ID code1) Reference ID Number Documenting the Effect of a Technique on... Documen- tation Type the Operation (or LOS) of... the Safety of... M ot or Ve hi cl e Pe d B ik e Tr an si t Tr uc k M ot or Ve hi cl e Pe d B ik e Tr an si t Tr uc k undivided highway Qualitative           4         3d. Install U-turns as an alternative to direct left turns Quantitative 1, 17, 25, 52, 53         16, 17, 25, 30         Qualitative             54 54     3e. Install jug handle and eliminate left turns along highways Quantitative 1                   Qualitative   57 57         57     4a. Install right-turn deceleration lane or right- turn lane Quantitative 1, 18 1, 18 1, 18 1 49, 50 16, 18 18, 36 18, 45     Qualitative 3, 14, 18 3, 9, 14, 18 3, 9, 18 3, 58 3, 18 3, 18 9, 18 9, 18 58 18 4b. Install continuous right-turn lane Quantitative 1, 19 1 1 1 49, 50           Qualitative 30                   5a. Consolidate driveways Quantitative 1, 30 1 1     16, 17 13       Qualitative 26 26 26     26, 51 12, 26 26     5b. Channelize driveways to discourage or prohibit left turns on undivided highways Quantitative 1                   Qualitative 14         4 4, 46 4     5c. Install barrier to prevent uncontrolled access along property frontage Quantitative   1                 Qualitative 14 14 14     14         5d. Coordinate driveways on opposite sides of street Quantitative 1                   Qualitative           4         6a. Install frontage road to provide access to individual parcels Quantitative 1 1 1   49, 50 16         Qualitative 2, 17         2, 17         6b. Locate/relocate the intersection of a parallel frontage road and a crossroad farther from the arterial–crossroad intersection Quantitative 1 1                 Qualitative 17         17         Selected Other Techniques Identified in NCHRP Report 420 B-1 Interchanges B-1-1 Build interchange (at major intersection or activity center). Quantitative 1         16         Qualitative                     B-1-2 Modify freeway ramps to improve access. Quantitative                     Qualitative 5         5         B-1-3 Build freeway frontage road. Quantitative                     Qualitative 5         5         B-2 Frontage Roads B-2-2 Construct a bypass road. Quantitative 1 1 1   49, 50           Qualitative                     B-2-3 Build a reverse frontage road (i.e., Backage Road). Quantitative 1 1 1               Qualitative                     B-3 Medians - Left Turns

55 Technique (listed by ID code1) Reference ID Number Documenting the Effect of a Technique on... Documen- tation Type the Operation (or LOS) of... the Safety of... M ot or Ve hi cl e Pe d B ik e Tr an si t Tr uc k M ot or Ve hi cl e Pe d B ik e Tr an si t Tr uc k B-3-1 Install median barrier with no direct left- turn ingress or egress. Quantitative 1, 8 1 1 1 49, 50 8, 16, 17, 39 13, 39, 48 Qualitative 39, 42 B-3-7 Install channelizing islands to prevent left-turn deceleration lane vehicles from returning to through lanes. Quantitative 4 Qualitative 17 B-3-8 Install median channelization to control the merge of left-turn egress vehicles. Quantitative Qualitative 56 B-3-12 Install alternating left-turn lane. Quantitative 1, 19 1 1 49, 50 16 Qualitative   58 B-3-13 Install isolated median and deceleration lane to shadow and store left-turning vehicles. Quantitative 1, 19 1 1 49, 50 16 Qualitative   58 B-3-14 Install left-turn deceleration lane in lieu of right-angle crossover. Quantitative Qualitative B-3-15 Install median storage for left-turn egress vehicles. Quantitative 1 1 16, 56 Qualitative B-3-16 Increase storage capacity of existing left-turn deceleration lane. Quantitative 1 55 Qualitative 21 21, 30 B-3-17 Channelize left-turn lanes across wide medians. Quantitative 1, 8 8 Qualitative 16, 56 B-3-20 Construct flyover to accommodate left- turn egress/and ingress movements. Quantitative 1 16 Qualitative B-3-21 Prohibit left turns. Quantitative 1 Qualitative 2, 4 2, 4 4, 46 4 B-3-22 Build left-turn connecting roads. Quantitative 1 Qualitative B-4 Right Turns B-4-5 Install channelizing islands to move ingress merge point laterally away from the highway. Quantitative 18 18 18 18 18 18 Qualitative 18 9, 18 9, 18 18 14, 18, 46 9, 14, 18 9, 14, 18 14, 18 B-4-6 Move sidewalk–driveway crossing laterally away from highway. Quantitative Qualitative 14, 46 14 14 14 B-5 Access/Driveway Location – Retrofit Consolidation B-5-1-2 Consolidate existing access whenever separate parcels are assembled under one purpose, plan, entity, or usage. Quantitative 1, 30 1 1 16, 17 13 Qualitative 26 26 26 26, 51 12, 26 26 B-5-2-1 Encourage connections between adjacent properties (even when each has highway access). Quantitative Qualitative 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 B-5-2-2 Require access on collector street Quantitative 1 1 1 17

56 Technique (listed by ID code1) Reference ID Number Documenting the Effect of a Technique on... Documen- tation Type the Operation (or LOS) of... the Safety of... M ot or Ve hi cl e Pe d B ik e Tr an si t Tr uc k M ot or Ve hi cl e Pe d B ik e Tr an si t Tr uc k (when available) in lieu of additional driveway on highway. Qualitative 3 3 B-5-2-3 Relocate or reorient access. Quantitative Qualitative 59 3 3 Relocation B-5-3-2 Locate a new driveway opposite an intersection or driveway and install a traffic signal where warranted and properly spaced. Quantitative 1 4,17 Qualitative B-5-3-3 Install two one-way driveways in lieu of one two-way driveway. Quantitative 1 1 Qualitative 4, 14 14 14 B-5-3-4 Install two two-way driveways with limited turns in lieu of one standard two-way driveway. Quantitative 1 Qualitative 2, 4 4, 46 14 B-5-3-5 Install two one-way driveways in lieu of two two-way driveways. Quantitative 1 Qualitative 4, 14 14 14 B-5-3-6 Install two two-way driveways with limited turns in lieu of two standard two-way driveways. Quantitative 1 Qualitative 2, 4 2, 4 4, 46 4 B-6 Traffic Controls B-6-1 Install traffic signal at high-volume driveways. Quantitative 1 1 1 Qualitative B-6-2 Install traffic signals to manage traffic flow and meter traffic for larger gaps. Quantitative 26 Qualitative 14 14 58 B-6-3 Restrict parking on the roadway next to driveways to increase driveway turning speeds. Quantitative 1 1 Qualitative 9 14 9, 14 14 B-6-4 Provide reversible operation of access drive. Quantitative Qualitative B-6-5 Implement curbside loading controls. Quantitative Qualitative B-6-6 Prohibit left-turn driveway maneuvers on an undivided highway. Quantitative 1 Qualitative 4 4, 46 4 B-6-7 Install one-way operations on the highway. Quantitative 1 Qualitative B-6-8 Rep lace parallel on-street parking with off-street parking. Quantitative 1, 12 1 1 16 Qualitative   58 60 14, 16 B-6-10 Install roundabout2 Quantitative 1 1 1 4, 16, 27 Qualitative 3 3, 9 3 3 3 9, 27 B-7 Access/Driveway Design Install driveways with the appropriate return radii, throat width, and throat length for the type of traffic to be served2 Quantitative Qualitative 3, 4, 14 3, 14 3, 14 14 14 3, 4 3, 4 3 B-7-1 Widen right through lane to limit right-turn encroachment onto the adjacent lane to the left. Quantitative 1 1 Qualitative

57 Technique (listed by ID code1) Reference ID Number Documenting the Effect of a Technique on... Documen- tation Type the Operation (or LOS) of... the Safety of... M ot or Ve hi cl e Pe d B ik e Tr an si t Tr uc k M ot or Ve hi cl e Pe d B ik e Tr an si t Tr uc k B-7-6 Install driveway channelizing island to prevent left-turn driveway encroachments conflicts. Quantitative Qualitative 14 14 14 B-7-7 Install driveway channelizing island to prevent right-turn deceleration lane vehicles from returning to the through lanes. Quantitative Qualitative 14 14 14 B-7-8 Install driveway channelizing island to control the merge area of right-turn egress vehicles. Quantitative Qualitative 14 14 14 B-7-9 Regulate the maximum width of driveways, B-7-23 widen driveways to improve storage Quantitative Qualitative 3, 14 3, 14 3 3 14 3, 14 3, 14 B-7-10 Install visual cues of the driveway. Quantitative Qualitative 14 14 14 14 14 B-7-11 Improve driveway sight distance and B- 7-12 Regulate minimum sight distance Quantitative Qualitative 14 3 14 14 14 B-7-13 Optimize sight distance in the permit authorization stage. Quantitative Qualitative 14 14 14 14 B-7-14 Increase the effective approach width of the driveway (horizontal geometrics). Quantitative Qualitative 3, 14 3, 14 3, 14 3 14 3, 14 14 3 B-7-15 Improve the vertical geometrics of the driveway. Quantitative 61 Qualitative 3, 14 3, 14 3, 14 3, 14 14 3, 14, 46 61 61 B-7-16 Increase the turning speed of right- angle median crossovers by increasing the effective approach width. Quantitative Qualitative B-7-17 Install additional exit lane on driveway. Quantitative 1 Qualitative 14 14 14 B-7-18 Require two-way driveway operation where internal circulation is not available. Quantitative Qualitative B-7-19 Control driveway design elements. Quantitative Qualitative 3, 14 3, 14 3, 14 3, 14 14 14 14 14 B-7-21 Provide full driveway access with steady flow in one direction of travel on arterial road. Quantitative 1 Qualitative B-7-22 Design driveways so signals impact only one side of artery at any one location. Quantitative 1 26 Qualitative 13, 62 Notes: 1 - Technique ID codes are referenced to NCHRP Report 420 (Gluck et al., 1999). Reference ID numbers correspond to documents in Table 21. 2 - Technique added or modified by the NCHRP 03-120 research team. Of the 74 techniques shown in Table 22, 72 unique techniques were identified in NCHRP Report 420. Two techniques were added or modified by the NCHRP Project 03-120 research team. These two techniques are identified by an asterisk (*) in column 1 of the table. The first 20 techniques listed in the table are considered “primary” techniques because of their relatively frequent use by practitioners.

58 As can be seen in Table 22, the primary AM techniques identified by NCHRP Report 420 and the two additional techniques added or modified by the NCHRP Project 03-120 research team are the ones most likely to have documented effects. It can also be seen that more knowledge exists for the effects of AM techniques on the motorized vehicle mode than on other roadway modes. Technique Effect on Performance of Selected Travel Modes This section summarizes the findings from the second stage review of the literature. The objective of this review was to identify the existence of published quantitative relationships that could be used to predict the effect of a technique on the performance of the pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck travel mode. Techniques of interest could affect performance through either of the following cases: (1) the AM technique (e.g., add turn bay) is installed at the location of interest, and (2) a change in roadway design (e.g., offset turn bay) or traffic control is implemented for the purpose of improving the access management function. Relationships that predict the effect of a technique on the motorized vehicle mode were not included in the review because they were not in the project scope. The techniques that were considered in this review were listed in Table 4. The findings from the review were used to assess the need for (and cost of) developing relationships for those technique-and-mode combinations that are not represented in the literature. These findings are summarized herein, with a separate subsection devoted to each technique. Within each subsection, separate parts are provided to describe the findings associated with two performance measure categories (i.e., operations and safety). If no information was found in the literature for a specific travel mode, then a note regarding this lack of information is provided in the subsection. Technique 1a. Establish Traffic Signal Spacing Criteria This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of signal spacing on arterial street performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and safety. Traffic signal spacing describes both the average distance between signals along a corridor. The distance between adjacent signals along a street often varies around the average distance for the corridor. Signals whose distance can be characterized as having negligible deviation from the average distance are considered to have “uniform” spacing. The distance between two adjacent signals is referred to as “segment length” in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (TRB, 2010). Operations Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of signal spacing on the operation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of signal spacing on truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 23.

59 Table 23. Traffic signal spacing – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- Travel speed Segment length, walking speed, signal timing, pedestrian volume A TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- LOS score Segment length, motorized vehicle volume, motorized vehicle running speed, number of through lanes, mid-segment crossing presence and location, sidewalk width, lane and shoulder width, presence of on-street parking, width of parking A Virkler (1998) -- Travel time Segment length, walking speed, unsignalized crossing volume, signal timing, pedestrian volume A Bicycle TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- Travel speed Segment length, bicycle speed, signal timing A TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- LOS score Segment length, motorized vehicle volume, motorized vehicle running speed, number of through lanes, percent heavy vehicles, width of outside lane, width of bicycle lane, number of access points, presence of on-street parking, width of parking. A Transit TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- Travel speed Segment length, number of transit stops, motorized vehicle running speed, signal g/C ratio, dwell time, area type, transit lane allocation A TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- LOS score Segment length, number of transit stops, motorized vehicle running speed, signal g/C ratio, dwell time, area type, transit lane allocation, passenger trip length, transit frequency, stop location and amenities, pedestrian LOS score for link A Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Chapter 17 of the HCM (TRB, 2010) includes a method for evaluating pedestrian operation in terms of both travel speed and LOS score. The LOS score is a survey-based indication of traveler perception of service quality. One of the input variables for this method is segment length. Pedestrian travel speed increases with an increase in segment length. In contrast, the LOS score increases (i.e., LOS degrades) with an increase in segment length due to the increased pedestrian travel time needed to cross the street. The method developed by Virkler (1998) predicts pedestrian travel time along the segment. It is similar to the travel-speed prediction procedure in Chapter 17 of the HCM. Chapter 17 of the HCM includes a method for evaluating bicycle operation in terms of both travel speed and LOS score. Bicycle travel speed increases with an increase in segment length. In contrast, the LOS score increases (i.e., LOS degrades) with an increase in segment length because higher motorized vehicle running speeds occur on longer segments. Chapter 17 of the HCM includes a method for evaluating transit operation in terms of travel speed and LOS score. The LOS score is based on measured changes in transit patronage due to changes in service quality. One of the input variables for this method is segment length. Transit travel speed is predicted to

60 increase with an increase in segment length (due to the reduced number of traffic signals per mile). The LOS score is likely to decrease (i.e., LOS improve) with an increase in segment length. Safety Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between signal spacing and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck safety. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 24. Table 24. Traffic signal spacing – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Chapter 12 of the 2010 Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (AASHTO, 2010) includes a method that can be used to predict the frequency of pedestrian crashes and the frequency of bicycle crashes along a street segment. This method includes segment length as an input variable. It predicts an increase in crashes with an increase in segment length. However, the method is fairly simplistic from the standpoint of evaluating the effect of AM techniques on pedestrian or bicycle safety because it estimates pedestrian and bicycle crash frequency as a proportion of the predicted total crash frequency (i.e., total for all modes). As a result, the HSM pedestrian and bicycle crash prediction methods are unlikely to provide reliable results regarding the safety effect of signal spacing on the non-motorized-vehicle modes. Technique 1b. Establish Spacing for Unsignalized Access This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of access point spacing on arterial street performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. An access point is defined to be any unsignalized access location along one side of a street. An access point can be either a driveway or a public street approach. Operations Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of access point spacing on the operation of the bicycle travel mode. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of access point spacing on pedestrian, transit, or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 25.

61 Table 25. Access point spacing – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- LOS score Segment length, motorized vehicle volume, motorized vehicle running speed, number of through lanes, percent heavy vehicles, width of outside lane, width of bicycle lane, number of access points, presence of on-street parking, width of parking A Ali et al. (2012) Applies to street sections LOS probability Bike lane presence, speed limit, number of lanes, unsignalized intersection conflicts per mile B Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Chapter 17 of the HCM (TRB, 2010) includes a method for evaluating bicycle operation in terms of a LOS score. The LOS score is a survey-based indication of traveler perception of service quality. The method includes an input variable for number of access points along the segment, which is converted to access point density in the method. The LOS score increases (i.e., LOS degrades) with an increase in access point density. Ali et al. (2012) developed an equation for predicting the bicycle LOS score for a street segment. The equation includes an input variable for the number of “unsignalized intersection conflicts per mile,” which is interpreted to be the access point density. Similar to the HCM method, the LOS score increases (i.e., LOS degrades) with an increase in access point density. A procedure for using this equation is described in the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Analysis Procedures Manual (ODOT, 2012). Safety Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of access point spacing on the safety of the pedestrian travel mode. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of access point spacing on bicycle, transit, or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 26.

62 Table 26. Access point spacing – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian Bowman et al. (1994) Comparison of results by median type. Applies to street section. Crash frequency Land use, area type, number of lanes, median width, driveways per mile, speed limit. B Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Bowman et al. (1994) developed a predictive model for streets with a raised-curb median. The model relates crash rate to driveway density. The dependent variable (i.e., crash rate) was expressed in terms of vehicle-pedestrian crashes per 100 million vehicle miles. The model does not include an input variable for pedestrian volume, nor is it applicable to undivided streets or streets with a two-way left-turn lane median. The model indicates that vehicle-pedestrian crash rate increases with an increase in driveway density. Chapter 12 of the 2010 HSM (AASHTO, 2010) includes a method that can be used to predict the frequency of pedestrian crashes and the frequency of bicycle crashes along a street segment. This method includes number of driveways (by land use type) as an input variable. It predicts an increase in crashes with an increase in driveways. However, the method is fairly simplistic from the standpoint of evaluating the effect of AM techniques on pedestrian or bicycle safety because it estimates pedestrian and bicycle crash frequency as a proportion of the predicted total crash frequency (i.e., total for all modes). As a result, the HSM pedestrian and bicycle crash prediction methods are unlikely to provide reliable results regarding the safety effect of access point spacing on the non-motorized-vehicle modes. Technique 1c. Establish Corner Clearance Criteria This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of corner clearance on intersection performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. Corner clearance represents the distance between the intersection conflict area (as is typically demarked by the intersection stop lines or crosswalks) and the near edge of the nearest driveway on the major street. Longer clearance distances minimize conflicts between driveway traffic and major street through vehicles. This technique is similar to Technique B-5-2-2 – Require Access on Collector Street In Lieu of Additional Driveway on Highway. Technique 1c considers the travel performance benefit of moving driveway access on the major street legs further from the intersection. Technique B-5-2-2 considers the removal of access from the major street leg as a means of maximizing the travel performance benefit. Operations Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between corner clearance and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck operation. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 27.

63 Table 27. Corner clearance – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Safety Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between corner clearance and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck safety. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 28. Table 28. Corner clearance – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Techniques 2a & 2b. Install Non-Traversable Median This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of non-traversable median presence on arterial street performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. On urban streets, the non-traversable median is typically represented as a raised-curb median. It has been added to undivided streets and it has been used as a replacement for the two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). The operations and safety effect of installing a raised-curb median will vary depending on whether it is added to an undivided street or replacing a TWLTL. The addition of a raised-curb median is intended to improve operations and safety by separating left- turning vehicles from the through-traffic lanes. The extent of the median installation’s impact on operations and safety is highly influenced by the changes to other street cross section elements, such as: (1) the count of through lanes; (2) the width of the lanes and shoulders; (3) the removal of on-street parking; and (4) the addition of bike lanes. For this reason, a robust performance relationship for the effect of raised-curb installation will incorporate all of these possible effects and their interactions. Operations Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of raised-curb median presence on the operation of the pedestrian and transit travel modes. The literature review did not reveal

64 the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of raised-curb median presence on bicycle or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 29. Table 29. Non-traversable median – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian TRB (2010), Ch. 19 Applies to crossing uncontrolled major street Delay Number of lanes, percent heavy vehicles, motorized vehicle volume, pedestrian crossing volume, median type, pedestrian crossing treatment A TRB (2010), Ch. 17 Applies to street segment LOS score Segment length, motorized vehicle volume, motorized vehicle running speed, number of through lanes, mid- segment crossing presence and location, lane and shoulder width, sidewalk width, presence of on-street parking, width of parking A Bicycle none Transit TRB (2010), Ch. 17 Applies to street segment LOS score Segment length, number of transit stops, motorized vehicle running speed, signal g/C ratio, dwell time, area type, transit lane allocation, passenger trip length, transit frequency, stop location and amenities, pedestrian LOS score for link A Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Chapter 19 of the HCM (TRB, 2010) includes a method for evaluating pedestrian operation in terms of delay incurred when crossing the street at an unsignalized location. The raised-curb median is used as a pedestrian refuge that allows pedestrians to cross in two stages. The delay increases when a median refuge is not provided (e.g., because the median is too narrow or the cross section is undivided). Chapter 17 of the HCM includes a method for evaluating pedestrian operation in terms of a LOS score. The LOS score is a survey-based indication of traveler perception of service quality. The method includes a procedure for quantifying the possible impact of any delay incurred when crossing the street. The procedure considers the delay when crossing at an unsignalized mid-segment location as well as the delay when diverting to cross at the nearest signalized intersection. The LOS score increases (i.e., LOS degrades) with an increase in crossing delay (e.g., because a median refuge is not provided). The pedestrian method in Chapter 17 also includes input variables for motorized vehicle running speed, number of through lanes, lane width, and shoulder width. If the addition of a raised-curb median changes the value of any of these variables, then there is likely to be a change in the pedestrian LOS score. Chapter 17 of the HCM includes a method for evaluating transit operation in terms of a LOS score. The LOS score is based on measured changes in transit patronage due to changes in service quality. One input to this method is the pedestrian LOS score for the corresponding “link” (i.e., the portion of the segment between, and excluding, the boundary intersections). The transit LOS score increases (i.e., LOS degrades) with an increase in pedestrian LOS score.

65 Safety Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of raised-curb median presence on the safety of the pedestrian and bicycle travel modes. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of raised-curb median presence on transit or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 30. Table 30. Non-traversable median – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian Bowman and Vecellio (1994) Comparison of results by median type. Applies to street section. Crash rate Area type (i.e., central business district, suburban) and location (i.e., segment, signalized intersection) C Zegeer et al. (2005) Applies to individual crossing locations Crash frequency Pedestrian volume, motorized vehicle volume, number of lanes, median type, presence of marked crosswalk B Alluri et al. (2012) Applies to street sections converted from TWLTL Crash frequency None C Bowman et al. (1994) Comparison of results by median type. Applies to street section. Crash frequency Land use, area type, number of lanes, median width, minor crossroads per mile, driveways per mile, crossovers per mile, speed. B Bicycle Alluri et al. (2012) Applies to street sections converted from TWLTL Crash frequency None C Miranda- Moreno et al. (2011) Applies to signalized intersection Crash frequency Bicycle volume, motorized vehicle volume by movement, number of legs, presence of bus stops, presence if parking entrance. B Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Bowman and Vecellio (1994) examined the frequency of pedestrian-vehicle crashes on arterials with different midblock left-turn treatments. Their database included 1,012 pedestrian-vehicle crashes. They found that pedestrian-related crashes were more frequent in central business districts (CBDs) than in suburban areas. About 7 percent of all crashes on CBD streets involved pedestrians, whereas only 2 percent of all crashes on suburban streets involved pedestrians. Bowman and Vecellio converted the pedestrian-vehicle crash counts to crash rates by dividing by one million vehicle miles. These rates indicate that raised-curb medians have about 0.2 pedestrian crashes per mvm (pc/mvm) on CBD streets and 0.06 pc/mvm on suburban streets. Streets with TWLTLs were found to have about twice the number of pedestrian crashes. Streets with undivided cross sections were found to have even higher pedestrian crash rates, particularly for CBD streets. These rates were found to be 0.87 pc/mvm for CBD streets and 0.14 pa/mvm for suburban streets. Zegeer et al. (2005) developed a crash prediction model that predicts the frequency of vehicle- pedestrian crashes as unsignalized crossing locations. The model includes an input variable that is used to

66 indicate whether a raised-curb median is present (as a refuge) for part of the crossing. The model indicates that vehicle-pedestrian crash frequency decreases when a raised-curb median is present. Alluri et al. (2012) evaluated the crash history at 18 street sections in Florida that were converted from TWLTL to raised-curb median. A before–after analysis was undertaken using crash rate, with units of crashes per million vehicle miles (i.e., pedestrian and bicycle volumes were not available). The analysis results indicated that vehicle-pedestrian crash rates decreased by 28.9 percent and that vehicle-bicycle crash rates decreased by 4.5 percent. However, neither reduction was statistically significant due to small sample size. Bowman et al. (1994) developed a set of predictive models that collectively addressed three cross sections types (i.e., raised-curb median, TWLTL, and undivided). The dependent variable (i.e., crash rate) was expressed in terms of vehicle-pedestrian crashes per 100 million vehicle miles. The model does not include an input variable for pedestrian volume. The model indicates that vehicle-pedestrian crash rate is lowest for the raised-curb median, regardless of area type or land use. Miranda-Moreno et al. (2011) developed a model that predicts the frequency of vehicle-bicycle crashes at signalized intersections. The model includes a variable for median presence. It indicates that vehicle- bicycle crash frequency decreases when a median is present. Technique 2c. Close Existing Median Opening This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of median opening presence (or spacing) on arterial street performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. Median openings are found on streets with non-traversable medians. They are used in two scenarios. The opening can occur at intersections to allow the full set of turn and crossing movements. The opening can also occur at a mid-segment location to allow U-turn opportunities. A special case of this second scenario is the provision of a median opening just downstream from an intersection where left turns are prohibited. This special case is addressed herein as Technique 3d – Install U-turns as an Alternative to Direct Lefts. The focus of the review is on the closure of a median opening at either an intersection or mid-segment location. When an opening is closed at an intersection, it is used to prohibit (1) left-turn movements from the cross street or driveway, (2) left turns from the major street, and (3) through movements from the cross street or driveway. Operations Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between median opening presence (or spacing) and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck operation. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 31.

67 Table 31. Median opening – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Safety Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of median opening presence on the safety of the bicycle travel mode. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of median opening presence on the pedestrian, transit, or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 32. Table 32. Median opening – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle Carter et al. (2006) Median closure should reduce cross street volume and presence of vehicles turning across bike path Safety index Bike lane presence, cross street volume, through lanes on cross street, main street volume, main street speed limit, presence of on- street parking, number of right-turn lanes on intersection approach, signal presence, presence of vehicles turning across bike path A Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. A model was developed by Carter et al. (2006) for predicting a bicycle safety index. The index is a value ranging from 1 to 6, with 1 associated with conditions most favorable for bicycle safety. The index was developed by the researchers based on their examination of crash reports, conflicts, and intersection safety ratings (developed by an expert panel) for 67 intersection approaches. The model indicates that bicycle safety improves with a decrease in cross street volume, the removal of right-turn lanes, the removal of on-street parking, and the exclusion of vehicles turning across the bicyclists’ path.

68 Technique 2d. Replace Full Median Opening with Median Designed for Left Turns from the Major Roadway This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect (on intersection performance) of replacing a full median opening with a median designed for left turns from the major roadway. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. The focus of the review is on the presence of median openings at intersections, where the opening is configured to prohibit (1) left-turn movements from the cross street or driveway and (2) through movements from the cross street or driveway. Left turns from the major street are allowed. Operations Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between median opening design and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck operation. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 33. Table 33. Median designed for left turns from the major roadway – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Safety Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of median opening design on the safety of the bicycle travel mode. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of median opening design on the pedestrian, transit, or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 34.

69 Table 34. Median designed for left turns from the major roadway – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle Carter et al. (2006) Median restriction should reduce cross street volume Safety index Bike lane presence, cross street volume, through lanes on cross street, main street volume, main street speed limit, presence of on-street parking, number of right-turn lanes on intersection approach, signal presence, presence of vehicles turning across bike path A Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. A model was developed by Carter et al. (2006) for predicting a bicycle safety index. The index is a value ranging from 1 to 6, with 1 associated with conditions most favorable for bicycle safety. The index was developed by the researchers based on their examination of crash reports, conflicts, and intersection safety ratings (developed by an expert panel) for 67 intersection approaches. The model indicates that bicycle safety improves with a decrease in cross street volume, the removal of right-turn lanes, the removal of on-street parking, and the exclusion of vehicles turning across the bicyclists’ path. Technique 3c. Install Continuous Two-Way Left-Turn Lane on Undivided Highway This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of TWLTL presence on arterial street performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. The installation of a TWLTL can be characterized in terms of the changes made to the street’s paved width, number of through lanes, or both. When the number of through lanes is unchanged, the TWLTL addition will typically increase the street’s paved width by an amount as large as the width of the TWLTL. When the number of through lanes is reduced (e.g., road diet), the street’s paved width is not likely to change. The addition of a TWLTL to an undivided street is intended to improve operations and safety by separating left-turning vehicles from the through-traffic lanes. The extent of the TWLTL installation’s impact on operations and safety is highly influenced by the changes to other street design elements, such as: (1) the count of through lanes; (2) the width of the lanes and shoulders; (3) the removal of on-street parking; and (4) the addition of bike lanes. For this reason, a robust performance relationship for the effect of TWLTL installation will incorporate all of these possible effects and their interactions. Operations Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of TWLTL presence on the operation of the pedestrian and transit travel modes. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of TWLTL presence on bicycle or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 35.

70 Table 35. Two-way left-turn lane – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian TRB (2010), Ch. 19 Applies to crossing uncontrolled major street. Only captures effect of change in crossing distance. Delay Number of lanes, percent heavy vehicles, motorized vehicle volume, pedestrian crossing volume, median type, pedestrian crossing treatment A TRB (2010), Ch. 17 Applies to street segment. Only captures effect of change in crossing distance. LOS score Segment length, motorized vehicle volume, motorized vehicle running speed, number of through lanes, mid- segment crossing presence and location, sidewalk width, lane and shoulder width, presence of on-street parking, width of parking A Bicycle none Transit TRB (2010), Ch. 17 Applies to street segment LOS score Segment length, number of transit stops, motorized vehicle running speed, signal g/C ratio, dwell time, area type, transit lane allocation, passenger trip length, transit frequency, stop location and amenities, pedestrian LOS score for link A Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Chapter 19 of the HCM (TRB, 2010) includes a method for evaluating pedestrian operation in terms of delay incurred when crossing the street at an unsignalized location. The width of the street being crossed is an input variable in the model. The delay increases with an increase in crossing width (e.g., because of the larger gap in traffic that is needed to safety complete the crossing). This method is not sensitive to whether a TWLTL is present (only the added crossing width that it creates). Chapter 17 of the HCM includes a method for evaluating pedestrian operation in terms of a LOS score. The LOS score is a survey-based indication of traveler perception of service quality. The method includes a procedure for quantifying the possible impact of any delay incurred when crossing the street. The procedure considers the delay when crossing at an unsignalized mid-segment location as well as the delay when diverting to cross at the nearest signalized intersection. The LOS score increases (i.e., LOS degrades) with an increase in crossing delay (e.g., because the street width is increased to include a TWLTL). The pedestrian method in Chapter 17 also includes input variables for motorized vehicle running speed, number of through lanes, lane width, and shoulder width. If the addition of a TWLTL changes the value of any of these variables, then there is likely to be a change in the pedestrian LOS score. Chapter 17 of the HCM includes a method for evaluating transit operation in terms of a LOS score. The LOS score is based on measured changes in transit patronage due to changes in service quality. One input to this method is the pedestrian LOS score for the corresponding “link” (i.e., the portion of the segment between, and excluding, the boundary intersections). The transit LOS score increases (i.e., LOS degrades) with an increase in pedestrian LOS score.

71 Safety Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of TWLTL presence on the safety of the pedestrian travel mode. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of TWLTL presence on bicycle, transit, or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 36. Bowman and Vecellio (1994) examined the frequency of pedestrian-vehicle crashes on arterials with different midblock left-turn treatments. Their database included 1,012 pedestrian-vehicle crashes. They found that pedestrian-related crashes were more frequent in CBDs than in suburban areas. About 7 percent of all crashes on CBD streets involved pedestrians, whereas only 2 percent of all crashes on suburban streets involved pedestrians. Table 36. Two-way left-turn lane – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian Bowman and Vecellio (1994) Comparison of results by median type. Applies to street section. Crash rate Area type (i.e., central business district, suburban) and location (i.e., segment, signalized intersection) C Bowman et al. (1994) Comparison of results by median type. Applies to street section. Crash frequency Land use, area type, number of lanes, median width, minor crossroads per mile, driveways per mile, crossovers per mile, speed. B Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Bowman and Vecellio (1994) converted the pedestrian-vehicle crash counts to crash rates by dividing by one million vehicle miles. These rates indicate that TWLTLs have about 0.4 pedestrian crashes per mvm (pc/mvm) on CBD streets and 0.13 pc/mvm on suburban streets. In contrast, streets with undivided cross sections were found to have higher pedestrian crash rates, particularly for CBD streets. The rate was found to be 0.87 pc/mvm for CBD streets and 0.14 pc/mvm for suburban streets. Bowman et al. (1994) developed a predictive model for streets with TWLTL and another model for streets with undivided cross section. The dependent variable (i.e., crash rate) was expressed in terms of vehicle-pedestrian crashes per 100 million vehicle miles. The model does not include an input variable for pedestrian volume. The model indicates that vehicle-pedestrian crash rate is lower for the TWLTL than for the undivided cross section. Technique 3d. Install U-turns as an Alternative to Direct Left Turns This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of median U-turns on intersection performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. Median openings are being used on streets and highways as an alternative to direct left-turn maneuvers at nearby intersections. In the case of left turns from the major street, the left turn at the intersection is prohibited and a median opening is located on the major street just downstream of the intersection. To

72 complete a left-turn maneuver with this design, the left-turn vehicle proceeds through the intersection, makes a U-turn at the downstream median opening, and returns back to the intersection. Upon arrival, the vehicle makes a right turn to complete the desired change in travel direction. In the case of left turns from a side street or driveway, the left turn at the intersection is prohibited and a median opening is located on the major street just downstream of the intersection. To complete a left- turn maneuver with this design, the left-turn vehicle makes a right turn (instead of a left turn) onto the major street, weaves across the through lanes on the major street, makes a U-turn at the downstream median opening, and returns back to the intersection. Upon arrival, the vehicle proceeds through the intersection to complete the desired change in travel direction. Operations Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of median U-turn accommodation on the operation of the truck travel mode. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of median U-turn accommodation on pedestrian, bicycle, or transit travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 37. Table 37. Median U-turns as an alternative to direct left turns – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck Liu et al. (2007) Applies only to four- lane streets. Delay Major-road motorized vehicle volume, U-turn volume C Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Liu et al. (2007) measured the delay incurred by U-turning vehicles at 16 median openings in central Florida. All of the study sites were located on four-lane divided roadways. The researchers used the field data to calibrate a model for predicting the delay to U-turning vehicles. The model formulation allows it to be used to predict the delay to large vehicles that use extra pavement (beyond that in the traveled way) to complete the U-turn. These large vehicles were predicted to incur more delay than passenger cars as a result of the U-turn maneuver. Safety Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between median U-turn accommodation and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck safety. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 38.

73 Table 38. Median U-turns as an alternative to direct left turns – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Technique 4a. Install Right-Turn Deceleration Lane This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of right-turn deceleration lane presence on intersection performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. There are several design alternatives available to accommodate right-turning vehicles at an intersection. These designs can be characterized by (1) the presence of a right-turn deceleration lane (or the use of a shared through and right-turn lane), (2) the use of a triangular channelizing island at the intersection (or not); (3) the type of right-turn control used at the intersection (i.e., no control, yield control, stop control, signal control); and (4) the presence of an accepting (i.e., acceleration) lane at the exit end of the right- turning roadway (or not). Excluding the illogical combinations of control type and accepting lane presence, these characteristics collectively represent about 24 unique types of right-turn design for an intersection approach. Operations Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of right-turn lane presence on the operation of the pedestrian travel mode. The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships that predicted the effect of right-turn lane presence on bicycle, transit, or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 39.

74 Table 39. Right-turn deceleration lane – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian TRB (2010), Ch. 18 Applies to signalized intersection Pedestrian space Sidewalk width, pedestrian signal timing, pedestrian crossing volume, length of crosswalk A TRB (2010), Ch. 18 Applies to signalized intersection Delay Cycle length, pedestrian signal timing, pedestrian crossing volume, length of crosswalk A TRB (2010), Ch. 18 Applies to signalized intersection LOS score Pedestrian delay, motorize vehicle volume, number of lanes crossed, presence of right-turn channelizing island A Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Chapter 18 of the HCM (TRB, 2010) includes a method for evaluating pedestrian operation in terms of pedestrian space, delay, and LOS score. The pedestrian space measure is used to determine the circulation area available to each pedestrian. The method includes separate procedures for evaluating pedestrian space when crossing the crosswalk, which is a function of the number of traffic lanes being crossed (including any right-turn lanes that are provided). The procedure indicates that circulation area increases (i.e., becomes desirably less dense) as the length of the crosswalk increases (e.g., due to the addition of a right-turn lane). The pedestrian method in Chapter 18 of the HCM also includes a procedure for estimating pedestrian delay. This delay is a function of the signal cycle length and the duration of the pedestrian walk time. For some signal operations, the walk time is a function of the crosswalk length such that longer crosswalks (e.g., due to the addition of a right-turn lane) can increase the delay to some pedestrians and vehicles. The pedestrian method in Chapter 18 of the HCM also includes a method for evaluating pedestrian operation in terms of a LOS score. The LOS score is a survey-based indication of traveler perception of service quality. The procedure considers the number of lanes being crossed, pedestrian crossing delay, and the presence of a right-turn channelizing island. The LOS score increases (i.e., LOS degrades) with an increase in crossing delay or an increase in the number of lanes crossed. The LOS score decreases (i.e., LOS improves) if right-turn channelizing islands are present. Safety Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of right-turn lane presence on the safety of the pedestrian and bicycle travel modes. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of right-turn lane presence on the transit or truck travel modes. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 40.

75 Table 40. Right-turn deceleration lane – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian Potts et al. (2011) -- Crash frequency Pedestrian volume, motorized vehicle right-turn volume, right-turn design type (no turn lane, turn lane, turn lane with channelization) B Bicycle Carter et al. (2006) -- Safety index Bike lane presence, cross street volume, through lanes on cross street, main street volume, main street speed limit, presence of on- street parking, number of right-turn lanes on intersection approach, signal presence, presence of vehicles turning across bike path A Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Potts et al. (2011) developed a model for predicting the frequency of vehicle-pedestrian crashes associated with an intersection leg. The model includes an input variable that describes the right-turn design type (i.e., no turn lane, turn lane without channelizing island, turn lane with channelizing island). The model indicates that the addition of a right-turn lane increases the frequency of crashes. The model also suggests that the addition of a channelizing island decreases the frequency of vehicle-pedestrian crashes. In fact, the two effects tend to be offsetting such that the design with a right-turn lane and channelization has about the same crash frequency as a design with no right-turn lane and no channelization. A model was developed by Carter et al. (2006) for predicting a bicycle safety index. The index is a value ranging from 1 to 6, with 1 associated with conditions most favorable for bicycle safety. The index was developed by the researchers based on their examination of crash reports, conflicts, and intersection safety ratings (developed by an expert panel) for 67 intersection approaches. The model indicates that bicycle safety improves with a decrease in cross street volume, the removal of right-turn lanes, the removal of on-street parking, and the exclusion of vehicles turning across the bicyclists’ path. Technique 4b. Install Continuous Right-Turn Lane This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of continuous right-turn lane presence on arterial street performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. Operations Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between continuous right-turn lane design and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck operation. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 41.

76 Table 41. Continuous right-turn lane – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Safety Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between continuous right-turn lane design and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck safety. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 42. Table 42. Continuous right-turn lane – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Technique 5a. Consolidate Driveways This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of driveway consolidation intersection performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. Operations Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of consolidating driveways on the operation of the pedestrian travel mode. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of consolidating driveways on bicycle, transit, or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 43.

77 Table 43. Consolidate driveways – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian TRB (2010), Ch. 19 Applies to two-way stop controlled driveway. Use method twice – once for each driveway, once for combined driveway Delay Number of lanes, percent heavy vehicles, motorized vehicle volume, pedestrian crossing volume, median type, pedestrian crossing treatment A Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. The consolidation of driveways involves the closure of one or more driveways on a common side of the street and the shared use of the remaining driveways. As a first-order approximation, the evaluation of this technique is likely to include the assumption that the existing driveway traffic volume is redistributed to the remaining driveways (i.e., it is assumed that driveway users do not seek alternative routes to the property, discontinue their use of the property, or alter the time of day that they use the driveway). Chapter 19 of the HCM (TRB, 2010) includes a method for evaluating pedestrian operation in terms of delay incurred when crossing the street at an unsignalized location. The method includes input variables that describe the motorized vehicle turn movement volumes, some of which are likely to increase as a result of driveway consolidation. The predicted delay increases when the vehicle volume increases (e.g., because of additional vehicles that would previously have used a different driveway). Safety Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between consolidating driveways and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck safety. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 44. Table 44. Consolidate driveways – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application.

78 Technique 5b. Channelize Driveways to Discourage or Prohibit Left Turns This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of left-turn prohibition via channelization on intersection performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. The focus of the review is on the presence of channelization at driveways, where the channelization is configured to prohibit (1) left-turn movements from the driveway and (2) left turns from the major street. Through movements from the driveway are allowed. This technique is the same as Technique B-3-1 – Install Median Barrier with No Direct Left-Turn Ingress or Egress in terms of the movements that are prohibited. However, the two techniques differ in the manner by which the prohibition is achieved (i.e., channelization versus median barrier). As a result, their effect on the operation or safety of pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck travel may vary. Operations Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between left-turn prohibition via channelization and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck operation. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 45. Table 45. Driveway channelization to discourage or prohibit left turns – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Safety Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of driveway design on the safety of the bicycle travel mode. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of driveway design on the pedestrian, transit, or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 46.

79 Table 46. Driveway channelization to discourage or prohibit left turns – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle Carter et al. (2006) Median closure should reduce cross street volume and presence of vehicles turning across bike path Safety index Bike lane presence, cross street volume, through lanes on cross street, main street volume, main street speed limit, presence of on-street parking, number of right-turn lanes on intersection approach, signal presence, presence of vehicles turning across bike path A Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. A model was developed by Carter et al. (2006) for predicting a bicycle safety index. The index is a value ranging from 1 to 6, with 1 associated with conditions most favorable for bicycle safety. The index was developed by the researchers based on their examination of crash reports, conflicts, and intersection safety ratings (developed by an expert panel) for 67 intersection approaches. The model indicates that bicycle safety improves with a decrease in cross street volume, the removal of right-turn lanes, the removal of on-street parking, and the exclusion of vehicles turning across the bicyclists’ path. Technique 6b. Locate/Relocate the Intersection of a Parallel Frontage Road and a Crossroad Farther from the Arterial–Crossroad Intersection This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of intersection spacing on interchange crossroad performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. The focus of the review is on the spacing between the frontage road (or interchange ramp) intersection and the adjacent signalized intersection on the interchange crossroad. Operations Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between intersection spacing on interchange crossroads and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck operation. However, the relationships identified for Technique 1a – Establish Traffic Signal Spacing Criteria should be equally applicable to the evaluation of interchange crossroads. These relationships are listed in Table 47; they are discussed in the text associated with Table 23.

80 Table 47. Intersection spacing on interchange crossroad – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- Travel speed Segment length, walking speed, signal timing, pedestrian volume A TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- LOS score Segment length, motorized vehicle volume, motorized vehicle running speed, number of through lanes, mid-segment crossing presence and location, sidewalk width, lane and shoulder width, presence of on-street parking, width of parking A Virkler (1998) -- Travel time Segment length, walking speed, unsignalized crossing volume, signal timing, pedestrian volume A Bicycle TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- Travel speed Segment length, bicycle speed, signal timing A TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- LOS score Segment length, motorized vehicle volume, motorized vehicle running speed, number of through lanes, percent heavy vehicles, width of outside lane, width of bicycle lane, number of access points, presence of on-street parking, width of parking. A Transit TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- Travel speed Segment length, number of transit stops, motorized vehicle running speed, signal g/C ratio, dwell time, area type, transit lane allocation A TRB (2010), Ch. 17 -- LOS score Segment length, number of transit stops, motorized vehicle running speed, signal g/C ratio, dwell time, area type, transit lane allocation, passenger trip length, transit frequency, stop location and amenities, pedestrian LOS score for link A Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Safety Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between intersection spacing on interchange crossroads and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck safety. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 48.

81 Table 48. Intersection spacing on interchange crossroad – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Technique B-3-1. Install Median Barrier with No Direct Left-Turn Ingress or Egress This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of left-turn prohibition via median barrier presence on intersection performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. The focus of the review is on the installation of raised median barrier at intersections, where the barrier is configured to prohibit (1) left-turn movements from the cross street or driveway and (2) left turns from the major street. This technique is the same as Technique 5b – Channelize Driveways to Discourage Left Turns in terms of the movements that are prohibited. However, the two techniques differ in the manner by which the prohibition is achieved (i.e., channelization versus median barrier). As a result, their effect on the operation or safety of pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck travel may vary. Operations Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between left-turn prohibition (via raised median barrier) and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck operation. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 49. Table 49. Raised median barrier to discourage left turns – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Related to the topic of “left-turn prohibition via raised median” is the effect of median presence on pedestrian delay. Chapter 19 of the HCM (TRB, 2010) includes a method for evaluating pedestrian operation in terms of delay incurred when crossing the street at an unsignalized location. The raised-curb median is used as a pedestrian refuge that allows pedestrians to cross in two stages. The delay increases when a median refuge is not provided (e.g., because the median is too narrow or the cross section is

82 undivided). Therefore, if left-turn prohibition is achieved using a raised median, this HCM method can be used to quantify the associated reduction in pedestrian delay. Safety Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of left-turn prohibition (via raised median barrier) on the safety of the bicycle travel mode. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of median opening design on the pedestrian, transit, or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 50. Table 50. Raised median barrier to discourage left turns – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle Carter et al. (2006) Median closure should reduce cross street volume and presence of vehicles turning across bike path Safety index Bike lane presence, cross street volume, through lanes on cross street, main street volume, main street speed limit, presence of on-street parking, number of right-turn lanes on intersection approach, signal presence, presence of vehicles turning across bike path A Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. A model was developed by Carter et al. (2006) for predicting a bicycle safety index. The index is a value ranging from 1 to 6, with 1 associated with conditions most favorable for bicycle safety. The index was developed by the researchers based on their examination of crash reports, conflicts, and intersection safety ratings (developed by an expert panel) for 67 intersection approaches. The model indicates that bicycle safety improves with a decrease in cross street volume, the removal of right-turn lanes, the removal of on-street parking, and the exclusion of vehicles turning across the bicyclists’ path. Technique B-4-6. Move Sidewalk-Driveway Crossing Laterally Away from Highway This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of sidewalk crossing location on intersection performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. Operations Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between sidewalk crossing location and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck operation. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 51.

83 Table 51. Sidewalk-driveway crossing location – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Safety Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between sidewalk crossing location and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck safety. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 52. Table 52. Sidewalk-driveway crossing location – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Technique B-5-2-2. Require Access on Collector Street In Lieu of Additional Driveway on Highway This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of prohibiting major street-driveway access on intersection performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. The focus of this review is on the relocation of driveway access from the major street legs of an intersection to the cross-street legs. This technique is similar to Technique 1c – Establish Corner Clearance Criteria. Technique 1c considers the travel performance benefit of moving driveway access on the major street legs further from the intersection. Technique B-5-2-2 considers the removal of access from the major street leg as a means of maximizing the travel performance benefit. Operations Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between driveway access removal and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck operation. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 53.

84 Table 53. Prohibit major street-driveway access – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Safety Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between driveway access removal and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck safety. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 54. Table 54. Prohibit major street-driveway access – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Technique B-5-2-3. Relocate or Reorient Access This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of relocating or reorienting access on arterial street performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. This technique is similar to Techniques 1c, 5a, and B-5-2-2. Operations Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between access relocation/reorientation and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck operation. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 55.

85 Table 55. Relocate or reorient access – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Safety Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between access relocation/reorientation and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck safety. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 56. Table 56. Relocate or reorient access – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Technique B-6-8. Replace Curb Parking with Off-Street Parking This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of curb parking removal on arterial street performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. Operations Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of curb parking removal on the operation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of curb parking removal on truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 57.

86 Table 57. Remove curb parking – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian TRB (2010), Ch. 17 Applies to street segment LOS score Segment length, motorized vehicle volume, motorized vehicle running speed, number of through lanes, mid-segment crossing presence and location, sidewalk width, lane and shoulder width, presence of on-street parking, width of parking A Bicycle TRB (2010), Ch. 17 Applies to street segment LOS score Segment length, motorized vehicle volume, motorized vehicle running speed, number of through lanes, percent heavy vehicles, width of outside lane, width of bicycle lane, number of access point s, presence of on-street parking, width of parking A TRB (2010), Ch. 18 Applies to signalized intersection LOS score Width of cross street, motorized vehicle demand, number of through lanes, width of bicycle lane, presence of on-street parking, width of outside shoulder (including parking) A Transit TRB (2010), Ch. 17 Applies to street segment LOS score Segment length, number of transit stops, motorized vehicle running speed, signal g/C ratio, dwell time, area type, transit lane allocation, passenger trip length, transit frequency, stop location and amenities, pedestrian LOS score for link A Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Chapter 17 of the HCM (TRB, 2010) includes a method for evaluating pedestrian operation using a LOS score. The LOS score is a survey-based indication of traveler perception of service quality. The method includes input variables indicating the proportion of the street with curb parking and the width of this parking. The LOS score decreases (i.e., LOS improves) when curb parking is present along the street. The score also decreases as the curb parking width increases. Chapter 17 of the HCM also includes a method for evaluating bicycle operation using a LOS score. The LOS score increases (i.e., LOS degrades) when curb parking is present along the street. In contrast, the score decreases as the curb parking width increases. Chapter 18 of the HCM includes a method for evaluating bicycle operation in terms of a LOS score. The method includes input variables indicating the proportion of the street with curb parking and the width of the outside shoulder (including curb parking width). The LOS score increases (i.e., LOS degrades) when curb parking is present along the street. If the parking is unused during the analysis period, then the LOS score decreases as the curb parking width increases (if any portion of the parking is used, then the LOS score is unaffected by parking width). Chapter 17 of the HCM includes a method for evaluating transit operation in terms of a LOS score. The LOS score is based on measured changes in transit patronage due to changes in service quality. One input to this method is the pedestrian LOS score for the corresponding “link” (i.e., the portion of the segment between, and excluding, the boundary intersections). The transit LOS score increases (i.e., LOS degrades) with an increase in pedestrian LOS score). Therefore, the transit LOS score increases when curb parking is present along the street or curb parking is decreased.

87 Safety Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of curb-parking presence on the safety of the bicycle travel mode. The literature review did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of curb-parking presence on the pedestrian, transit, or truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 58. Table 58. Remove curb parking – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle Carter et al. (2006) Median closure should reduce cross street volume and presence of vehicles turning across bike path Safety index Bike lane presence, cross street volume, through lanes on cross street, main street volume, main street speed limit, presence of on-street parking, number of right-turn lanes on intersection approach, signal presence, presence of vehicles turning across bike path A Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. A model was developed by Carter et al. (2006) for predicting a bicycle safety index. The index is a value ranging from 1 to 6, with 1 associated with conditions most favorable for bicycle safety. The index was developed by the researchers based on their examination of crash reports, conflicts, and intersection safety ratings (developed by an expert panel) for 67 intersection approaches. The model indicates that bicycle safety improves with a decrease in cross street volume, the removal of right-turn lanes, the removal of on-street parking, and the exclusion of vehicles turning across the bicyclists’ path. Chapter 12 of the 2010 Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (AASHTO, 2010) includes a method that can be used to predict the frequency of pedestrian crashes and the frequency of bicycle crashes along a street segment. This method includes curb parking presence as an input variable. It predicts an increase in crashes when curb parking is present. However, the method is fairly simplistic from the standpoint of evaluating the effect of AM techniques on pedestrian or bicycle safety because it estimates pedestrian and bicycle crash frequency as a proportion of the predicted total crash frequency (total for all modes). As a result, the HSM pedestrian and bicycle crash prediction methods are unlikely to provide reliable results regarding the safety effect of signal spacing on the non-motorized-vehicle modes. Technique B-6-10. Install Roundabout This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of a roundabout configuration on intersection performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. Operations Measures Quantitative performance relationships were identified that described the effect of a roundabout configuration on the operation of the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel modes. The literature review

88 did not reveal the existence of relationships that predicted the effect of a roundabout configuration on truck travel. The relationships that were found are summarized in Table 59. Table 59. Roundabout – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian TRB (2010), Ch. 21 Ch. 21 recommends use of Ch. 19 method Delay Number of lanes, percent heavy vehicles, motorized vehicle volume, pedestrian crossing volume, median type, pedestrian crossing treatment A Bicycle TRB (2010), Ch. 21 Can evaluate bikes as equivalent motor vehicles or as pedestrians Delay Number of lanes per approach, motorized vehicle volume, bicycle volume, pedestrian volume, percent heavy vehicles. A Transit TRB (2010), Ch. 17 Applies to street segment Travel speed Segment length, number of transit stops, motorized vehicle running speed, roundabout leg v/c ratio, dwell time, area type, transit lane allocation A TRB (2010), Ch. 17 Applies to street segment LOS score Segment length, number of transit stops, motorized vehicle running speed, roundabout leg v/c ratio, dwell time, area type, transit lane allocation, passenger trip length, transit frequency, stop location and amenities, pedestrian LOS score for link A Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Chapter 21 of the HCM (TRB, 2010) provides a method for evaluating motorized vehicle operation at a roundabout. It also recommends the use of the pedestrian evaluation method in Chapter 19 of the HCM. The method in Chapter 19 is focused on the calculation of delay to pedestrians crossing the major street at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. However, the HCM indicates that this method can also be applied (“with caution”) to pedestrians crossing one leg of a roundabout. Chapter 21 of the HCM indicates that bicycle operation can be evaluated in one of two ways, depending on the behavior of the bicyclists that use the roundabout of interest. The HCM states, “If bicyclists are circulating as motor vehicles, their effect can be approximated by combining bicyclist flow rates with other vehicles using a passenger‐car‐equivalent factor of 0.5. If bicyclists are circulating as pedestrians, their effect can be analyzed using the methodology … for pedestrians.” p. 21-21 (TRB, 2010). Chapter 17 of the HCM includes a method for evaluating transit operation in terms of travel speed and LOS score. The LOS score is based on measured changes in transit patronage due to changes in service quality. Input variables for this method include the control delay and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio on the major street approach to the roundabout. Transit travel speed is predicted to increase with a decrease in roundabout v/c ratio or control delay. The LOS score is likely to decrease (i.e., LOS improve) with a decrease in roundabout v/c ratio or control delay.

89 Safety Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between roundabout installation and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck safety. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 60. Table 60. Roundabout – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. Rodegerdts et al. (2010) cite several studies of pedestrian and bicycle safety at roundabouts. Collectively, these studies found that vehicle-pedestrian crash rates are about one-half that for signalized intersections. The findings are less clear for vehicle-bicycle crashes. A Dutch study reported a small decrease in vehicle-bicycle crash frequency following a conversion from conventional intersection to roundabout. A British study reported a significant increase in vehicle-bicycle crash rate following a conversion from signalized intersection to roundabout. These studies were conducted in Europe, so the transferability of the study findings to U.S. intersections is uncertain. Technique B-7-11. Improve Driveway Sight Distance or Regulate Minimum Sight Distance This section summarizes the literature regarding the effect of improving sight distance on driveway performance. Separate subsections describe this effect on operations and on safety. Operations Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between driveway sight distance and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck operation. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 61. Table 61. Driveway sight distance – operations. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application.

90 Safety Measures The literature review did not reveal the existence of quantitative relationships between driveway sight distance and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or truck safety. For consistency of presentation (i.e., one table per subsection), this lack of information is recorded in Table 62. Table 62. Driveway sight distance – safety. Travel Mode Ref. Comment Performance Measure Key Influential Variables Status1 Pedestrian none Bicycle none Transit none Truck none Note: 1 – Status levels: A: ready for practitioner use, B: needs to be documented in a format suitable for practitioner use, C: not sufficiently complete for practical application. References AASHTO. (2011). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th ed. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. Ali, A., C. Cristei, and A. Flannery. (2012). “Using Cumulative Logistic Regression Model for Evaluating Bicycle Facilities on Urban Arterials.” Paper No. 12-2518. Presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Alluri, P., A. Gan, K. Haleem, S. Miranda, E. Echezabal, A. Diaz, and S. Ding. (2012). Before-and-After Study of Roadways Where New Medians have been Added. Florida Department of Transportation. Tallahassee, Florida. Antonucci, N., K. Hardy, K. Slack, R. Pfefer, and T. Neuman. (2004). NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Volume 12: A Guide for Reducing Collisions at Signalized Intersections. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Bonneson, J. and P. McCoy. (1997). NCHRP Report 395: Capacity and Operational Effects of Midblock Left-Turn Lanes. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Bonneson, J., M. Pratt, and M. Vandehey. (2008). Predicting the Performance of Automobile Traffic on Urban Streets, Final Report. NCHRP Project 03-79. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.. (downloaded on 10/19/2017 at: http://www.hcmvolume4.org/). Bowman, B.L., and R.L. Vecellio. (1994). “Effect of Urban and Suburban Median Types on Both Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety.” In Transportation Research Record No.1445. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Bowman, B., R. Vecellio, and J. Miao. (1994). “Vehicle and Pedestrian Accident Models for Median Locations.” Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 6, American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C., November- December. Brunson, C., A. Getman, S. Hostetter, and R. Viola. (2017). “Don’t Cut Corners: Left Turn Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash Study.” Paper No. 17-05455. Presented at the 96th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Butorac, M. and J. Wen. (2004). NCHRP Synthesis 332: Access Management on Crossroads in the Vicinity of Interchanges. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Carter, D., W. Hunter, C. Zegeer, J. Stewart, and H. Huang. (2006). Pedestrian and Bicyclist Intersection Safety Indices: Final Report. Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-125. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Chandler, B., M. Myers, J. Atkinson, T. Bryer, R. Retting, J. Smithline, J. Trim, P. Wojtkiewicz, G. Thomas, S. Venglar, S. Sunkari, B. Malone, and P. Izadpanah. (2013). Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide, 2nd ed. . Report No. FHWA-SA-13-027. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

91 Chen, Y-H., H. Zhang, Z-W. Qu, and M-L. Wei.. (2015). “Pedestrian Crossing Characteristics on Exclusive Right-Turn Lane with Island.” Paper No. 15-2019. Presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Dixon, K., R. Layton, M. Butorac, P. Ryus, J. Gattis, L. Brown, and D. Huntington. (2016). Access Management Applications Guidelines. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Dixon, K., I. Van Schalkwyk, and R. Layton. (2008). “Driveways, Parking, Bicycles, and Pedestrians: Balancing Safety and Efficiency.” Paper presented at the 2008 Access Management Conference, Baltimore, Maryland. Dowling, R., G. List, B. Yang, E. Witzke, and A. Flannery. (2014). NCFRP Report 31: Incorporating Truck Analysis into the Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Dowling, R., P. Ryus, B. Schroeder, M. Kyte, F. Creasey, N. Rouphail, A. Hajbabaie, and D. Rhoades. (2016). NCHRP Report 825: Planning and Preliminary Engineering Applications Guide to the Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. FHWA. (2014). Safety Benefit of Raised Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Areas. Report No. FHWA-SA-10-020. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Fitzpatrick, K., M. Brewer, W. Eisele, H. Levinson, J. Gluck, and M. Lorenz. (2013). NCHRP Report 745: Left-Turn Accommodations at Unsignalized Intersections. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Fitzpatrick, K. M. Brewer, J. Gluck, W. Eisele, Y. Zhang, H. Levinson, W. von Zharen, M. Lorenz, V. Iragavarapu, and E. Park. (2010). NCHRP Web-Only Document 193: Development of Left-Turn Lane Warrants for Unsignalized Intersections. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Florida DOT. (2014). Median Handbook. Systems Planning Division, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. Gallivan, F., E. Rose, R. Ewing, S. Hamidi, and T. Brown. (2015). TCRP Report 176: Quantifying Transit’s Impact on GHG Emissions and Energy Use—The Land Use Component. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Gan, C-T. and G. Long (1997). “Effects of Inadequate Driveway Corner Clearances on Traffic Operations, Safety, and Capacity. In Transportation Research Record No.1579. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 35-42 Gattis, J., J. Gluck, J. Barlow, R. Eck, W. Hecker, and H. Levinson. (2010). NCHRP Report 659: Guide for the Geometric Design of Driveways. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Gattis, J., J. Gluck, J. Barlow, R. Eck, W. Hecker, and H. Levinson. (2009). NCHRP Web-Only Document 151: Geometric Design of Driveways. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Gluck, J., H. Levinson, and V. Stover. (1999). NCHRP Report 420: Impacts of Access Management Techniques. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Gluck, J., and M. Lorenz (2010). NCHRP Synthesis 404: State of the Practice in Highway Access Management. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Greene-Roesel, R. and L. Ledbetter (2010). Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California. Harwood, D., K. Bauer, I. Potts, D. Torbic, K. Richard, E. Kohlman-Rabbani, E. Hauer, and L. Elefteriadou. (2002). Safety Effectiveness of Intersection Left- and Right-Turn Lanes. Report No. FHWA-RD-02-089. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Highway Capacity Manual, 5th ed. (2010) Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis. 6th ed. (2016). Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Highway Safety Manual. (2010). American Association of Highway Transportation Officials, Washington D.C. Hughes, W., R. Jagannathan, D. Sengupta, and J. Hummer. (2010). Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational Report. Report No. FHWA-HRT-09-060. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. ITE. (2016). Recommended Design Guidelines to Accommodate Pedestrians and Bicycles at Interchanges. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C. ITE. (2010). Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach—An ITE Recommended Practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C. ITE (2014). Planning Urban Roadway Systems—An ITE Recommended Practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C.

92 Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Parsons Brinckerhoff, KFH Group Inc., Texas A&M Transportation Institute, and ARUP. (2013). TCRP Report 165: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd ed. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Layton, R., G. Hodgson, and K. Hunter-Zaworski. (1998). “Pedestrian and Bicyclist Impacts of Access Management.” Proceedings of the 3rd National Access Management Conference. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. pp. 105-114. Lin, P-S., A. Kourtellis, Z. Wang, and R. Guo. (2015). Understanding Interactions between Drivers and Pedestrian Features at Signalized Intersections. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. Liu, P., J. Lu, and G. Sokolow. (2007). “Operational Effects of U-Turns on Four-Lane Divided Roadways.” ITE Journal on the Web. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., pp. 69-73. Lu, J., S. Dissanayke, S. Zhou, X. Yang, and K. Williams. (2001). Methodology to Quantify the Effects of Access Management on Roadway Operations and Safety. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. Lu, J. P. Liu, J. Fan, and J. Pernia. (2005). Operational Evaluation of Right Turns Followed by U-Turns at Signalized Intersections (6 or More Lanes) as an Alternative to Direct Left Turns. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. Lu, J. and P. Liu (2005). Operational Evaluation of Right Turns Followed by U-Turns at Signalized Intersections (4 Lane Arterials) as an Alternative to Direct Left Turns. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. MSHA. (2015). Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines. Chapter 7: Pedestrian and Bicycle Access at Interchanges and Bridges. Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland. Maze, T., J. Hochstein, R. Souleyrette, H. Preston, and R. Storm. (2010). NCHRP Report 650: Median Intersection Design for Rural High-Speed Divided Highways. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. McGee, H, J. Soika, R. Fiedler, M. Albee, A. Holzem, and K. Eccles. (2015). Unsignalized Intersection Improvement Guide. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., (accessed on 10/20/2017 at: http://www.ite.org/uiig/acknowledgements.asp) Mekuria, M., P. Furth, and H. Nixon (2012). Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. Report No. 11-19. Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose State University, San Jose, California. MTDB. (1993). Designing for Transit: A Manual for Integrating Transportation and Land Development in the San Diego Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Transit Development Board, San Diego, California. Miranda-Morena, L., J. Strauss, and P. Morency. (2011). “Disaggregate Exposure Measures and Injury Frequency Models for Analysis of Cyclist Safety at Signalized Intersections.” In Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2236, Washington, D.C., pp. 74-82. NACTO (2012). Urban Bikeway Design Guide. National Association of City Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. NACTO (2013). Urban Street Design Guide. National Association of City Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. NJDOT and PennDOT (2008). Smart Transportation Guidebook: Planning and Designing Highways and Streets to Support Sustainable and Livable Communities. New Jersey Department of Transportation, Trenton, New Jersey. ODOT. (2012). Analysis Procedures Manual. Chapter 14. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Pages/APM.aspx (accessed on September 21, 2017). Parsonson, P, M. Waters, and J. Fincher (2000). “Georgia Study Confirms the Continuing Safety Advantage of Raised Medians Over Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes.” Proceedings from the 4th National Access Management Conference. Washington, D.C. Potts, I., D. Harwood, D. Torbic, S. Hennum, C. Tiesler, J. Zegeer, J. Ringert, D. Harkey, and J. Barlow. (2006). Synthesis on Channelized Right Turns on Urban and Suburban Arterials. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. Potts, I., D. Harwood, K. Bauer, D. Gilmore, J. Hutton, D. Torbic, J. Ringert, A. Daleiden, and J. Barlow. (2011). NCHRP Web-Only Document 208: Design Guidance for Channelized Right-Turn Lanes. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Rodegerdts, L., J. Bansen, C. Tiesler, J. Knudsen, E. Myers, M. Johnson, M. Moule, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, S. Hallmark, H. Isebrands, R. Crown, B. Guichet, and A. O’Brian. (2010). NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd Edition. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Ryus, P., K. Laustsen, K. Blume, S. Beaird, and S. Langdon. (2016). TCRP Report 183: A Guidebook on Transit- Supportive Roadway Strategies. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

93 S & K Transportation Consultants, Inc. (2000). Access Management, Location, and Design – Course Notebook. NHI Course Number FHWA-NHI- 133078. National Highway Institute, Washington, D.C. Stokes, A., W. Sarasua, N. Huynh, K. Brown, J. Ogle, A. Mamadrahimli, W. Davis, and M. Chowdhury. (2016). “Safety Analysis of Driveway Characteristics along Major Urban Arterial Corridors in South Carolina.” Paper No. 16-6766. Presented at the 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Stover, V., and F. Koepke. (2002). Transportation and Land Development, 2nd ed. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C. Texas Transportation Institute. (1996). TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Virkler, M. (1998). “Prediction and Measurement of Travel Time along Pedestrian Routes.” In Transportation Research Record No. 1636. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Williams, K., V. Stover, K. Dixon, and P. Demosthenes. (2014). Access Management Manual, 2nd ed. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Zegeer, C., J. Stewart, H. Huang, P. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B. Campbell. (2005). Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines. Report No. FHWA- HRT-04-100. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Next: Appendix B: Agency Survey »
Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Web-Only Document 256: Assessing Interactions Between Access Management Treatments and Multimodal Users describes operational and safety relationships between access management techniques and the automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, public transit, and truck modes. This contractor's report may help assist in the selection of alternative access management techniques based on the safety and operation performance of each affected travel mode.The roadway system must accommodate many types of users—bicyclists, passenger cars, pedestrians, transit, and trucks. This report examines the interactions between multimodal operations and access management techniques and treatments, and the trade-off decisions that are necessary.

NCHRP Research Report 900: Guide for the Analysis of Multimodal Corridor Access Management accompanies this report.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!