National Academies Press: OpenBook

Alternative Intersection Design and Selection (2020)

Chapter: Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses

« Previous: Appendix B - List of Responding Agencies
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 161
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 162
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 163
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 164
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 165
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 166
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 167
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 168
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 169
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 170
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 171
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 172
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 173
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 174
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 175
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 176

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.

101 Individual Survey Responses A P P E N D I X C Table C-1. Individual DOT responses to Question 1 Q1. Approximately how many of the following intersection/interchange types does your agency currently have open and operational? Respondent Roundabout Superstreet MUT CFI SPDI DDI Other Alabama 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 Alaska 26 to 50 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Arizona 26 to 50 0 1 to 5 0 >50 0 - Arkansas 6 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 - California 26 to 50 0 1 to 5 0 11 to 25 0 - Colorado 26 to 50 0 0 1 to 5 6 to 10 1 to 5 - Connecticut 6 to 10 0 0 0 1 to 5 - - Delaware 11 to 25 6 to 10 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 District of Columbia - 0 0 0 0 0 6 to 10 Florida 26 to 50 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 6 to 10 1 to 5 - Georgia >50 26 to 50 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 6 to 10 6 to 10 Hawaii 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Idaho 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Illinois 11 to 25 1 to 5 0 0 11 to 25 1 to 5 - Indiana 11 to 25 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 6 to 10 1 to 5 1 to 5 Iowa 6 to 10 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 Kansas 26 to 50 0 0 0 6 to 10 6 to 10 - Kentucky 11 to 25 1 to 5 0 0 11 to 25 1 to 5 - Louisiana 11 to 25 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 - Maine 26 to 50 0 0 0 0 0 - Maryland >50 11 to 25 1 to 5 1 to 5 6 to 10 1 to 5 6 to 10

102 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q1. Approximately how many of the following intersection/interchange types does your agency currently have open and operational? Minnesota 26 to 50 26 to 50 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 6 to 10 0 Mississippi 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Missouri >50 11 to 25 1 to 5 1 to 5 11 to 25 11 to 25 - Montana >50 0 0 0 1 to 5 0 - Nebraska 6 to 10 0 0 0 6 to 10 1 to 5 0 Nevada 11 to 25 0 0 0 11 to 25 1 to 5 0 New Hampshire 11 to 25 0 0 0 1 to 5 0 - New Jersey - - - - - - - New Mexico 11 to 25 0 0 0 6 to 10 1 to 5 - New York >50 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 - North Carolina >50 >50 1 to 5 0 11 to 25 11 to 25 6 to 10 North Dakota 6 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 - Ohio 11 to 25 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Oklahoma 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Oregon 1 to 5 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 Pennsylvania >50 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Rhode Island 11 to 25 0 0 0 0 0 - South Carolina 26 to 50 11 to 25 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - South Dakota 1 to 5 0 0 0 6 to 10 0 - Tennessee 6 to 10 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Texas 11 to 25 6 to 10 1 to 5 6 to 10 6 to 10 1 to 5 - Utah 1 to 5 - 1 to 5 6 to 10 26 to 50 6 to 10 - Vermont 6 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 - Virginia >50 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 11 to 25 Washington >50 1 to 5 0 0 6 to 10 1 to 5 - West Virginia 11 to 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wisconsin >50 6 to 10 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 6 to 10 Wyoming 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - Massachusetts 11 to 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michigan 11 to 25 26 to 50 >50 - 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Respondent Roundabout Superstreet MUT CFI SPDI DDI Other

Individual Survey Responses 103 Table C-2. Comments for Question 1 Q1. Approximately how many of the following intersection/interchange types does your agency currently have open and operational? Comments: Continuous Green-T - 2 Jug Handle - 1 Quadrant Roadway - 1 Restricted Crossing U-Turn - 5 Tight Urban Diamond - 2 Other: Green-T's (4 signalized, 3 unsignalized). Roundabouts: 44 on State Routes, 12 not on State Routes but that involved GDOT $$, 166 on local roads. KDOT only actively tracks the # of Roundabouts and DDIs on the state system. SPDI are a best guess. 1 project has Superstreet alternative considered as the preferred alternative. 1 project has DDI alternative considered as the preferred alternative 1 project has roundabouts at the end of the partial cloverleaf interchange proposed Urban Interchange reported not to handle bikes or pedestrians well Several DDIs are currently under construction but none are operational at this time. Also, SPDI is assumed to be same as SPUI We do not have this information NCDOT has also opened a quadrant intersection, five or so reverse superstreet intersections, and an intersection with no minor street through movements. The Maine Turnpike Authority (a separate transportation agency in Maine) has installed a SPDI We have 56 roundabouts (47 on State Routes). We have one DDI built, one just starting construction and five under design. Jug handles - 2 Other: 2 Continuous Green Ts (Florida Green Ts) intersections. The department has a number of "jughandle" type interchanges that are similar to a standard diamond interchange. They may or may not have acceleration or deceleration lanes. 1-5 was noted just as notification that the Department has "other" intersection forms. J-Turns is our term for Superstreets, we have limited applications in the urbanized environments, mostly used on rural divided expressway facilities Responses are provided by the Traffic Safety office with most projects constructed through HSIP funding. Other Interchange designs are estimates that have not been confirmed at this time. Florida T's - 1-5 There is one (1) signalized Superstreet intersection and more than ten (10+) unsignalized Superstreet intersections. For others, there are 1 to 5 Jughandle intersections, 6 to 10 Continuous Green T intersections, 1 to 5 Double Roundabout interchanges, and 1 to 5 Single Loop interchange. Other - Jug-handle intersection We have a lot of traffic circles that are signalized.

104 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-3. Individual DOT responses to Question 2 Q2. Approximately how many of the following intersection/interchange types is your agency currently considering as an alternative in the planning stage of project development? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent Roundabout Superstreet MUT CFI SPDI DDI Other Alabama 6 to 10 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 Alaska 1 to 5 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Arizona 6 to 10 0 0 0 11 to 25 1 to 5 - Arkansas 11 to 25 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 - California 26 to 50 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 0 11 to 25 - Colorado 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Connecticut 11 to 25 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Delaware 1 to 5 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Florida 6 to 10 11 to 25 6 to 10 0 0 6 to 10 - Georgia >50 6 to 10 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 11 to 25 1 to 5 Hawaii 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Idaho 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Illinois 11 to 25 6 to 10 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 6 to 10 - Indiana 6 to 10 11 to 25 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 Iowa 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - Kansas 6 to 10 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 6 to 10 - Kentucky 6 to 10 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 6 to 10 - Louisiana 26 to 50 26 to 50 26 to 50 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Maine 1 to 5 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Maryland 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 Massachusetts 1 to 5 1 to 5 - - - 1 to 5 - Michigan - - - - - - - Minnesota 26 to 50 26 to 50 6 to 10 0 0 6 to 10 - Mississippi 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 - Missouri 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Montana 6 to 10 0 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 - Nebraska 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 Nevada 1 to 5 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 -

Individual Survey Responses 105 Q2. Approximately how many of the following intersection/interchange types is your agency currently considering as an alternative in the planning stage of project development? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent Roundabout Superstreet MUT CFI SPDI DDI Other New Hampshire 6 to 10 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - New Jersey - - - - - - - New Mexico 6 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 - New York 26 to 50 1 to 5 11 to 25 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 North Carolina >50 >50 6 to 10 6 to 10 1 to 5 11 to 25 11 to 25 North Dakota 6 to 10 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 0 - Ohio 11 to 25 6 to 10 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Oklahoma 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Oregon 11 to 25 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Pennsylvania 11 to 25 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - Rhode Island 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - South Carolina 11 to 25 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - South Dakota 6 to 10 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Tennessee 1 to 5 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Texas 11 to 25 6 to 10 1 to 5 6 to 10 6 to 10 6 to 10 - Utah - - - - - - - Vermont 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - Virginia 11 to 25 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 - 1 to 5 - Washington >50 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 - West Virginia 11 to 25 0 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 Wisconsin 11 to 25 1 to 5 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 Wyoming 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 1 to 5

106 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-4. Comments for Question 2 Q2. Approximately how many of the following intersection/interchange types is your agency currently considering as an alternative in the planning stage of project development? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Comments: I'm not sure. These decisions are made at the Region level. We do not have this information We are considering doing a mix between roundabout and ddi type interchange. Don't know if we will be able to sell it to the public - or internally. Other: Green-T's (2 unsignalized that we know of) At this time NCDOT is considering several bowtie intersections, continuous green T intersections, quadrant intersections, and reverse superstreet intersections. We are also considering an echelon grade-separated intersection and a double contraflow grade-separated intersection Other - Echelon We have an Echelon interchange that is included as an alternative in a preliminary engineering study in the Morgantown, Monongalia County area as part of improvements to WV 705 and Van Voorhis Rd (County Route 59). This is described as a potential long term improvement while we are currently looking at short term lower cost improvements. The zeros are a guess, there may be a few in planning or design that I am not aware of. Other: Several hybrids of mix of alternative forms. Florida T

Individual Survey Responses 107 Table C-5. Individual DOT responses to Question 3 Q3. Approximately how many of the following intersection/interchange types are currently moving forward in the project development stage at your agency after being selected as the preferred intersection/interchange type at a given location? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent Roundabout Superstreet MUT CFI SPDI DDI Other Alabama 6 to 10 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 Alaska 6 to 10 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - Arizona 1 to 5 0 0 0 6 to 10 1 to 5 - Arkansas 6 to 10 0 0 0 6 to 10 0 - California 26 to 50 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 0 6 to 10 - Colorado 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - Connecticut 11 to 25 - - - - 1 to 5 - Delaware 1 to 5 0 0 0 1 to 5 0 - District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Florida 6 to 10 11 to 25 1 to 5 0 0 6 to 10 - Georgia >50 6 to 10 0 0 0 1 to 5 0 Hawaii 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Idaho 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 - Illinois 6 to 10 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 6 to 10 - Indiana 1 to 5 6 to 10 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 0 Iowa 1 to 5 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Kansas 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - Kentucky 1 to 5 6 to 10 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Louisiana 11 to 25 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 - Maine 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - Maryland 6 to 10 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 Massachusetts 1 to 5 1 to 5 - - - 1 to 5 - Michigan - - - - - - - Minnesota 26 to 50 26 to 50 6 to 10 0 0 1 to 5 - Mississippi 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 - Missouri 1 to 5 6 to 10 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Montana 6 to 10 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - Nebraska 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 0 0 1 to 5 6 to 10 Nevada 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 -

108 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q3. Approximately how many of the following intersection/interchange types are currently moving forward in the project development stage at your agency after being selected as the preferred intersection/interchange type at a given location? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent Roundabout Superstreet MUT CFI SPDI DDI Other New Hampshire 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - New Jersey - - - - - - - New Mexico 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 - New York 11 to 25 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - North Carolina 26 to 50 26 to 50 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 6 to 10 6 to 10 North Dakota 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 0 0 0 - Ohio 1 to 5 1 to 5 0 0 0 1 to 5 - Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Oregon 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 - Pennsylvania 26 to 50 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - Rhode Island 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 0 - South Carolina 11 to 25 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - South Dakota 6 to 10 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Tennessee 1 to 5 0 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Texas 6 to 10 6 to 10 1 to 5 6 to 10 6 to 10 1 to 5 - Utah - - - - - - - Vermont 1 to 5 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 - Virginia 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 - 1 to 5 - Washington >50 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - West Virginia 6 to 10 0 0 0 0 1 to 5 0 Wisconsin >50 1 to 5 0 0 1 to 5 1 to 5 - Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 to 5

Individual Survey Responses 109 Table C-6. Comments for Question 3 Q3. Approximately how many of the following intersection/interchange types are currently moving forward in the project development stage at your agency after being selected as the preferred intersection/interchange type at a given location? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Comments: Note: We don't track the number of Superstreets under design as closely as we do other alternative types. Florida T Ramp terminal roundabouts being implemented at ramp terminals on one interchange on Fremont Southeast Beltway, and three interchanges on Lincoln South Beltway. We do not have this information At this time NCDOT is moving forward with a bowtie intersection, several continuous green T intersections, several quadrant intersections, several reverse superstreet intersections, and a "folded interchange" (a parclo B with contraflow left turns). Note that Superstreets are indicative of RCUTs. SC has not signalized RCUTS at this time (Superstreets) Other: Several hybrids of mix of alternative forms. The SPDI and DDI interchanges noted in Question 2 are currently still in consideration but are not at the point in project development where question 3 can be answered at this point in time. The zeros are a guess, there may be a few in planning or design that I am not aware of. Once again, I'm not sure.

110 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-7. Individual DOT responses to Question 4 Q4. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = Poor, 10 = Outstanding, 0 = N/A), how would you rate the performance of the following intersection/interchange types that have been implemented by your agency? - Other (Please describe in "Additional Comments" box below) Please Explain Ratings of 1 to 4, Comments: Respondent Roundabout Superstreet MUT CFI SPDI DDI Other Alabama 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 Alaska 10 - - - 10 9 - Arizona 9 0 5 0 6 0 - Arkansas 8 - - - - - - California 10 7 7 6 5 9 - Colorado 8 - - 5 8 8 - Connecticut 10 - - - 7 - - Delaware 9 - - - - 8 - District of Columbia 6 - - - - - - Florida 6 5 5 - 5 7 - Georgia 7 7 0 5 5 8 5 Hawaii 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Idaho - - - 0 8 9 - Illinois 8 7 0 0 8 9 0 Indiana 7 9 7 - 8 9 - Iowa 9 - - - 10 8 - Kansas 9 - - - 7 8 - Kentucky 9 9 - - 10 10 - Louisiana 10 8 8 2 8 - - Maine 8 - - - - - - Maryland 8 9 8 9 9 9 - Massachusetts 7 - - - - - - Michigan 9 6 9 - 5 9 - Minnesota 8 9 8 0 5 7 - Mississippi 9 - - 9 9 9 - Missouri 8 9 6 7 7 9 - Montana 10 - - - 9 - - Nebraska 9 - - - 8 9 -

Individual Survey Responses 111 Q4. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = Poor, 10 = Outstanding, 0 = N/A), how would you rate the performance of the following intersection/interchange types that have been implemented by your agency? - Other (Please describe in "Additional Comments" box below) Please Explain Ratings of 1 to 4, Comments: Respondent Roundabout Superstreet MUT CFI SPDI DDI Other Nevada 8 - - - 9 7 - New Hampshire 10 - - - 10 - - New Jersey - - - - - - - New Mexico 8 - - 5 - 5 - New York 9 - 8 8 8 8 - North Carolina 8 10 8 - 7 9 9 North Dakota 9 - - - - - - Ohio 7 7 - 4 7 9 - Oklahoma 8 10 10 - 10 10 - Oregon 9 - - - 9 9 - Pennsylvania 10 - - - 8 10 - Rhode Island 8 - - - - - - South Carolina 10 10 - - 7 5 - South Dakota 9 - - - 9 - - Tennessee 5 - - - 8 10 - Texas 8 9 0 6 9 9 - Utah 5 - 7 9 10 8 - Vermont 8 - - - - - - Virginia 8 - - - - 8 - Washington 9 - - - 6 - - West Virginia 9 - - - - - - Wisconsin 8 8 - 0 8 8 - Wyoming 8 - - - - 9 -

112 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-8. Comments for Question 4 Q4. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = Poor, 10 = Outstanding, 0 = N/A), how would you rate the performance of the following intersection/interchange types that have been implemented by your agency? - Other (Please describe in "Additional Comments" box below) Please Explain Ratings of 1 to 4, Comments: Our score on roundabouts is based on our historical issues with multilane roundabouts, MUT we are still monitoring, CFI just take up a lot of right of way and SPDI result in large bridges when they pass overhead. Other: Green-T Difficulties in signalization of CFI We have not done any CFI's. Urban Interchange handles vehicle traffic well. Reported not to be the best solution for being bike and pedestrian friendly. Our only RCUT is in a rural area and nearby improvements, grade separation removed need for loons Our quadrant intersection has performed well for seven years now. We do not have this information No experience with these intersections with which to rate them. For the roundabouts, SPDI, and DDI....they have all been performing quite well. Since they are relatively new applications in the State for some of the intersection types, there is always room for improvement. Small issues such as curbs at roundabout, or crossings at SPDI that could be looked at for potential improvement in future designs. Additional Comments: DDI - generally have done a good job at reducing delay times - first one on north side of Atlanta was a huge success in this sense - public acceptance has generally been higher for them than other types. Roundabouts and Superstreets - comparisons of before/after crash data and observing reduction in queuing indicates they are performing well. Public acceptance for both still a challenge in many cases. CFI, SPDI and Green-T's - haven't heard any specific news (good or bad) from our Districts - think they are performing at least acceptably. We have quite a few roundabouts statewide - 140 +/- with only a few having a noticeable increase in PDO crashes and almost all reducing serious crashes. For the other alternative intersections/interchanges we only have 1 or 2 per type but they are working well. We did have issues with poor lane selection at a downstate SPUI where people weren't in the correct lanes - signing and familiarity has fixed that though. Roundabouts have occasional crash issues (non injury) due primarily to inappropriate driver behavior. More user education may be needed. DDIs have performed very well in terms of driver understanding, reduction of congestion, and safety. Assumed that the term "performance" meant both operations and safety. In most cases, there seems to be some opposition on any of the "innovative" intersections, but in the end, have positive input from the public. Seems like the use of the single-point diamond as an alternative is not as popular given other possible alternatives. Our superstreet intersections provide fantastic crash reductions.

Individual Survey Responses 113 Additional Comments: Please note: (i) The DDI was based on 1 B/A study (the angle crashes, and crash severity reduced significantly but the travel time did not improve significantly). (ii) We have not performed B/A analysis for many of the other Intersection types but intend to start doing that in the next FY SPDI have fallen out of favor due to construction issues and maintenance. Also pedestrian and bike issues make them unlikely moving forward.

114 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-9. Individual DOT responses to Question 5 Q5. How frequently would you estimate that your agency considers the following factors when selecting an intersection type at a given site? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent A cc es s M an ag em en t B ic yc lis ts C ap ac ity C on st ru ct ab ili ty C os ts (I ni tia l) C os ts (L ife C yc le ) D riv er E xp ec ta nc y M O T D ur in g C on st ru ct io n Pe de st ria ns Pu bl ic /P ol iti ca l R ea ct io n R ig ht -o f-w ay Sa fe ty P er fo rm an ce Ve hi cl e D el ay Ve hi cl e Sp ee d O th er Alabama 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 - Alaska 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 - Arizona 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 - Arkansas 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 - California 5 4 5 4 5 4 3 2 4 5 5 4 4 3 - Colorado 5 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 3 3 - Connecticut 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 - Delaware 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 - District of Columbia 4 5 3 3 4 2 3 3 5 5 3 4 3 2 - Florida 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 - Georgia 4 5 5 4 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 - Hawaii 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 - Idaho 4 3 5 5 5 2 4 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 - Illinois 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 5 Indiana 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 Iowa 4 2 5 5 5 2 3 5 3 4 5 5 5 3 - Kansas 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 - Kentucky 4 3 5 4 5 2 3 5 3 3 5 3 4 5 4 Louisiana 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 - Maine 4 5 4 4 5 3 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 - Maryland 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 Massachusetts 3 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 5 4 4 3 4 3 -

Individual Survey Responses 115 Q5. How frequently would you estimate that your agency considers the following factors when selecting an intersection type at a given site? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent A cc es s M an ag em en t B ic yc lis ts C ap ac ity C on st ru ct ab ili ty C os ts (I ni tia l) C os ts (L ife C yc le ) D riv er E xp ec ta nc y M O T D ur in g C on st ru ct io n Pe de st ria ns Pu bl ic /P ol iti ca l R ea ct io n R ig ht -o f-w ay Sa fe ty P er fo rm an ce Ve hi cl e D el ay Ve hi cl e Sp ee d O th er Michigan 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Minnesota 4 2 4 3 5 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 - Mississippi 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 - Missouri 2 2 4 5 5 2 3 5 3 4 5 3 4 3 - Montana 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 5 4 2 - Nebraska 5 3 5 4 5 3 3 4 3 4 4 5 4 4 - Nevada 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 - New Hampshire 4 4 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 - New Jersey 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 New Mexico 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 - New York 4 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 - North Carolina 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 North Dakota 5 5 5 4 4 2 3 2 5 5 5 5 4 4 - Ohio 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 - Oklahoma 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 - Oregon 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 - Pennsylvania 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 5 5 3 5 4 4 3 - Rhode Island 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 - South Carolina 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 - South Dakota 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 - Tennessee 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 - Texas 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 - Utah 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 -

116 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q5. How frequently would you estimate that your agency considers the following factors when selecting an intersection type at a given site? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent A cc es s M an ag em en t B ic yc lis ts C ap ac ity C on st ru ct ab ili ty C os ts (I ni tia l) C os ts (L ife C yc le ) D riv er E xp ec ta nc y M O T D ur in g C on st ru ct io n Pe de st ria ns Pu bl ic /P ol iti ca l R ea ct io n R ig ht -o f-w ay Sa fe ty P er fo rm an ce Ve hi cl e D el ay Ve hi cl e Sp ee d O th er Vermont 5 5 4 4 5 4 3 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 - Virginia 4 4 5 5 4 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 Washington 5 5 5 3 4 3 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 West Virginia 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 Wisconsin 4 4 5 3 5 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 Wyoming 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 4 5 5 5 4 - Note: MOT = Maintenance of Traffic; 5 = Always, 4 = Almost Always, 3 = Sometimes, 2 = Rarely, 1 = Never.

Individual Survey Responses 117 Table C-10. Comments for Question 5 Q5. How frequently would you estimate that your agency considers the following factors when selecting an intersection type at a given site? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Comments: Other: Utility & the various Environmental impacts; Economic Development and Smart Growth. All of these per guidance are to be considered on all projects, but with local agencies being in control of 75% of the funds spent on the state system, it is not always the case. The above answers reflect the reality. Unintended click for other. In some places we also consider aesthetics. Almost always responses indicate that not all locations would have these items to consider. Several additional considerations: - Oversize/Overweight Vehicles = Always - Amish buggies - Rarely - Environmental Impacts = Almost Always Level to which each one is considered depends somewhat on project delivery type and location context. For example, if site doesn't meet Complete Street Warrants/Guidelines, bike/peds do not have to be accommodated. If it meets guidelines they may be accommodated. Bike/pedestrian accommodation, capacity (delay, v/c), initial cost (including R/W), safety performance and public/political reaction are all incorporated into the GDOT Intersection Control Evaluation Process - applicable for any project doing work at an intersection on a State Route or with GDOT/Federal $$. We issued an Intersection Control Evaluation policy last fall, so it has only been applied to a few projects so far. Design Vehicle It would be beneficial if we become an ICE state. Corridor context is considered sometimes. Our ICE considers all of these however even if they are considered always, they may not influence the outcome We have policies in place that require the consideration of Innovative Intersection during Project Funding applications, as well as applications for Signalization at an intersection. We have developed brochures and outreach materials for Public education, outreach and help with consensus building A website was developed to have a one stop place for Innovative Intersections including a Map based inventory http://www.virginiadot.org/innovativeintersections/ Vehicle delay is considered but not a design criteria for traffic. Volume to Capacity is the primary design criteria but vehicle delay, reliability and other considerations. For alternative forms that displace one or more movements, travel time is always a factor. Queuing is almost always considered, notably if there are upstream features that pose a risk (e.g. ramp terminal traffic backing down to mainline freeway, and adjacent intersections).

118 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q6. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the following concerns have hindered your agency's efforts to implement alternative intersection designs? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent A cc es s M an ag em en t A ge nc y U nd er st af fe d C on st ru ct ab ili ty D riv er A w ar en es s En vi ro nm en ta l I m pa ct s Fu nd in g C on st ra in ts Im pa ct s to B ic yc lis ts a nd P ed es tr ia ns La nd U se C on st ra in ts La rg e Ve hi cl es Li ab ili ty Is su es N ee d In fo rm at io n on B en ef its N ew ne ss o f D es ig n O ld er D riv er s O pe ra tio na l I m pa ct s Pr op er E xp er tis e to D es ig n or R ev ie w Pu bl ic E du ca tio n Pu bl ic O pp os iti on Sa fe ty Im pa ct s St ak eh ol de r C on ce rn s Ti m e to R es ea rc h an d/ or Im pl em en t O th er Alabama 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 2 4 3 - Alaska 4 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 5 5 5 3 4 3 3 Arizona 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 4 2 2 1 2 1 5 2 2 - Arkansas 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 1 - 3 3 3 3 3 - California 4 - 3 5 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 5 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 4 - Colorado 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 1 1 4 4 3 4 5 1 5 1 - Connecticut 4 4 1 2 4 4 2 5 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 - 2 2 - Delaware 4 3 5 4 3 3 5 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 3 4 3 - District of Columbia 4 3 3 3 4 4 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 5 5 5 3 3 Table C-11. Individual DOT responses to Question 6

Individual Survey Responses 119 Q6. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the following concerns have hindered your agency's efforts to implement alternative intersection designs? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent A cc es s M an ag em en t A ge nc y U nd er st af fe d C on st ru ct ab ili ty D riv er A w ar en es s En vi ro nm en ta l I m pa ct s Fu nd in g C on st ra in ts Im pa ct s to B ic yc lis ts a nd P ed es tr ia ns La nd U se C on st ra in ts La rg e Ve hi cl es Li ab ili ty Is su es N ee d In fo rm at io n on B en ef its N ew ne ss o f D es ig n O ld er D riv er s O pe ra tio na l I m pa ct s Pr op er E xp er tis e to D es ig n or R ev ie w Pu bl ic E du ca tio n Pu bl ic O pp os iti on Sa fe ty Im pa ct s St ak eh ol de r C on ce rn s Ti m e to R es ea rc h an d/ or Im pl em en t O th er Florida 5 2 2 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 5 3 4 5 5 3 4 3 - Georgia 4 1 4 4 2 4 3 2 2 3 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 - Hawaii 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 - Idaho 4 3 2 5 3 3 2 2 5 3 3 5 3 4 3 4 5 2 4 3 - Illinois 2 4 2 2 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 - Indiana 2 2 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 5 5 2 4 3 - Iowa 2 4 2 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 2 1 4 5 1 5 4 - Kansas 2 1 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 4 1 4 1 - Kentucky 4 4 3 4 4 5 3 4 4 2 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 3 4 Louisiana 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 - Maine 2 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 1 1 4 2 3 1 1 4 1 4 1 -

120 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q6. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the following concerns have hindered your agency's efforts to implement alternative intersection designs? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent A cc es s M an ag em en t A ge nc y U nd er st af fe d C on st ru ct ab ili ty D riv er A w ar en es s En vi ro nm en ta l I m pa ct s Fu nd in g C on st ra in ts Im pa ct s to B ic yc lis ts a nd P ed es tr ia ns La nd U se C on st ra in ts La rg e Ve hi cl es Li ab ili ty Is su es N ee d In fo rm at io n on B en ef its N ew ne ss o f D es ig n O ld er D riv er s O pe ra tio na l I m pa ct s Pr op er E xp er tis e to D es ig n or R ev ie w Pu bl ic E du ca tio n Pu bl ic O pp os iti on Sa fe ty Im pa ct s St ak eh ol de r C on ce rn s Ti m e to R es ea rc h an d/ or Im pl em en t O th er Maryland 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 Massachusetts - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Michigan 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Minnesota 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 2 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 3 5 4 3 Mississippi 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 4 2 - Missouri 4 4 3 3 4 5 2 2 4 4 2 3 2 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 - Montana 4 1 1 4 2 2 2 3 4 1 1 4 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 1 - Nebraska 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 5 3 5 4 - Nevada 3 1 4 4 3 5 3 3 4 2 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 3 5 New Hampshire 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 - - New Jersey 4 3 2 4 2 2 2 4 4 3 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 2 -

Individual Survey Responses 121 Q6. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the following concerns have hindered your agency's efforts to implement alternative intersection designs? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent A cc es s M an ag em en t A ge nc y U nd er st af fe d C on st ru ct ab ili ty D riv er A w ar en es s En vi ro nm en ta l I m pa ct s Fu nd in g C on st ra in ts Im pa ct s to B ic yc lis ts a nd P ed es tr ia ns La nd U se C on st ra in ts La rg e Ve hi cl es Li ab ili ty Is su es N ee d In fo rm at io n on B en ef its N ew ne ss o f D es ig n O ld er D riv er s O pe ra tio na l I m pa ct s Pr op er E xp er tis e to D es ig n or R ev ie w Pu bl ic E du ca tio n Pu bl ic O pp os iti on Sa fe ty Im pa ct s St ak eh ol de r C on ce rn s Ti m e to R es ea rc h an d/ or Im pl em en t O th er New Mexico 4 3 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 - New York 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 3 North Carolina 4 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 5 1 5 1 - North Dakota 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 5 3 3 3 - Ohio 4 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 4 2 2 1 2 4 2 4 2 3 Oklahoma 4 2 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 2 1 1 2 4 1 5 5 2 5 4 - Oregon 4 1 4 1 4 4 1 3 3 3 3 4 3 1 1 3 4 1 4 2 - Pennsylvania 4 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 - Rhode Island 4 3 3 3 5 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 3 - South Carolina 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 - South Dakota 4 1 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 3 4 5 5 5 2 -

122 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q6. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the following concerns have hindered your agency's efforts to implement alternative intersection designs? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent A cc es s M an ag em en t A ge nc y U nd er st af fe d C on st ru ct ab ili ty D riv er A w ar en es s En vi ro nm en ta l I m pa ct s Fu nd in g C on st ra in ts Im pa ct s to B ic yc lis ts a nd P ed es tr ia ns La nd U se C on st ra in ts La rg e Ve hi cl es Li ab ili ty Is su es N ee d In fo rm at io n on B en ef its N ew ne ss o f D es ig n O ld er D riv er s O pe ra tio na l I m pa ct s Pr op er E xp er tis e to D es ig n or R ev ie w Pu bl ic E du ca tio n Pu bl ic O pp os iti on Sa fe ty Im pa ct s St ak eh ol de r C on ce rn s Ti m e to R es ea rc h an d/ or Im pl em en t O th er Tennessee 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 1 3 - 5 5 5 5 5 4 - Texas 4 1 3 4 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 1 4 4 2 4 2 - Utah 2 1 2 4 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 2 4 1 - Vermont 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 - 4 4 - Virginia 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 - Washington 3 3 4 5 3 - 3 4 3 2 2 5 3 3 3 4 4 - 4 3 5 West Virginia 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 - Wisconsin 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 4 5 1 2 4 1 5 2 2 4 1 4 3 4 Wyoming 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 4 1 3 4 1 2 3 3 3 - Note: 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Somewhat Agree, 3 = Neither Agree Nor Disagree, 2 = Somewhat Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree.

Individual Survey Responses 123 Table C-12. Comments for Question 6 Q6. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the following concerns have hindered your agency's efforts to implement alternative intersection designs? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Comments: Maintenance of Traffic My answers relate to the past 3 years or so. In prior years there were more issues, but we have worked through many of those. Strong culture for traditional designs within the department, and a strong counter-culture to new ideas, particularly if they involve traffic-safety improvements. In some cases, creative/innovative culture among staff might have hindered efforts to implement alternative intersection designs. Newness of Design or unfamiliarity with some of the designs have been an issue that is why we have developed outreach and education materials and involve Communications Division in our Innovative Intersection initiative, we are hoping that will have a positive effect soon. Some of the comments where we Neither Agree Nor Disagree means sometimes there has been positive and sometimes negative effect Other - Political considerations = Somewhat Agree Additional information: - Impacts to Peds/Bikes = sometimes we'll get pushback for accommodating visually impaired pedestrians at roundabouts - Large Vehicles (also oversize/overweight (OSOW)) - we have specific guidance in our design manual (Facilities Development Manual) for accommodating larger vehicles on our designated freight routes New Configurations create a need for consensus internally. Getting 100% consensus is difficult and creates extra staff time trying to get to decisions Most of the intersection alternatives are in the tool box. There are land use or access, or other engineering issues, however the alternatives (if they're thought of) will get a fair shake. And yes, there is sometimes public opposition to a new intersection design, where people will be concerned with driver expectancy. Roundabouts can be challenging to sell to locals, however DOT is very much a proponent. Public opposition is often concerned with rerouting of traffic (e.g. Superstreets), change in required behavior (i.e. yield at roundabout vs. stop at signal/stop sign) or simply having something new. Concerns from internal staff (particularly upper management) about increasing project/construction costs is putting pressure on staff to seek more cost effective ways of implementing alternative intersections. Lack of alternative intersection design expertise makes cost effective, streamlined delivery of projects also challenging.

124 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-13. Individual DOT responses to Question 7 Q7. Has your agency performed any evaluations of alternative intersections after construction? Respondent Response Text Alabama No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas No California Yes Colorado Yes Connecticut Yes Delaware No District of Columbia No Florida No Georgia Yes Hawaii No Idaho No Illinois No Indiana Yes Iowa No Kansas Yes Kentucky Yes Louisiana No Maine Yes Maryland Yes Massachusetts No Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri Yes Montana No Nebraska Yes Nevada No New Hampshire Yes

Individual Survey Responses 125 Q7. Has your agency performed any evaluations of alternative intersections after construction? Respondent Response Text New Jersey No New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina Yes North Dakota No Ohio Yes Oklahoma No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Rhode Island No South Carolina Yes South Dakota Yes Tennessee Yes Texas Yes Utah Yes Vermont No Virginia Yes Washington No West Virginia Yes Wisconsin Yes Wyoming No

126 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-14. Resources submitted for Question 7 Q7. Has your agency performed any evaluations of alternative intersections after construction? If you answered “yes” to question 7, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available California Total Collisions at Existing Modern Roundabouts on State Highway System Roundabout - Colorado Before/After Safety Analyses II Report Roundabout https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/hsip/stud ies/2016_Study/view Minnesota A Study of the Traffic Safety at Reduced Conflict Intersections in Minnesota Superstreet http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadwork/rci/docs/trafficsafetyatrcistudy.pdf Minnesota A Study of the Traffic Safety at Roundabouts in Minnesota Roundabout http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/docs/roundaboutstudy.pdf Minnesota A Study of the Traffic Safety at Single Lane Roundabouts in Minnesota Roundabout http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roundabouts/pdfs/traffic-safety-single-lane-roundabouts.pdf Minnesota An Addendum to "A Study of the Traffic Safety at Roundabouts in Minnesota" Roundabout http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/docs/roundaboutsafetyaddendum.pdf North Carolina Project Safety Evaluation (NC-24/87 at HM Cagle Drive / Linden Oaks Parkway) Superstreet https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/S afety%20Evaluation%20Completed%20Proj ects/W-5206B.pdf North Carolina Quadrant Roadway Intersection (QRI) Spot Safety Project Evaluation QRI - North Carolina Safety Evaluation Summary Roundabout https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Tr afficSafetyResources/Roundabouts.pdf North Carolina Safety Evaluation Summary Superstreet https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Tr afficSafetyResources/Unsignalized%20Sync hronized%20Streets.pdf

Individual Survey Responses 127 Q7. Has your agency performed any evaluations of alternative intersections after construction? If you answered “yes” to question 7, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available North Carolina Superstreet Benefits and Capacities Superstreet https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/20271/dot_ 20271_DS1.pdf Pennsylvania Modern Roundabout Injury Severity and Crash Summary Roundabout - Utah DDI Observations and Experience DDI https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner. gf?n=10172614219775523 Utah Development of Performance Matrices for Evaluating Innovative Intersections and Interchanges DDI, Continuous flow intersection (CFI) https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner. gf?n=25601022404950131 West Virginia An Evaluation of the Fairmont Gateway Connector Roundabouts from a Cost-Benefit and Public Opinion Perspective (Presentation slides) Roundabout https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/progr amplanning/plan_conf/Documents/2013PC/ Evaluation_of_Fairmont_Gateway_Connecto r_Roundabouts.pdf West Virginia Evaluation of Public Perception and Outreach Efforts for Roundabouts in Fairmont, WV (Elyard et al. 2016) Roundabout https://trid.trb.org/view/1393957 Wisconsin Safety Evaluation of Wisconsin Roundabouts: Phase 3 (Executive Summary) Roundabout -

128 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-15. Comments for Question 7 Q7. Has your agency performed any evaluations of alternative intersections after construction? Comments: I will also email you a safety evaluation of our quadrant intersection. The evaluations on our alternative intersections & intersections to date have been internal, informal, principally in the form of simple before-after analysis of crashes. In terms of in-service evaluation of mobility/congestion, we haven't at this point completed any evaluations but do regularly monitor the sites to identify opportunities to fine tune. The uploaded file of presentation at the 2014 Alternative Intersections Interchanges Symposium includes evaluations of safety benefits based on before-and-after crash data for Superstreet, Continuous Green T, DDI, and CFI in Maryland. Our most recent crash analysis summary of roundabouts was emailed separately. The upload link was blocked. Evaluations are anecdotal and not generally documented. Roundabouts constructed with HSIP funds would have before/after crash evaluation, but are generally too recent to have been completed. No formal documentation available, but we have reviewed how the alternative intersections performed from the viewpoints of capacity and safety. We have performed evaluation a DDI and a few Roundabouts. Evaluation of J-Turn Intersection design performance, driving simulator study of J-Turn Accel/Decel Lanes and U-Turn Spacing. Safety evaluations of diverging diamond interchanges. These were all MU studies, but if you need more information you can contact myself In the process More of just quick crash analyses to see if crashes went up or down in comparison of the before/after, no formal reports available We are currently working on roundabout in-service reviews for several of our existing roundabouts (with the intention of doing them for all on State Routes/installed with GDOT/Federal $$). Documents/reports have not been finalized yet. Before/after crash data has been pulled for many of our Superstreets, but this information hasn't been put into a document of any kind (to my knowledge). A review of one of the first roundabouts was conducted and minor changes made. Two before and after studies in this report dedicated to roundabout construction See uploaded files DOT has completed a before/after analysis I am not aware of any. We have evaluated safety at 5 or 6 roundabouts post construction and found a huge success with safety improvements. 49% reduction in overall crashes; 81% reduction in injury crashes Evaluation performed after first multilane roundabouts in the state were completed in Fairmont, Marion County. We are currently evaluating some roundabouts but those studies are not complete. Evaluations are informal - no set process or procedure

Individual Survey Responses 129 Table C-16. Individual DOT responses to Question 8 Q8. Has your agency used or developed any documented policies, procedures, or guidelines for evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type for a given site? Respondent Response Text Alabama No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas No California Yes Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware No District of Columbia No Florida Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii No Idaho No Illinois No Indiana Yes Iowa No Kansas Yes Kentucky Yes Louisiana No Maine No Maryland No Massachusetts Yes Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri Yes Montana No Nebraska No Nevada Yes

130 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q8. Has your agency used or developed any documented policies, procedures, or guidelines for evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type for a given site? Respondent Response Text New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico No New York No North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio Yes Oklahoma No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Rhode Island No South Carolina Yes South Dakota No Tennessee No Texas Yes Utah Yes Vermont No Virginia Yes Washington Yes West Virginia Yes Wisconsin Yes Wyoming No

Individual Survey Responses 131 Table C-17. Resources submitted for Question 8 Q8. Has your agency used or developed any documented policies, procedures, or guidelines for evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type for a given site? If you answered “yes” to question 8, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Alabama Roundabout Design and Operations Manual Roundabout https://www.dot.state.al.us/dsweb/divted/Traffic SOS/pdf/AlabamaDepartmentofTransportationR oundaboutPlanningDesignandOperationsManu al%20December2015.pdf California Design Information DDI http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/stp/dib/dib90.pdf California Design Information SPI http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/stp/dib/dib92.pdf California Highway Design Manual Chapter 400 (Intersections at Grade) Roundabout http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/manuals/hdm/chp0400.pdf Colorado Design Guide Roundabout https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/ bulletins_manuals/cdot-roadway-design-guide- 2018/dg18-ch19/view Delaware Design Guidance Memorandum for Roundabouts Roundabout https://deldot.gov/Publications/manuals/dgm/pdfs/1-26_Roundabouts.pdf Georgia Design Policy Manual Various http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignMan uals/DesignPolicy/GDOT-DPM.pdf Georgia Link to Manuals and Guides Various http://www.dot.ga.gov/PS/DesignManuals/Desig nGuides Georgia Signing and Marking Manual Various http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignMan uals/smguide/GDOT%20SIGNING%20AND%2 0MARKING%20DESIGN%20GUIDELINES.pdf Indiana Design Manual Chapter 46 (At- Grade Intersections) Various https://www.in.gov/indot/design_manual/files/Ch46_2013.pdf Indiana Design Manual Chapter 48 (Interchanges) Various https://www.in.gov/indot/design_manual/files/Ch48_2013.pdf

132 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q8. Has your agency used or developed any documented policies, procedures, or guidelines for evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type for a given site? If you answered “yes” to question 8, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Indiana Intersection Decision Guide MUT, Roundabout, DLT, Jughandle, QRI, Offset T, Green T https://secure.in.gov/indot/files/ROP_Intersectio nDecisionGuide.pdf Indiana Intersection Traffic Analysis Procedure MUT, Roundabout, Displaced Left Turn https://www.in.gov/indot/files/INDOT%20Interse ction%20Traffic%20Analysis%20Procedures_0 9-2018.pdf Kansas Roundabout Design Guide Roundabout http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bure aus/burTrafficEng/Roundabouts/Roundabout_G uide/KansasRoundaboutGuideSecondEdition.p df Kentucky Highway Design Guide Various https://transportation.ky.gov/Organizational- Resources/Policy%20Manuals%20Library/High way%20Design.pdf Kentucky Highway Design: Intersections, General Design Considerations and Objectives Various https://transportation.ky.gov/Highway- Design/Highway%20Design%20Manual/Interse ctions.pdf Kentucky Roundabout Policy Design Manual Roundabout https://transportation.ky.gov/Congestion- Toolbox/Documents/KYTC%20Roundabout%20 Policy.pdf Maine Roundabout Design Guidance Roundabout https://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.php?id=816887&an=1 Maryland Roundabout Design Guidelines Roundabout https://www.roads.maryland.gov/OHD2/MDSHA_Roundabout_Guidelines.pdf Minnesota DDI Design and Implementation Guidelines DDI https://techmemos.dot.state.mn.us/ Minnesota ICE Manual Roundabout, QRI, MUT, CFI, RCI, Jughandle, Continuous Green-T http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/ice/ 2007_ICE_Manual.pdf

Individual Survey Responses 133 Q8. Has your agency used or developed any documented policies, procedures, or guidelines for evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type for a given site? If you answered “yes” to question 8, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Minnesota RCUT Design and Implementation Guidelines Superstreet https://techmemos.dot.state.mn.us/ Minnesota Roadway Design Manual (Complete) Various https://roaddesign.dot.state.mn.us/ Minnesota Roadway Design Manual Chapter 12 (Roundabouts) Roundabout https://roaddesign.dot.state.mn.us/ Nebraska Roadway Design Manual Chapter 4 (Intersections, Driveways, and Channelization) Various https://dot.nebraska.gov/media/11484/g-chap-4-intersections-and-driveways.pdf Nevada Design Elements Roundabout - Nevada Roadway Design Guide Section 3.9 (Intersection and Roundabout Design) Roundabout https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=16066 Nevada Signal, Lighting, and ITS Design Guide Roundabout https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=14534 Ohio Entire Roadway Design Manual Tight Urban Diamond Interchange, SPDI, Roundabout, DDI http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineerin g/Roadway/DesignStandards/roadway/Pages/lo cationanddesignmanuals.aspx

134 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q8. Has your agency used or developed any documented policies, procedures, or guidelines for evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type for a given site? If you answered “yes” to question 8, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Oregon Highway Design Manual Chapter 9 (Grade Separations and Interchanges) Various https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Doc uments_RoadwayEng/HDM_09-Grade- Separation.pdf Oregon Intersection Design Manual Various https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Doc uments_RoadwayEng/HDM_08- Intersections.pdf Pennsylvania Appendices to Design Manuals Various http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Pu blications/PUB%2010/Pub%2010X/September %202018.pdf Pennsylvania Standards for Roadway Construction Revisions Various - South Dakota Road Design Manual, Chapter 12 (Intersections) and Chapter 13 (Interchanges) Various http://www.sddot.com/business/design/forms/roaddesign/Default.aspx Utah CFI Guidelines CFI https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=10114119157568379 Utah DDI Guidelines DDI https://udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=14769524027177477 Virginia Design Manual DLT, Superstreet, MUT, Jughandle, Roundabout, Continuous green-T (CGT), DDI, SPDI http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/locdes/Elec tronic_Pubs/2005%20RDM/appenda.pdf Washington Intersection Control Type - Manual Various http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1300.pdf Washington Roundabout Manual Roundabout http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/f ulltext/M22-01/1320.pdf

Individual Survey Responses 135 Q8. Has your agency used or developed any documented policies, procedures, or guidelines for evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type for a given site? If you answered “yes” to question 8, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Washington Sidra Policy Setting Guide Roundabout http://wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0012E6B9- DC52-4B28-AE9C- 5E4EACC98C0B/0/Sidrapolicy.pdf West Virginia Design Directives Various https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineer ing/DD/2014%20DD%20Manual%20MASTER.p df West Virginia FHWA Design Guides Various https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ West Virginia Signing Guide Roundabout https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineer ing/Documents/2018%20Design%20Guide%20f or%20Signing.pdf Wisconsin Facilities Design Manual - Chapter 11, Sec. 26 (Roundabouts) Roundabout https://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm/fd-11-00toc.pdf Wisconsin Facilities Design Manual Chapter 11, Sec. 25 (Intersections At Grade) Various https://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm/fd-11-25.pdf#fd11-25-3 Wisconsin Signing for DDIs DDI https://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic- ops/manuals-and-standards/teops/02-15.pdf#2- 15-56 Wisconsin Signing for J-turns J-turn https://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic- ops/manuals-and-standards/teops/02-15.pdf#2- 15-55

136 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-18. Comments for Question 8 Q8. Has your agency used or developed any documented policies, procedures, or guidelines for evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type for a given site? Comments: Our Highway Design Manual used to list roundabouts as our preferred alternative by default if feasible but now due to the higher PDO crashes at some multi-laners we now have revised it to single laners only as default preferred. We still haven't gone to an "ICE type" screening level so other alternative intersections may or may not even be given a chance. Our agency is developing an Intersection Control Evaluation tool. It is in draft format currently. In February 2019 we have assembled a task force to develop an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) policy similar to one we are familiar with in Georgia to guide us in this area. We issued an Intersection Control Evaluation policy last fall. Prior to that we had some guidelines for roundabouts. The ICE policy is Appendix AI in DM-1X (Publication 10X) We refer to it as Practical Design, more of a philosophy to look at the most cost effective/best fit solution for each case vs. a systematic application of a design. We plan to initiate the development of policies, procedures, or guidelines for evaluating intersection types and selecting intersection types in the next year. We have developed a tool called VJuST, it is screening tool for narrowing down Innovative Intersection at a planning level. The idea is that after the narrow down, the few chosen alternatives would be analyzed in detail using more detailed data. http://www.virginiadot.org/innovativeintersections/ contains the VJuST While the answer is "No" above, the agency is appealing for assistance on this very matter through our research partnership with Purdue University (JTRP). SCDOT is in the process of developing an ICE policy From a project development process standpoint, when we are in the NEPA stage, we first take a look at identifying the purpose & need. Once we identify that and figure out what the source of those issues are, we look at various options. For one of our large at-grade intersection improvement projects, our team came up with 12 different alternatives at first, both at-grade and grade-separated, including some alternative intersections. However, we did a feasibility study to determine if the geometrics would work (that knocked out 6 of them) and then did a conflict point analysis to figure out which options best helped to reduce conflict points. We then went to the public with 3 alternatives. Ultimately the least impactful for environmental and ROW was the one we moved forward with. KYTC utilizes the Green Book and other National resources for Roundabout Design. We have a policy for Intersection Approval within our Highway Design Guide. Nevada DOT has an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Policy that dictates that unless a corridor is already utilizing signal coordination, ICE will be performed when signal warrant is passed. The use of ICE is limited due to limited funding for those types of activities. Our process excludes Pedestrian control, and other safety improvements unless those controls are part of a signalized system or roundabout. Alternatives usually include signal, roundabout, and unsignalized high-t. We also consider restricting access with and without providing downstream U-turn opportunities. We do not do ICE for changes in control if signal warrant is not passed. ICE results are non-binding. The Department is working on the development of an Intersection Control Evaluation process, but is not completed. ADOT is currently evaluating implementation of an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) policy.

Individual Survey Responses 137 Q8. Has your agency used or developed any documented policies, procedures, or guidelines for evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type for a given site? Comments: We currently do not have our own documents related to intersection control selection, however, we do utilize various FHWA Informational Guides as part of our overall process for determining what intersection/interchange controls are appropriate for each project. Evaluated on a case-by-case basis Although we don't have an official policy, we have been working hard to always consider a roundabout first with intersection projects, safety and capacity. We are also considering them on corridor projects. CAP-X Link above is for the GDOT Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Policy and Tool. Go to link, documents are at bottom of page.

138 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-19. Individual DOT responses to Question 9 Q9. Has your agency developed any design criteria, analysis criteria, or construction details (including details for signing, marking, and lighting) for the following types of alternative intersections? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent Roundabout Superstreet MUT CFI SPDI DDI Other Alabama Yes No No No No No - Alaska No No No No No No - Arizona Yes No No No Yes Yes - Arkansas Yes No No No No No - California Yes No No No Yes Yes - Colorado Yes No No No No No - Connecticut Yes No No No No No No Delaware Yes No No No No Yes - District of Columbia No No No No No No No Florida Yes No No No No No - Georgia Yes Yes No No No No - Hawaii No No No No No No No Idaho No No No No No No - Illinois Yes No No No No No - Indiana Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes - Iowa No No No No No No - Kansas Yes No No No No No - Kentucky Yes No No No No No No Louisiana No No No No No No - Maine Yes No No No No No - Maryland Yes No No No No No No Massachusetts - - - - - - Yes Michigan - - - - - - - Minnesota Yes Yes No No No Yes - Mississippi No No No No No No No Missouri No Yes No No No No - Montana No No No No No No - Nebraska Yes No No No No No - Nevada No No No No No No - New Hampshire Yes No No No Yes No -

Individual Survey Responses 139 Q9. Has your agency developed any design criteria, analysis criteria, or construction details (including details for signing, marking, and lighting) for the following types of alternative intersections? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent Roundabout Superstreet MUT CFI SPDI DDI Other New Jersey No No No No No No No New Mexico No No No No No No - New York Yes No No No No No - North Carolina Yes Yes No No No Yes No North Dakota No No No No No No - Ohio Yes Yes No No No No - Oklahoma No No No No No No - Oregon Yes No No No Yes No - Pennsylvania Yes No No No No No - Rhode Island No No No No No No - South Carolina Yes Yes - - - - - South Dakota Yes No No No Yes No - Tennessee No No No No No Yes - Texas Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes - Utah - - No Yes - Yes - Vermont No No No No No No - Virginia Yes - - - - Yes - Washington Yes - - - - - - West Virginia Yes No No No No No No Wisconsin Yes Yes No No No No - Wyoming No No No No No No -

140 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-20. Resources submitted for Question 9 Q9. Has your agency developed any design criteria, analysis criteria, or construction details (including details for signing, marking, and lighting) for the following types of alternative intersections? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) If you answered “yes” to question 9, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Georgia Design Policy Manual Various http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSm art/DesignManuals/DesignPolicy/ GDOT-DPM.pdf Georgia ICE Policy and Tool, links and the bottom of the page Roundabout, Superstreet, Right- in/right-out (RIRO), MUT, DDI, CFI, High-T, QRI http://www.dot.ga.gov/PS/Design Manuals/DesignGuides Georgia Roundabout Landscaping Detail Roundabout http://mydocs.dot.ga.gov/info/gdo tpubs/ConstructionStandardsAnd Details/RA-1.pdf Georgia Roundabout Typical Section Roundabout http://mydocs.dot.ga.gov/info/gdo tpubs/ConstructionStandardsAnd Details/RA-2.pdf Georgia Signing and Marking Guide Roundabout, Superstreet http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSm art/DesignManuals/smguide/GDO T%20SIGNING%20AND%20MA RKING%20DESIGN%20GUIDELI NES.pdf North Carolina Directional Crossover with Median U-Turns Design Manual and Construction Details MUT - Oregon Analysis Procedural Manual Various https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Pl anning/Documents/APMv1.pdf Pennsylvania Roundabout Construction Details Roundabout http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/ PubsForms/Publications/Pub%20 72M/72M_2010_4/72M_2010_4. pdf Washington Roundabout Cement Detail Roundabout http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publicati ons/fulltext/Standards/english/PD F/f10.18-01_e.pdf Washington Roundabout Pavement Marking Detail Roundabout http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publicati ons/fulltext/Standards/english/PD F/m12.10-01_e.pdf

Individual Survey Responses 141 Table C-21. Comments for Question 9 Q9. Has your agency developed any design criteria, analysis criteria, or construction details (including details for signing, marking, and lighting) for the following types of alternative intersections? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Comments: Minimum truck apron 12' for plowing. Use of 4" granite mountable curbing. 6" vertical granite can pop tires. Generally use granite for roundabouts. Concrete curb does not hold up well against the plows. See links previously provided in response to Question #7. General guidance is provided in Oregon Highway Design Manual with additional guidance used from federal publications. Chapter 9 (Grade Separations and Interchanges) and Appendix J (Alignment Guide and Design Aids) may be of interest. Chapter 8 (Intersections) has a section on Roundabouts. Currently, we have specific guidelines for signing at Roundabouts, however we do not have any design details specifically for the intersection types above. We do have our own Design Directives and Traffic Engineering Directives as well as utilizing several national documents during the project process (AASHTO, MUTCD, HCM, HSM, FHWA, etc.) The level of (design) detail prescription varies across those 5 I've checked "Yes" above. For instance, it's highly refined for roundabouts, less so for what you call a superstreet intersection (we call it a J-turn if unsignalized, an RCUT if signalized; in hindsight, we should have branded this form of intersection geometry a superstreet or synchronized to start with). Design criteria is generally based on past practice (record plans) that are available on line. For both SPDIs and DDIs, we have existing plan sets, but no standard details or design criteria I will be reaching out to our Project Development team to get those. We have no information to offer. Our Department is developing an Intersection Control Evaluation tool. It is in draft format. Link 1 = GDOT Roundabout Landscaping Detail Link 2 = GDOT Roundabout Typical Section Detail Link 3 = GDOT Design Policy Manual - contains design/analysis guidance for roundabouts (chapter 8) and Intersection Control Evaluation. Link 4 = GDOT Signing and Marking Guide - contains signing and marking guidance for roundabouts and Superstreets (RCUTs) Note: Currently developing a separate roundabout design guide, close to completion of draft. Considering development of separate alternative intersection design guide for other alternatives we currently have in the State. KYTC requires all roundabouts to include lighting A document of the Maryland State Highway Administration Roundabout Design Guidelines (2011) on signing, pavement markings, and lighting has been uploaded.

142 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q9. Has your agency developed any design criteria, analysis criteria, or construction details (including details for signing, marking, and lighting) for the following types of alternative intersections? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Comments: Nevada DOT's Design division does not have official developed manuals or criteria for the design of alternate intersection types. We rarely use most alternative intersections, and when we do design them we use criteria established in nationally relevant publications (as an example NCHRP reports). The manual for Signs and striping details for various treatments including approaches for roundabouts, interchanges, and other intersection approaches is being developed at this time but no formal criteria is currently available. The Signal, Lighting and ITS Design Guide mentions alternative intersection types but not how they might be lit differently. Operational analysis for various intersection types is based upon HCM delay. We do not use the new method for alternate interchange analysis that uses travel time. Diverging Diamond Interchanges require micro-simulation analysis due to issues getting reliable results using HCM methods. Delay is still used as primary MOE. Other alternative intersection design may require micro-simulation as needed. In process of developing guidelines in Roadway Design Manual We do have a typical application for Superstreets, or what we refer to as J-Turns, however, our published typical application figures are out of date. Since we do all sign design for projects out of our office, we make the necessary modifications to the plans during the review to incorporate the latest direction until we can get the figures updated. It has been an evolutionary process, as we gain experience on what works, we incorporate those findings into the next round of projects. Chapter 4 of Roadway Design Manual, Section 1.A.3. Roundabout Truck Apron Curb and joint spacing for concrete roundabouts. These are in our Roadway Construction Standards Publication 72M (RC 65M & RC 20M)

Individual Survey Responses 143 Table C-22. Individual DOT responses to Question 10 Q10. Does your agency provide any training for employees and/or consultants for evaluating and/or designing intersection types for a given site? Respondent Response Text Alabama No Alaska No Arizona Yes Arkansas No California Yes Colorado No Connecticut Yes Delaware No District of Columbia No Florida Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii No Idaho No Illinois No Indiana Yes Iowa No Kansas Yes Kentucky No Louisiana Yes Maine No Maryland Yes Massachusetts Yes Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri No Montana Yes Nebraska No Nevada Yes New Hampshire Yes

144 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q10. Does your agency provide any training for employees and/or consultants for evaluating and/or designing intersection types for a given site? Respondent Response Text New Jersey No New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina Yes North Dakota No Ohio - Oklahoma No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee Yes Texas Yes Utah No Vermont No Virginia Yes Washington Yes West Virginia Yes Wisconsin Yes Wyoming No

Individual Survey Responses 145 Table C-23. Resources submitted for Question 10 Q10. Does your agency provide any training for employees and/or consultants for evaluating and/or designing intersection types for a given site? If you answered “yes” to question 10, please provide URL(s) for available training materials in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Georgia An Update of Innovative Intersections in Georgia & GDOT's ICE Policy (Presentation Slides) Roundabout, Superstreet, RIRO, MUT, DDI, CFI, CGT, QRI http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/ DesignManuals/Intersection Control Evaluation/ICE- PolicyTrainingPresentation.pdf Indiana J-Turn: An Intersection Safety Improvement (Presentation Slides) J-Turn - Kentucky The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Kentucky Roundabouts (Presentation Slides) Roundabout https://transportation.ky.gov/Highwa y- Design/Conference%20Presentation /The%20Good%2C%20the%20Bad %2C%20and%20the%20Ugly%20of %20Kentucky%20Roundabouts.pptx Maryland State of Practice, Case Studies and Analysis Tools on Unconventional Intersection & Interchange Designs in Maryland (Presentation Slides) Roundabout, DDI, Superstreet, CFI, Continuous Green, Jughandle http://attap.umd.edu/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/Kim_UTAH _conference_0722_2014_final.pdf Maryland Unconventional Intersection Design Training (Slides) Roundabout, DDI, MUT, Superstreet, CFI, QRI, Continuous Green, Jughandle - West Virginia NHI Training Courses on Innovative Intersection Design Various https://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/course- search?tab=0&key=FHWA-NHI- 142036++Public+Involvement+in+th e+Transportation+Decision+making +Process+&sf=0&course_no=38010 9 Wisconsin Restricted Crossing U- turns (Presentation Slides) Superstreet -

146 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-24. Comments for Question 10 Q10. Does your agency provide any training for employees and/or consultants for evaluating and/or designing intersection types for a given site? Comments: One on One Training. Region by Region Statewide. No dedicated URL or files that can be easily shared We have done internal roundabout training but not for other alternative intersections. We would like to eventually do a class similar to the FHWA Alternative Intersections/Interchanges class. We have provided access to several NHI courses and have also coordinated our own training on roundabouts (in conjunction with Burgess & Niple) but overall our training on alternative intersections has been somewhat limited. Training is in-house for roundabouts via the guide (http://www.ksdot.org/burtrafficeng/Roundabouts/Roundabout_Guide/RoundaboutGuide.asp); DDI training was provided by HDR Training for specific alternative intersection controls is typically addressed in bigger interchange/design manual training. Training is currently in revision and is not on a formal schedule. We usually bring in trainers from FHWA on the alternative intersection designs. It is just industry training Not site specific, but we offer a three day roundabout design workshop that is currently taught by Kittelson Associates. Caltrans has 15 hour of online training available to Caltrans employees on roundabout design. I can't provide the material. KYTC is interested in developing a Training Matrix for Alternative Intersections 4 to 5 years running roundabout classes with FHWA I teach a two-day course on alternative intersections and interchanges to in-house staff at least twice a year, and teach those same courses for other entities as well. I am not keen to circulate those materials without knowing how you will use them. WisDOT has a geometric design class that covers some of these types of intersections. Our Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) partners host an Innovative Intersections class. Tennessee Transportation Assistance Program provides a 1-day class on alternative intersection design. Likewise FHWA, provides a class on interchange design. Course material used at a one-day training held in 2013 has been uploaded. On the job training only. Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) training provided. Roundabout design classes provided. SDDOT staff has not provided the training, however SDDOT has consulted out training with FHWA, NHI, etc. to provide training for SDDOT & FHWA staff, as well Consultants when there are available seats. Our agency had scheduled trainings in the past. We also attended a few webinars.

Individual Survey Responses 147 Q10. Does your agency provide any training for employees and/or consultants for evaluating and/or designing intersection types for a given site? Comments: The Traffic Safety Division has hosted consultant led training on Roundabouts several times over the last four years and similar trainings on other alternative control types a few times in that same time span. These trainings cover operational analysis and planning/scoping level design. We actually provided a one day course through Auburn University's LTAP on our Roundabout Manual when it was completed and ready to be utilized. Training is not routine but on case by case basis, and on launch of new policy, procedure, or design option (e.g. on agency's direction on traffic capacity/operational analysis of intersections by traffic simulation or other applications). Infrequent, external sources.

148 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-25. Individual DOT responses to Question 11 Q11. Has your agency developed any resources (e.g. software, flowcharts, worksheets) to assist in the process of evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type at a given site? Respondent Response Text Alabama No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas No California Yes Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware No District of Columbia No Florida Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii No Idaho No Illinois No Indiana Yes Iowa Yes Kansas No Kentucky No Louisiana No Maine Yes Maryland Yes Massachusetts Yes Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska No Nevada No New Hampshire No

Individual Survey Responses 149 Q11. Has your agency developed any resources (e.g. software, flowcharts, worksheets) to assist in the process of evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type at a given site? Respondent Response Text New Jersey No New Mexico Yes New York No North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio Yes Oklahoma No Oregon Yes Pennsylvania Yes Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Texas No Utah Yes Vermont No Virginia Yes Washington No West Virginia No Wisconsin Yes Wyoming No

150 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-26. Resources submitted for Question 11 Q11. Has your agency developed any resources (e.g. software, flowcharts, worksheets) to assist in the process of evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type at a given site? If you answered “yes” to question 11, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Arkansas Roundabout Design Checklist Roundabout - California ICE Resources Roundabout, Superstreet,MUT, DDI, QRI, CFI http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/ic e.html Georgia ICE Tool and Manual (link at the bottom of page) Roundabout, Superstreet, RIRO, MUT, DDI, CFI, High-T, QRI http://www.dot.ga.gov/PS/Design Manuals/DesignGuides Georgia ICE Tool Users Guide (V 2.15) Roundabout, Superstreet, RIRO, High-T, Offset - T, Diamond Interchange http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSm art/DesignManuals/Intersection% 20Control%20Evaluation/GDOT %20ICE%20Tool_Users%20Guid e.pdf Georgia Roundabout Analysis Tool Roundabout http://www.dot.ga.gov/PS/Design Manuals/DesignResources Iowa Roundabout Feasibility Initial Screening Tool Roundabout https://iowadot.gov/design/dmanual/06a-03a.pdf Iowa Roundabout General Guidance Tool Roundabout https://iowadot.gov/design/dmanual/06a-03.pdf Maine ICE Screening Worksheet Various - Maryland Capacity Analysis Software Various http://attap.umd.edu/midcap/ Maryland Unconventional Intersection Analysis and Optimization Software CFI, DDI, Superstreet http://attap.umd.edu/2015/09/29/ maryland-unconventional- intersection-design-muid/ Nevada ICE Policy and Worksheets Various -

Individual Survey Responses 151 Q11. Has your agency developed any resources (e.g. software, flowcharts, worksheets) to assist in the process of evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type at a given site? If you answered “yes” to question 11, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Ohio Interchange Studies Guide Various http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisio ns/Engineering/Roadway/studies/ Documents/Traffic%20Academy %202018%20Course%20Manual %20- %20Interchange%20Studies.pdf Wisconsin ICE Tool and Attachments DDI, SPDI https://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm /fd-11-25.pdf#fd11-25-3

152 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-27. Comments for Question 11 Q11. Has your agency developed any resources (e.g. software, flowcharts, worksheets) to assist in the process of evaluating intersection types and selecting an intersection type at a given site? Comments: Cap-X is encouraged and used often within the department but we have not developed any in-house standards or processes. We are in a process of developing an Intersection Control Evaluation tool. ICE Manual Safety Planning Process See previous ICE site provided. We use a tiered approach to evaluate intersections--using sketch tools in Tier 1, capacity analysis software in Tier 2 See links previously provided in response to Question #7. We issued an Intersection Control Evaluation policy last fall. Prior to that we had some guidelines for roundabouts. The ICE policy is Appendix AI in DM-1X (Publication 10X) We anticipate having these resources as part of our new ICE policy in a few months. Will be part of any ICE program Link 1 = At bottom of page is Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Tool v2.14, developed to provide a consistent approach to the GDOT ICE process. Link 2 = Under 'Additional Resources', GDOT Roundabout Analysis Tool - includes tabs for operational analysis of mini's single lanes, multi-lanes, includes HCM 2010 and HCM 6 formula. See links in #7 above The project development process typically addresses potential solutions to address problem identification. Alternative intersections are part of a range of potential solutions to address an identified problem. Traffic analysis tools along with conceptual design procedures assist in the development of potential solutions.

Individual Survey Responses 153 Table C-28. Individual DOT responses to Question 12 Q12. Does your agency have special in-house engineers or consultants review projects for the following types of alternative intersections/interchanges? Respondent Roundabout Superstreet MUT CFI SPDI DDI Other Alabama Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes - Alaska Yes No No No No No - Arizona No No No No No No - Arkansas Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - California Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Colorado No No No No No No - Connecticut Yes No No No No No No Delaware No No No No No No - District of Columbia No No No No No No No Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Hawaii No No No No No No No Idaho Yes No No No Yes Yes - Illinois No No No No No No - Indiana No No No No No No - Iowa Yes No No No No No - Kansas Yes No No No No Yes - Kentucky Yes Yes No No Yes Yes - Louisiana No No No No No No - Maine Yes No No No No Yes - Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Michigan Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Minnesota Yes Yes No No No Yes - Mississippi Yes Yes Yes Yes No No - Missouri No No No No No No - Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Nebraska No No No No No No - Nevada No No No No No No - New Hampshire Yes - - - Yes Yes -

154 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q12. Does your agency have special in-house engineers or consultants review projects for the following types of alternative intersections/interchanges? Respondent Roundabout Superstreet MUT CFI SPDI DDI Other New Jersey No No No No No No - New Mexico No No No No No No - New York Yes No No No No No - North Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes - North Dakota No No No No No No - Ohio Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Oklahoma No No No No No No - Oregon Yes - - - Yes Yes - Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Rhode Island Yes No No No No No - South Carolina Yes Yes - - - - - South Dakota Yes No No No No No - Tennessee Yes No No No Yes Yes - Texas Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes - Utah No No No No No No - Vermont No No No No No No - Virginia - - - - - - Yes Washington Yes - - - - Yes - West Virginia Yes No No No Yes Yes - Wisconsin Yes No No No No Yes - Wyoming No No No No No No -

Individual Survey Responses 155 Table C-29. Comments for Question 12 Q12. Does your agency have special in-house engineers or consultants review projects for the following types of alternative intersections/interchanges? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Comments: Generally, the Operations section of the Traffic Engineering Division would take the lead on the review of potential alternative intersection projects. Our Central Office reviews complex/unique designs which would include the intersections/interchanges listed above. We have two consultants on contract to complete peer reviews of all roundabout designs in the state. We have two Open End Agreements with Consultants to conduct Peer Reviews of Roundabouts and Innovative Intersections & Interchanges. They are primarily used for roundabouts and DDIs at this time. Some consultants are stronger than others in, say roundabouts, however we do not retain them for this specific purpose Our Traffic Engineering Division reviews roundabout and CFI's. They also have a consultant under contract to review roundabout designs. GDOT has a Roundabout & Alternative Intersection Design team (RAID) within the office of traffic operations, that reviews analyses and designs for all alternative listed above (roundabouts are by far the most common). We also track them in GA. The RAID also performs on occasion analysis and design for roundabouts, at the request of our District traffic offices. We also have a roundabout support on-call contract with a consultant. They perform analyses/design of roundabouts and review most concept reports and preliminary plan sets containing roundabouts. Items not checked are not applicable. We have a relatively small staff, but that being said, we have subject matter experts that provide a resource for any unique designs. Starting a roundabout review committee. Also use peer review system with experienced engineers. These reviews can be provided by Caltrans, HQ, Design Resource Center, and Office of Project Support. We have a Innovative Intersection Committee that looks at these design types from various perspectives including - Design, Traffic Engineering, Land Use, Planning, Access Management, Safety and Public Acceptance/Communication WisDOT roundabout design process and qualifications: https://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm/fd-11- 26.pdf#fd11-26-5

156 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-30. Individual DOT responses to Question 13 Q13. Does/Did your agency have a champion for various alternative intersections? (select all that apply) Comments: Respondent Response Text Alabama NO, which makes getting alternative intersections implemented harder Alaska YES, in the traffic department Arizona YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department; YES, in the senior management level Arkansas YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department California YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department Colorado YES, in the traffic department; NO, but one is not needed to get alternative intersections selected Connecticut YES, in the highway design department Delaware YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department; YES, in the senior management level District of Columbia YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the senior management level Florida YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department Georgia YES, in the traffic department Hawaii Idaho YES, in the traffic department Illinois NO, but one is not needed to get alternative intersections selected Indiana YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department; YES, in the senior management level Iowa YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department; NO, but one is not needed to get alternative intersections selected; NO, which makes getting alternative intersections implemented harder Kansas YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department Kentucky YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department; YES, in the senior management level Louisiana YES, in the traffic department Maine YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department; YES, in the senior management level Maryland YES, in the traffic department Massachusetts YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department Michigan YES, in the traffic department -

Individual Survey Responses 157 Q13. Does/Did your agency have a champion for various alternative intersections? (select all that apply) Comments: Respondent Response Text Minnesota YES, in the traffic department; NO, but one is not needed to get alternative intersections selected Mississippi YES, in the traffic department Missouri YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department; NO, which makes getting alternative intersections implemented harder Montana YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the senior management level Nebraska YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department Nevada NO, which makes getting alternative intersections implemented harder New Hampshire YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department New Jersey NO, but one is not needed to get alternative intersections selected New Mexico NO, but one is not needed to get alternative intersections selected New York YES, in the highway design department North Carolina YES, in the traffic department North Dakota NO, but one is not needed to get alternative intersections selected Ohio YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department; YES, in the senior management level Oklahoma NO, which makes getting alternative intersections implemented harder Oregon YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department Pennsylvania YES, in the highway design department Rhode Island NO, but one is not needed to get alternative intersections selected South Carolina YES, in the traffic department South Dakota NO, but one is not needed to get alternative intersections selected Tennessee NO, but one is not needed to get alternative intersections selected Texas YES, in the senior management level; YES, in the highway design department Utah NO, but one is not needed to get alternative intersections selected Vermont YES, in the highway design department Virginia NO, which makes getting alternative intersections implemented harder Washington YES, in the traffic department West Virginia YES, in the traffic department Wisconsin YES, in the traffic department; YES, in the highway design department Wyoming NO, but one is not needed to get alternative intersections selected

158 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-31. Comments for Question 13 Q13. Does/Did your agency have a champion for various alternative intersections? (select all that apply) Comments: Within the Office of Traffic Operations it’s the RAID team and its immediate up line. Previously, the Office of Roadway Design had a Roundabout Design Subject Matter Expert team, but that has been quiet for a long time/may have disbanded. We have had staff very interested in roundabouts for years in the highway design office I am the State champion, but each District has a designated champion as well, primarily focused on roundabouts. It's been somewhat of an ad hoc process so no one individual has emerged as a champion. There have been some mini-champions for various treatments as situations have arisen. We anticipate one being more formally identified through the ICE policy process. Our Operations section of Traffic Engineering would provide primary review/analyses of alternative intersections. Traffic Safety office has promoted many of the alternative intersection designs We have discussed having a champion for Innovative Intersections but haven't yet had one. Our DDI intersections were championed by a couple of our districts The former Traffic Safety Assistant Chief was a strong advocate for intersection designs and others within that division are willing to take the mantle, but not the influence to do much within the department. Advocates in other divisions are hindered by the direction of their management (which is generally opposed to non-traditional designs). Champions have been and are now present in various departments of central office and each of our 6 district offices. We do for roundabouts but not the other alternative intersections - yet.

Individual Survey Responses 159 Table C-32. Individual DOT responses to Question 14 Q14. How frequently does your agency utilize the following resources to evaluate intersection types and select an intersection type at a given site? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent C A P- X SP IC E C us to m A ge nc y So ftw ar e To ol A A SH TO G re en B oo k A ge nc y St an da rd s or Po lic ie s FH W A A lte rn at iv e In te rs ec tio n G ui de s H ig hw ay C ap ac ity M an ua l H ig hw ay S af et y M an ua l M U TC D W or ks he et o r F lo w ch ar t O th er Alabama 1 1 1 4 4 3 3 3 4 2 - Alaska 1 1 1 5 1 4 4 2 5 1 - Arizona 2 1 1 4 5 2 3 3 5 1 - Arkansas 4 3 1 5 5 3 5 5 5 2 - California 3 3 1 2 5 5 5 3 5 3 - Colorado 3 - - 3 - 3 3 3 3 - - Connecticut - - - 4 - 4 4 4 5 - - Delaware - - - 5 5 - 3 3 5 - 5 District of Columbia 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 Florida 5 5 5 - 5 3 5 5 5 5 - Georgia 2 2 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 1 - Hawaii 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 2 4 1 - Idaho 3 2 1 4 2 3 4 2 4 1 - Illinois 2 2 1 5 5 3 5 4 5 3 - Indiana 4 2 1 3 5 5 5 2 4 5 - Iowa 1 1 1 3 4 2 4 3 3 1 - Kansas 1 1 1 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 - Kentucky 2 2 1 4 3 2 4 2 4 1 - Louisiana 5 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 - Maine 1 1 2 3 4 3 5 5 5 4 -

160 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q14. How frequently does your agency utilize the following resources to evaluate intersection types and select an intersection type at a given site? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent C A P- X SP IC E C us to m A ge nc y So ftw ar e To ol A A SH TO G re en B oo k A ge nc y St an da rd s or Po lic ie s FH W A A lte rn at iv e In te rs ec tio n G ui de s H ig hw ay C ap ac ity M an ua l H ig hw ay S af et y M an ua l M U TC D W or ks he et o r F lo w ch ar t O th er Maryland 2 1 4 5 5 3 3 2 4 1 - Massachusetts 3 3 - 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 - Michigan - - 4 5 5 - 5 5 5 - - Minnesota 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 - Mississippi - - - 5 - 5 5 5 5 - - Missouri 1 1 2 5 5 2 4 3 5 1 - Montana 1 1 5 3 2 3 5 4 3 3 - Nebraska 1 1 1 5 5 3 5 4 5 1 1 Nevada 4 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 1 3 New Hampshire 1 1 1 4 1 3 3 3 3 1 - New Jersey - - - 4 5 - 4 3 5 - - New Mexico 1 1 1 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 - New York 3 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 - North Carolina 4 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 North Dakota 2 2 2 5 5 4 5 5 5 2 - Ohio 3 3 1 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 - Oklahoma 1 1 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 - Oregon 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 1 - Pennsylvania 3 3 1 4 5 2 4 3 4 1 - Rhode Island 1 1 1 4 5 4 4 4 5 1 - South Carolina 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 -

Individual Survey Responses 161 Q14. How frequently does your agency utilize the following resources to evaluate intersection types and select an intersection type at a given site? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Respondent C A P- X SP IC E C us to m A ge nc y So ftw ar e To ol A A SH TO G re en B oo k A ge nc y St an da rd s or Po lic ie s FH W A A lte rn at iv e In te rs ec tio n G ui de s H ig hw ay C ap ac ity M an ua l H ig hw ay S af et y M an ua l M U TC D W or ks he et o r F lo w ch ar t O th er South Dakota 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 - Tennessee 3 3 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 - Texas 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 - Utah - - - - - - - - - - - Vermont 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 2 4 1 - Virginia - - 5 - 5 5 5 5 5 - - Washington 2 2 1 2 5 3 2 4 4 1 3 West Virginia 1 1 1 5 5 3 5 5 5 1 - Wisconsin 1 1 1 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 Wyoming 2 2 1 4 4 3 4 3 3 1 - Note: 5 = Always, 4 = Almost Always, 3 = Sometimes, 2 = Rarely, 1 = Never.

162 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-33. Comments for Question 14 Q14. How frequently does your agency utilize the following resources to evaluate intersection types and select an intersection type at a given site? - Other (Please describe in comments box below) Comments: Case Studies in our own agency, other agencies. NCHRP reports and other state documents Empirical data points where we have done a similar fix. We will look at safety, design details, constructability, MOT, etc. When we go through the NEPA process, all intersection types are on the table. we go through and vet what the purpose and need is, find solutions that would meet those goals, and then balance that level of improvements with the overall impacts from: cost/ROW impacts/Resource impacts/public opinion, etc. We utilize VISSIM or Synchro to see what works best operationally, and then either HSM or we look to reduce conflict points. I am unaware of anyone in the Department using CAP-X or SPICE, but I do not know for certain. Custom Agency Software = ICE Tool, GDOT Roundabout Analysis Tool. GDOT Design Policy contains guidance on typical ADTs for various roundabout types. HCM formulas utilized in analysis software. For safety, we primarily use CRF's/CMF's from the FHWA Clearinghouse online. Use MUTCD signal warrants to determine if signalized intersection types (conventional or alternative) are feasible (i.e. if not warranted typically not feasible). We use SIMS (Safety Information Management System) for analyzing crash data. The way we get non-traditional intersections built requires support from local agencies and a strong push from our Traffic Safety Division. The local agencies rarely support non-traditional intersections, and the recently retired assistant chief of Traffic Safety can no longer provide influence. We are currently moving forward with alternative intersections across our state, but our outlook for future non- traditional intersections is poor. Other - Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) - WisDOT just published a new policy using the HSM and IHSDM in January 2019. While the use of the HSM and IHSDM was not regularly used before January 2019, we will be using it "Always" moving forward. Department has internal traffic analysis tools. Aware of CAP-X and SPICE but not formally used. We like and use VJUST, developed by the Virginia DOT, which is an improvement on CAP-X. We have no other information to offer. I'm afraid I can't answer this. INDOT has no software tool for considering/analyzing various intersection forms, but does always use its "Worksheet or Flowchart," in our case the Intersection Decision Guide (url provided earlier in survey). By extension through INDOT's Intersection Decision Guide, FHWA Alternative Intersection Guides are always used as the latter are in part captured in our agency's Decision Guide. Our Screening Tool VJuST was based on CAP-X and we have incorporated HCM based methodology for Unsignalized intersection. The tool also has Conflict as a Safety surrogate, which uses HSM methodology. The use of the tool to consider Innovative Intersection is part of different VDOT policies.

Individual Survey Responses 163 Table C-34. Individual DOT responses to Question 15 Q 15. What types of public outreach materials regarding alternative intersections has your agency developed (select all that apply)? Respondent Response Text Alabama My agency is in the process of developing public outreach material for alternative intersections Alaska Website; Other Arizona Website Arkansas My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections California My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections Colorado Website Connecticut Website; Flyer and/or pamphlet Delaware Website; Social media site; Flyer and/or pamphlet; Video; My agency uses materials from other agencies District of Columbia My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections Florida My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections Georgia My agency is in the process of developing public outreach material for alternative intersections; Website; Flyer and/or pamphlet; Video Hawaii My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections Idaho My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections Illinois My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections Indiana Website; Flyer and/or pamphlet; Video; My agency uses materials from other agencies Iowa Website; My agency uses materials from other agencies Kansas Video; My agency uses materials from other agencies; Kentucky Website; Social media site; Flyer and/or pamphlet; Video; My agency uses materials from other agencies Louisiana Website Maine Website; Flyer and/or pamphlet; Video; My agency uses materials from other agencies Maryland Website Massachusetts My agency is in the process of developing public outreach material for alternative intersections Michigan Flyer and/or pamphlet Minnesota My agency is in the process of developing public outreach material for alternative intersections; Website; Video Mississippi Social media site; Flyer and/or pamphlet; Video; Other Missouri Website; Video Montana Website; Video Nebraska Website Nevada Website

164 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q 15. What types of public outreach materials regarding alternative intersections has your agency developed (select all that apply)? Respondent Response Text New Hampshire My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections; Website New Jersey My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections New Mexico My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections New York Website; Flyer and/or pamphlet North Carolina Website; Flyer/and or pamphlet; My agency uses materials from other agencies North Dakota My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections; My agency is in the process of developing public outreach material for alternative intersections; Website; Video Ohio My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections Oklahoma My agency is in the process of developing public outreach material for alternative intersections; Website Oregon Website; Flyer and/or pamphlet; Video Pennsylvania My agency is in the process of developing public outreach material for alternative intersections; Website; Flyer and/or pamphlet; Video Rhode Island Website; Flyer and/or pamphlet; Video South Carolina My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections South Dakota My agency is in the process of developing public outreach material for alternative intersections Tennessee Video Texas My agency is in the process of developing public outreach material for alternative intersections; Website; Social media site; Video Utah Website; Social media site; Flyer and/or pamphlet; Video Vermont My agency is in the process of developing public outreach material for alternative intersections Virginia Website; Social media site; Video Washington Other West Virginia Website; Social media site; Video Wisconsin Website; Video Wyoming My agency has not developed public outreach material for alternative intersections

Individual Survey Responses 165 Table C-35. Resources submitted for Question 15 Q15. What types of public outreach materials regarding alternative intersections has your agency developed? If you answered “yes” to question 15, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Alaska General roundabout information Roundabout http://dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/dcstraffic/ roundabouts.shtml Alaska Project information on Glenn Highway/Muldoon Road DDI DDI - Arizona General outreach materials Roundabout https://www.azdot.gov/ABOUT/transpor tation-safety/roundabouts/overview Colorado Public outreach on safety benefits Roundabout https://www.codot.gov/projects/archived -project-sites/co-340-redlands- roundabout/roundabout-benefits Delaware General outreach, including links to videos and brochures Roundabout https://www.deldot.gov/Programs/roundabouts/index.shtml Delaware Public outreach brochure Roundabout https://www.deldot.gov/Programs/round abouts/pdfs/DelDOTBrochure.pdf?0618 14 Delaware Video on roundabouts in Delaware Roundabout https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL7 zqrLetEw&list=UUogvGV- OXFAsAFa2MIgVHYA Georgia Brochure Superstreet http://www.dot.ga.gov/DriveSmart/Safet yOperation/Documents/RCut/RCUT%2 0Brochure.pdf Georgia Electronic resources and links for roundabouts Roundabout http://www.dot.ga.gov/DS/SafetyOperation/Roundabouts Georgia Video Roundabout https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNM0W3qUwx0 Indiana General outreach materials Superstreet https://www.in.gov/indot/3660.htm Indiana Outreach material, including links to videos and brochures MUT, Superstreet https://www.in.gov/indot/3392.htm

166 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q15. What types of public outreach materials regarding alternative intersections has your agency developed? If you answered “yes” to question 15, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Iowa General outreach material, includes links to other resources Roundabout https://iowadot.gov/traffic/roundabouts/Roundabout-Resources Iowa General outreach materials Roundabout https://iowadot.gov/traffic/roundabouts Kansas Outreach video on roundabouts in Kansas Roundabout http://www.ksdot.org/burtrafficeng/Roun dabouts/Roundabout_Guide/Roundabo utGuide.asp Kentucky Brochure Roundabout https://edit.transportation.ky.gov/Conge stion- Toolbox/Documents/Modern%20Round abouts%20101.pdf Kentucky Virginia DOT outreach materials Various http://www.virginiadot.org/innovativeinte rsections/ Kentucky Video on driving roundabout Roundabout https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAi mpULnp2o Kentucky Webpage with various links Roundabout https://transportation.ky.gov/Congestion -Toolbox/Pages/Roundabouts.aspx Kentucky DCD Rendered Map (Harrodsburg Road at New Circle Road) DDI - Kentucky Double Crossover Diamond interchange newsletter article (innovative solution) DDI - Kentucky Double Crossover Diamond interchange public handout (US-68) DDI - Kentucky Public outreach FAQ for Harrodsburg Road at New Circle Road DCD DDI - Louisiana Brochure with general information and instructions Roundabout http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOT D/Divisions/Engineering/Traffic_Engine ering/Roundabouts/Roundabout%20Inf o%20and%20Instructions.pdf

Individual Survey Responses 167 Q15. What types of public outreach materials regarding alternative intersections has your agency developed? If you answered “yes” to question 15, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Maine Public Outreach Flyer Roundabout https://www.maine.gov/mdot/publication s/docs/brochures/roundaboutflyer06062 017.pdf Maine Roundabout informational poster Roundabout - Maine Video on proposed Bangor DDI (Eastbound and left thru) DDI https://youtu.be/bWpi7mZE688 Maine Video on proposed Bangor DDI (Existing and proposed side by side) DDI https://youtu.be/bu-Jqx2LpMo Maine Video on proposed Bangor DDI (NB Off ramp left) DDI https://youtu.be/sk89TyRTxhY Maryland News release on Maryland's first DDI DDI https://www.roads.maryland.gov/pages/ release.aspx?newsId=1159 Minnesota Public Outreach information Superstreet http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadwork/rci / Minnesota Video Superstreet https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10155533139497249 Missouri Public outreach materials, videos CFI, DDI, MUT, Roundabout, SPDI, Superstreet https://www.modot.org/highway- features-0 Montana Roundabout information, video embedded Roundabout https://www.mdt.mt.gov/visionzero/roads/roundabouts/ Nebraska Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Brochure Superstreet https://dot.nebraska.gov/media/11704/rcut-handout.pdf Nebraska General outreach material, including videos and brochure Roundabout https://dot.nebraska.gov/safety/driving/roundabouts/ Nevada Brochure Roundabout https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=108 Nevada General information on roadway safety improvements DDI, Roundabout https://www.nevadadot.com/safety/roadway-safety-improvements

168 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q15. What types of public outreach materials regarding alternative intersections has your agency developed? If you answered “yes” to question 15, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available New Hampshire Video on how to drive roundabout Roundabout https://www.nh.gov/dot/media/video/driv e-a-roundabout.htm New York Brochure Roundabout https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/roundabou ts/files/roundabout%20brochure5-2018- updated.pdf New York Roundabout information Roundabout https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/roundabou ts North Carolina General outreach material Superstreet https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives- policies/Transportation/safety- mobility/superstreets/Pages/default.asp x North Carolina Synchronized Street Pamphlet Superstreet https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/saf ety/Teppl/TEPPL%20All%20Document s%20Library/A24_SSB.pdf North Carolina Synchronized Streets Flyer Superstreet https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public- meetings/Documents/NCDOT_Synchro nized_Streets_Flier.pdf North Dakota Brochure for single-lane roundabouts Roundabout https://www.dot.nd.gov/projects/rounda bout/docs/NDWDT_12852_11x7_Rndbt Pstr_6_16-01.pdf North Dakota General outreach information Roundabout https://www.dot.nd.gov/projects/rounda bout/roundabout.htm North Dakota Video Roundabout https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s8Dytijq6I Oklahoma Information on first Oklahoma superstreet at US-62 Superstreet https://www.ok.gov/odot/J-Turn_Intersections_101.html Oregon Brochure Roundabout https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Enginee ring/Documents_RoadwayEng/Rounda bout-Driving-Brochure.pdf Oregon Public outreach materials, guidance for users and designers, videos Roundabout https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Pages/Roundabouts.aspx Oregon Video on SR 126 Roundabout Roundabout https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rec wE3uZXW4&list=PL6mL7JnVXhpg6IpB P1hdimUXsERHZ_aPZ Pennsylvania General outreach material, including videos Roundabout https://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPro grams/RoadDesignEnvironment/RoadD esign/Pages/Roundabouts.aspx

Individual Survey Responses 169 Q15. What types of public outreach materials regarding alternative intersections has your agency developed? If you answered “yes” to question 15, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Pennsylvania Multi-Lane Roundabout Information and Driving Tips for Motorists Roundabout https://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20580.pdf Pennsylvania Roundabout Informational Brochure for Bicyclists and Pedestrians Roundabout https://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20579.pdf Pennsylvania Single Lane Roundabout Information and Driving Tips for Motorists Roundabout https://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20578.pdf Rhode Island Brochure Roundabout http://www.dot.ri.gov/documents/comm unity/safety/RIDOT_Roundabout_Broch ure_2012.pdf Rhode Island Outreach Roundabout http://www.dot.ri.gov/community/safety/roundabouts.php Rhode Island U.S. DOT Video Roundabout https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhHzly_6lWM Tennessee Video on I-24 DDI DDI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAkUiRSzN7Y Utah DDI information DDI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd5AatLWvcg Utah How to navigate CFI CFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVI3Ledw7mc Virginia Informational Brochure Roundabout http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resource s/innovative_intersections/Roundabout _Final_082417.pdf Virginia Informational Brochure SPDI http://www.virginiadot.org/images/innov ate/SPUI_Final_082417.pdf Virginia Informational Brochure CGT http://www.virginiadot.org/images/innov ate/CGT_Final_082417.pdf Virginia Informational Brochure MUT http://www.virginiadot.org/images/innov ate/MUT_Final_091817.pdf Virginia Informational Brochure QRI http://www.virginiadot.org/images/innov ate/QR_Final_082417.pdf

170 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q15. What types of public outreach materials regarding alternative intersections has your agency developed? If you answered “yes” to question 15, please provide URL(s) for evaluation documents in the box below, upload files, or email files to brownhen@missouri.edu Respondent Resource Description Facility Type URL, if available Virginia Informational Brochure DDI http://www.virginiadot.org/images/innov ate/DDI_Final_082417_rotate.pdf Virginia Informational Brochure CFI http://www.virginiadot.org/images/innov ate/DLT_Final_082417.pdf Virginia Informational Brochure Superstreet https://www.virginiadot.org/images/inno vate/RCUT_Final_082417.pdf Virginia Outreach material for innovative intersections CGT, DDI, DLT, MUT, QRI, Superstreet, Roundabout, SPDI http://www.virginiadot.org/innovativeinte rsections/ Virginia Various innovative intersection videos CFI, CGT, DDI, MUT, QRI, Roundabout, SPDI, Superstreet https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P LiCpIfP- UWcAyWyzg75uZ0UI6m44evCeT West Virginia Facebook Various https://www.facebook.com/WVDOT/ West Virginia Twitter Various https://twitter.com/wvdot West Virginia Video on Fairmont roundabouts Roundabout https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=- _m8HzKTZK8 Wisconsin Includes links to materials on roundabouts and superstreets Roundabout, Superstreet https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/safety/s afety-eng/default.aspx Wisconsin YouTube channel that includes outreach videos Various https://www.youtube.com/user/wisdot

Individual Survey Responses 171 Table C-36. Comments for Question 15 Q 15. What types of public outreach materials regarding alternative intersections has your agency developed (select all that apply)? Comments: FHWA Alternative Intersection Web links As well, flyers/pamphlets are produced and distributed on a project by project basis, notably when it's the first of that intersection form in the area. Above-noted url on INDOT web page for superstreets (J- turns) includes video from Missouri DOT. Note all checks are project specific. Videos on the roundabout website from MO, WA, WI DelDOT Facebook/Twitter will usually link to the website. We like and use the FHWA videos and the relatively new videos and brochures developed by the Virginia DOT. These are project specific and go down after the project is complete. Search YouTube for "UDOT intersection" and you will find many videos that we have produced. We have a roundabout flyer and information on the website. MaineDOT has visited MODOT and has referenced their website for design and implementation of DDIs. See link to website previously provided. WisDOT YouTube channel has a lot of videos - search for specific topics in search bar: https://www.youtube.com/user/wisdot

172 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-37. Individual DOT Responses to Question 16 Q16. The synthesis will also include case examples demonstrating agency practices for alternative intersection design selection. The development of the case examples will require an additional follow-up interview. Agencies participating in the case examples will be provided with an opportunity to review the case example write-up. Would your agency be interested in participating in a case example? Respondent Response Text Alabama Yes Alaska No Arizona Yes Arkansas No California No Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware No District of Columbia No Florida No Georgia Yes Hawaii No Idaho No Illinois No Indiana Yes Iowa No Kansas Yes Kentucky No Louisiana No Maine Yes Maryland Yes Massachusetts No Michigan - Minnesota Yes Mississippi Yes Missouri Yes Montana No Nebraska No

Individual Survey Responses 173 Q16. The synthesis will also include case examples demonstrating agency practices for alternative intersection design selection. The development of the case examples will require an additional follow-up interview. Agencies participating in the case examples will be provided with an opportunity to review the case example write-up. Would your agency be interested in participating in a case example? Respondent Response Text Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina Yes North Dakota No Ohio No Oklahoma No Oregon No Pennsylvania No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee Yes Texas Yes Utah Yes Vermont No Virginia Yes Washington Yes West Virginia No Wisconsin Yes Wyoming No

174 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Table C-38. Comments for Question 16 Q16. The synthesis will also include case examples demonstrating agency practices for alternative intersection design selection. The development of the case examples will require an additional follow-up interview. Agencies participating in the case examples will be provided with an opportunity to review the case example write-up. Would your agency be interested in participating in a case example? Comments: RCUT-Bibb County Superstreet--US 280 metro Birmingham Superstreet--SR 182 Orange Beach We would be happy to share a presentation with you that has a few examples and based on that you can choose. Sure, we would be happy to talk about any number of our superstreet projects, especially for the safety benefits. Several of our signalized superstreet corridors, such as US-17 in Leland and NC-55 in Holly Springs, would be good case studies. Poplar Tent Road in Concord is a good case that includes a MUT, several superstreets, a DDI, and a roundabout. Finally, our quadrant intersection would be a good case to discuss. I can serve as initial contact for you, and bring in the right person for a particular case. Roundabout case examples are available DDI Case Study for Freight Accommodations, We have many roundabouts in operation and several that we have retrofitted to improve their operation. Contact INDOT Director of Traffic Engineering. Suggested locations: (1) US 41 at SR 114 J-turn (Indiana's first) (coordinates 40.940719, -87.435319) (2) US 231 at SR 62 north jct. (SR 68) J-turn (38.170200, -87.000517) (3) US 231 at SR 62 south jct. J-turn (38.154847, -86.9997870 (4) US 30 at SR 101 J-turn (Indiana's most recently built) (41.014270, -84.863691) (5) I-69 at SR 1 (Dupont Rd) DDI (Indiana's first) (41.178880, -85.103371) (6) I-65 at Worthsville Rd Indiana's 2nd DDI (39.587651, -86.063438) (7) I-65 at Emerson Av Indiana's 1st or 2nd SPDI ( 39.703664, -86.082541) (8) I-70 at US 27 Indiana's 1st or 2nd SPDI (39.872210, -84.888443) (9) I-65 at SR 46 SPDI ( 39.200394, -85.958078) (10) Allisonville Rd at East 96th Street in Fishers/Indianapolis Indiana's first boulevard/Michigan Left (39.926991, -86.066183), a local intersection so not by the state DOT therefore perhaps not the best to use as a case example Not at this time. Many RCI's, Roundabouts, and DDI's. Could provide several examples of each. At this point, we don't have specific locations in mind, but could work through details with the project team to identify case examples/locations. Location: Signalized Superstreet intersection on MD 3 at Waugh Chapel Rd in Anne Arundel County You can call me and I will try to arrange something

Individual Survey Responses 175 Table C-39. Comments for Question 17 Q17. Please provide any additional comments that you have regarding alternative intersection design and selection. Comments: Roundabouts are the most used alternative intersection in state. If you want to discuss these practices further, please reach out to me. I didn't volunteer for the case example because I don't know the time involvement. I might be willing if you call me to discuss details. All staff are project design and implementation of the capitol program. Free time is limited. There is an online knowledge base about more than twenty (20+) alternative intersection and interchange designs (http://attap.umd.edu/uids-knowlege-base/main.php) launched by MDOT SHA in collaboration with University of Maryland. We will have more alternative intersections completed and open to the public in about 2 years. Case studies will be available as more of these alternative intersections become operational in Florida. These alternatives have been slow to catch on in our state due to agency cultural resistance and some negative public attitudes. We have made some slow progress during the past 8-10 years as some of these alternatives have actually been implemented and proven to be beneficial. That along with a changing culture within our agency and citizens experiencing these alternatives both in other states and locally have made them more palatable and begun to accelerate our planning, design and implementation where deemed appropriate. Department has one DDI, two SPDIs, and 5 operational roundabouts. Many materials are in the process of being updated as schedule allows. I look forward to this synthesis coming out! Roundabouts are commonly used. There are few SPUIs and only one DDI. Any public outreach is done during the environmental process and construction. Illinois is open to all of the alternative intersection and interchange designs described in this survey. We have made our designers aware of these options by briefly identifying them in our Policy and also hosting training to help the districts/designers become more familiar with them (for example, an NHI training on roundabouts and alternative interchanges will have 30 attendees on 2/5 and 2/6/19). Our roundabout design policy is quite involved; other geometric designs will be covered in more detail in Policy as the need for this is identified over time by either the Central Office or designers in the districts. Additional thanks to DelDOT's Project Development, North section for assistance! There are no current MUT[s], DLT[s], or CFI[s], and getting support for those intersection types is difficult due to the resistance for the unknown. Roundabouts are only chosen when safety and local agency agree to support and placement is often not ideal due to the significant resistance to them. DDI are good solutions with decreasing opposition that will likely continue to see use at a rate of 2-3 per 10 years. SPUI[s] were very common about 10 years ago but we haven't built one in awhile, likely due to high cycle times (difficulty coordinated with adjacent intersections) and lack of guidance for SPUI over traditional diamond interchanges. Advocates for alternative intersection types are rare in the department and traditional intersection advocates are common and well supported by management.

176 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Q17. Please provide any additional comments that you have regarding alternative intersection design and selection. Comments: I have one additional evaluation study (Roundabout In-Service Review) that I will send when I get it. I will email it to the address provided, hopefully in the next few days - I'm just confirming that I have the final report. Please let me know if my uploads did not go through. As a state agency, we're still slowly embracing roundabouts and other alternative intersections even though the local agencies around us seem to have made the switch more quickly. We don't have any official state policy or guidelines, just the old fashion VE study and Traffic Study to help guide us in our decision making.

Next: Appendix D - Design Guidance and Standards for Departments of Transportation (DOTs) »
Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

State departments of transportation often encounter public resistance to alternative intersections, with 86% of respondents in a new survey of state DOTs agreeing or strongly agreeing that public resistance hinders their implementation. Public resistance can vary among projects based on intersection type and whether the project was initiated at the local or state level.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Synthesis 550: Alternative Intersection Design and Selection documents the evaluation and selection processes within state departments of transportation (DOTs) for intersection projects.

Roundabouts are the most widely implemented type of alternative intersection. Ninety percent of state DOTs that responded to the synthesis survey reported having at least one roundabout in their jurisdiction open and operational. Roundabouts also had the highest reported number of facilities in project development as 88% of respondents indicated there was at least one roundabout under development at their DOT.

  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!