National Academies Press: OpenBook

Alternative Intersection Design and Selection (2020)

Chapter: Appendix G - Summary of Operational Studies for Alternative Intersections

« Previous: Appendix F - Screening and Analysis Tools for Alternative Intersections
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Summary of Operational Studies for Alternative Intersections." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 199
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Summary of Operational Studies for Alternative Intersections." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 200
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Summary of Operational Studies for Alternative Intersections." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 201
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Summary of Operational Studies for Alternative Intersections." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 202
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Summary of Operational Studies for Alternative Intersections." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Alternative Intersection Design and Selection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25812.
×
Page 203

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.

199 Summary of Operational Studies for Alternative Intersections A P P E N D I X G Table G-1. Summary of operational studies for alternative intersections Intersection Type(s) Methodology Key Findings Reference Continuous flow intersection (CFI) Linear programming Developed optimization models for signal phases, coordinated signal timing, and pedestrian crossings Bai and Li 2017 CFI Mathematical model Left-turn length most important factor for CFI performance Carroll and Lahusen 2013 CFI Micro-simulation Developed signal control procedure that accounts for pedestrian wait time and queue length Coates et al. 2014 CFI Micro-simulation Comparable operational performance between CFI and parallel flow intersection Dhatrak et al. 2010 CFI Linear programming Tandem intersection with displaced left-turn had higher capacity (up to 83% improvement) than conventional intersection Hua et al. 2018 CFI Micro-simulation Developed models for CFI geometry for use at the planning level Yang et al. 2013 CFI Linear programming Developed models to optimize signal timing at asymmetric two-leg CFI Yang and Cheng 2017 CFI Non-linear and linear programming Proposed lane-based optimization model for lane markings, distance to crossovers, and signal timing Zhao et al. 2016 CFI, DDI, Superstreet Micro-simulation Proposed a junction delay measure for Level of Service (LOS) Sangster and Rakha 2015 CFI, Jughandle, Median U-turn (MUT), Roundabout Micro-simulation Found that MUT and CFI had the most potential for heavy volumes Tarko et al. 2008

200 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Intersection Type(s) Methodology Key Findings Reference DDI, Single point diamond interchange (SPDI) Micro-simulation SPDI provided higher capacity than DDI for balanced flow conditions, DDI performed better for volume imbalance greater than or equal to 30% - 70% Afshar et al. 2009 DDI Micro-simulation Developed recommendations for when DDI should be considered (typically left-turn capacity between 500 and 750 vehicles per hour per lane) Almoshaogeh et al. 2018 DDI Discrete event simulation DDI often good solution but not always best solution Anderson et al. 2012 DDI Micro-simulation DDI performed better than a conventional diamond interchange (CDI) for higher volumes Bared et al. 2006 DDI Micro-simulation evaluation of I-44 and Route 13 DDI in Springfield, Missouri DDI improved traffic flow and reduced traffic delay and queuing for left-turning vehicles Chilukuri et al. 2011 DDI Operations study of signal progression Includes guidance on crossover speeds and location and cycle length Chlewicki 2010 DDI Critical Lane Volume (CLV) DDI outperformed a CDI in two-thirds of the instances for which the DDI was more cost- effective than a CDI Chlewicki 2011 DDI Synthesis of practice Provided guidance regarding use of phasing schemes Cunningham, Schroeder, Phillips, Urbanik, Warchol, and Tanaka 2016 DDI Micro-simulation, field study Reducing number of phases at downstream adjacent signals increased capacity but created concerns about cost and disruption to users Cunningham, Warchol, and Schroeder 2016 DDI Micro-simulation Found tradeoffs in stops and delays for three cycle length strategies Day and Bullock 2016

Summary of Operational Studies for Alternative Intersections 201 Intersection Type(s) Methodology Key Findings Reference DDI CLV, Micro-simulation DDI performs better than conventional diamond when left-turn proportions are greater than 50% Guin et al. 2018 DDI CLV Developed methodology to evaluate DDI Maji et al. 2013 DDI Analytical model calibrated with micro- simulation Developed method to estimate approach capacity Pang et al. 2016 DDI Micro-simulation DDI improved operations, especially when ramp traffic is heavy Siromaskul and Speth 2008 DDI Analytical, field data Developed method to estimate additional lost time caused by presence of queues on internal links Yeom and Cunningham 2017 DDI Empirical analysis using before and after field data DDI generally performed better than CDI Yeom et al. 2015 DDI Field data Developed lane utilization models Yeom et al. 2017 DDI Micro-simulation Use of Relaxed Bowtie, superstreet, or DDI at adjacent intersections can help improve capacity at nearby signals Zhang and Kronprasert 2015 DDI, Roundabout Diamond, SPDI Micro-simulation SPDI had lowest average delays and shortest queues Tarko et al. 2017a Jughandle Micro-simulation Jughandle reduced average intersection delay and increased capacity when traffic conditions nearly saturated Jagannathan 2007b MUT Research MUTs increase capacity by 20% to 50% Michigan Department of Transportation (DOT) n.d.

202 Alternative Intersection Design and Selection Intersection Type(s) Methodology Key Findings Reference MUT Non-linear programming Proposed lane-based optimization model for lane markings, distance to median crossovers, and signal timing Zhao et al. 2014 Quadrant Roadway Intersection (QRI) Micro-simulation QRI reduced system travel time by 22% compared to conventional intersection Reid 2000 SPDI Field study Smaller designs performed better; Use of continuous frontage roads appeared to inhibit performance Dorothy et al. 1997 SPDI Micro-simulation SPDI provided better performance than a tight diamond interchange (TDI) with higher travel speeds and fewer stops and phase failures Jones and Selinger 2003 SPDI Critical-movement analysis, field data, simulation data TDI generally performed better Lee et al. 2002 SPDI Micro-simulation TDI performed better than SPDI with frontage roads for average delay, average speed, and average queue length Yue et al. 2018 Superstreet Field study Wait time at superstreet half the wait time of two-way stop- controlled intersection; Travel time 1 minute longer for superstreet Edara et al. 2015 Superstreet Micro-simulation Signalized superstreet reduced travel times and increased capacity Haley et al. 2011 Superstreet Field evaluation Lower queue times for superstreet; large vehicles did not adversely impact operations Hallmark et al. 2016 Superstreet Micro-simulation Superstreet resulted in lower overall average time per vehicle traveling through the intersection Hummer et al. 2010 Superstreet Field evaluation Superstreet increased travel time by 1 minute for vehicles crossing or turning left from minor road Inman and Haas 2012

Summary of Operational Studies for Alternative Intersections 203 Intersection Type(s) Methodology Key Findings Reference Superstreet Micro-simulation Superstreet with one U-turn lane performed better than conventional intersection for heavy volumes Kim et al. 2007 Superstreet Micro-simulation Superstreet performed better operationally than two-way stop controlled intersection Morello and Sangster 2018 Superstreet Micro-simulation Superstreet had less delay than conventional intersection Taha and Abdelfatah 2015

Next: Appendix H - Summary of Safety Evaluations of Alternative Intersections »
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!