DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Innovative Alternative Intersection Designs in the Development of Safety Performance Functions and Crash Modification Factors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Final Report Contract BDV24-977-27 Evaluation of Innovative Alternative Intersection Designs in the Development of Safety Performance Functions and Crash Modification Factors Mohamed A. Abdel-Aty, Ph.D., P.E. Jaeyoung Lee, Ph.D. Jinghui Yuan, Ph.D. Lishengsa Yue, Ph.D. Ma’en Al-Omari, Ph.D. Student Ahmed Abdelrahman, Ph.D. Student University of Central Florida Department of Civil, Environmental & Construction Engineering Orlando, FL 32816-2450 May 2020 DISCLAIMER “The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation.” ii UNITS CONVERSION APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL AREA in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL SYMBOL VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg iii T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or Mg (or "t") "metric ton") SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oF Fahrenheit 5(F-32)/9 or (F-32)/1.8 Celsius oC SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL ILLUMINATION fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N lbf/in2 poundforce per square 6.89 kilopascals kPa inch SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 ha hectares 2.47 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 iv SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL VOLUME mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz L liters 0.264 gallons gal m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL MASS g grams 0.035 ounces oz kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric 1.103 short tons (2000 T ton") lb) SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL ILLUMINATION lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per lbf/in2 square inch v TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Evaluation of Innovative Alternative Intersection Designs in the March 2020 Development of Safety Performance Functions and Crash Modification 6. Performing Organization Code Factors 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Mohamed A. Abdel-Aty, Ph.D., P.E.; Jaeyoung Lee, Ph.D.; Jinghui Yuan, Ph.D.; Lishengsa Yue, Ph.D. Student; Ma’en Al-Omari, Ph.D. Student; Ahmed Abdelrahman, Ph.D. Student 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Department of Civil, Environmental & Construction Engineering University of Central Florida 11. Contract or Grant No. 12800 Pegasus Drive, Suite 211 BDV24-977-31 Orlando, FL 32816-2450 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Florida Department of Transportation Final Deliverable 2018-2020 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Note 16. Abstract Many alternative intersections aim to reduce conflict points by separating turning vehicles (left-turning vehicles in most cases) at intersections. In order to investigate the safety effects of alternative intersections, data were collected from 27 states, including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The ten alternative intersections that were investigated in this project included continuous green T-intersections, median U-turn intersections (Types A, B, and partial), continuous flow intersections, jughandle intersections (Types 1-3), restricted crossing U-turn intersections, and diverging diamond interchanges. It was shown that the restricted crossing U-turn intersections are the most effective to minimize the equivalent property damage only (EPDO), fatal-and-injury, and angle crashes. The median U-turn intersections (Type A and Type B) are the best for reducing total and rear-end crashes, respectively. For minimizing left-turn crashes, implementing jughandle (Type 1) is the most effective, and the continuous flow intersection is the most effective for minimizing non-motorized crashes. It was also shown that converting conventional diamond interchanges to diverging diamond interchanges could significantly decrease the total, fatal-and-injury, PDO, rear-end, and angle crashes by 14%, 44%, 8%, 11%, and 55%, respectively. Fifty intersections were identified as the top 1% intersections with the highest crash risk in FL. It was found that rear- end crashes are the most frequent, ‘most problematic’ crash type, followed by left-turn crashes. For each hotspot intersection, two different alternative intersections were suggested to minimize (1) the most problematic crash type and (2) overall EPDO. In addition to exploring the safety effects of the alternative intersections, it was shown that signalization is effective in reducing severe crash types (e.g., angle, left-turn); whereas it significantly increases rear-end crashes by 66% to 195%. Also, it was found that signalization significantly increased the number of rear- end crashes for elderly drivers. 17. Key Word 18. Distribution Statement alternative intersections; intersection safety; safety performance functions; crash modification factors; crash modification functions; hotspot identification 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified 455 vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Intersections have been of major interest to traffic engineers because there are many conflicts between road users and they pose considerable exposure to safety risk and traffic congestion. In order to alleviate the safety and congestion problems, several types of alternative intersection designs have been suggested and implemented in some states. It would be useful and important to evaluate the alternative intersections that have been implemented in other states and predict their effects when they are implemented in Florida. Many alternative intersections aim to reduce conflict points by separating turning vehicles (left- turning vehicles in most of the cases) at intersections. In order to investigate the safety effects of alternative intersections, data were collected from 27 states, including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The ten alternative intersections that were investigated in this project include continuous green T-intersections, median U-turn intersections (Types A, B, and partial), continuous flow intersections, jughandle intersections (Types 1-3), restricted crossing U-turn intersections, and diverging diamond interchanges. It was shown that the restricted crossing U-turn intersections are the most effective to minimize the equivalent property damage only (EPDO), fatal-and-injury, and angle crashes. The median U-turn intersections (Type A and Type B) are the best for reducing total and rear- end crashes, respectively. For minimizing left-turn crashes, implementing jughandle (Type 1) is the most effective, and the continuous flow intersection is the most effective for minimizing non-motorized crashes. vii Fifty intersections were identified as the top 1% intersection with the highest crash risk. It was found that rear-end crashes are the most frequent, ‘most problematic’ crash type, and left-turn crashes follow. For each hotspot intersection, two different alternative intersections were suggested to minimize (1) the most problematic crash type and (2) overall EPDO. In addition to exploring the safety effects of the alternative intersections, it was shown that the signalization is effective in reducing severe crash types (e.g., angle, left-turn); whereas it significantly increases rear-end crashes by 66% to 195%. Also, it was found that signalization significantly increased the number of rear-end crashes for elderly drivers. This study also evaluated the safety benefits of diverging diamond interchanges (DDIs) in comparison to the conventional diamond interchanges. Three methods were adopted to estimate the crash modification factors (CMFs), which are before-and-after with comparison group (CG), Empirical Bayes before-and-after (EB), and the cross-sectional analysis. The studied sample included 80 DDIs and 240 conventional diamond interchanges as comparison sites located in 24 states. Different data types were collected to conduct the analysis. First, multi-year crash data were acquired from the various states. Then, traffic and geometric features were collected, including annual average daily traffic (AADT), speed limits, and the distance between crossovers or ramp terminals.
Recommended publications
  • SIMULATION of DIFFERENT INTERSECTION DESIGN for IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW with FACTORS CONSIDERING LOCATION, POPULATION and DRIVER EXPECTANCY Sourabh Kumar Singh Dr

    SIMULATION of DIFFERENT INTERSECTION DESIGN for IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW with FACTORS CONSIDERING LOCATION, POPULATION and DRIVER EXPECTANCY Sourabh Kumar Singh Dr

    Science, Technology and Development ISSN : 0950-0707 SIMULATION OF DIFFERENT INTERSECTION DESIGN FOR IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW WITH FACTORS CONSIDERING LOCATION, POPULATION AND DRIVER EXPECTANCY Sourabh Kumar Singh Dr. Anil kunte Associate Professor, Research Scholar, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Department of Civil Department of Civil Engineering Engineering, Shri JJT Engineering, Shri JJT Noida International University University University Dr. Paritosh Srivastava Abstract: In today’s economic growth the vehicular traffic is increasing day by day, which leads to failure of intersections before their time period. To increase the efficiency of these failed intersections the engineers added lanes to the existing major and minor roads, but this method do not give results which it used to deliver in the past, hence other methods were adopted. So to increase the efficiency and fulfil the criteria for successful intersection ,to cape with it several intersection are designed which are unconventional in nature like jug handle, bow tie, continuous flow intersection and median u turn which are very effective in increasing green time on highway and minor roads. The software used in this study is Auto- cad for planning and drawing purpose which can be used in sim-traffic software which will be used for simulation purpose of the traffic flow on different designs of intersections. The factors which are considered in this study are -location of town centre, population of the zone and driver expectancy. The final conclusion of this study is that continuous flow intersection provides the best results when the traffic is increased. The construction cost is least in median u turn and giving maximum result than all other intersections.
  • Community Meeting for Mary Avenue Grade Separation, Aug. 10, 2017

    Community Meeting for Mary Avenue Grade Separation, Aug. 10, 2017

    Caltrain Grade Separation Feasibility Study Mary Avenue Railroad Crossing Community Meeting August 10, 2017 Agenda • Meeting format review • Goals and context • Mary Avenue options Feedback • Q and A • Next steps • Adjourn 2 Caltrain Grade Separations Project Goals Improve Safety (LUTE Policy 24, 36, 40, 41, 42, 46) Enhance Reduce Ped/Bike Traffic Delay Access (LUTE Policy 32, 42) (LUTE Policy 24, 33, 36, 41) 4 Project Context 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 Average Daily Ridership Daily Average 20,000 76 trains 92 trains 114 trains (2003) (2016) +80-106 HSR (2040) Caltrain Grade Separation – VTA Program Description Sunnyvale has 2 of the 8 at grade crossings VTA criteria include cost efficiency and Complete Streets 6 Screening Alternatives Screening • Establish rail and road criteria Alternatives • Identify existing conditions • Develop cursory design of alternatives • Identify impacts and constraints Impacts • Bring results to community Variants of • Identify feasible alternatives Screening • Develop variants to minimize impacts Alternatives • Engage community for input 7 Initial Screening Alternatives 8 At-grade Railroad Crossing Grade Separated Crossing - Overpass At-grade Railroad Crossing Grade Separated Crossing - Underpass Design Criteria Roadway Railroad Grades 4.75% 1.2% max Design speed 30 - 45 mph 79 mph for shoofly (temp rail) Based on posted speed 110 mph for final condition plus 5 mph Bridge depth 5’ 6.75’ Supporting roadway Supporting railroad Vertical clearance Underpass Overpass 15.5’ over roadway 27’ over railroad Roadway
  • MN MUTCD Chapter 2H

    MN MUTCD Chapter 2H

    Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS 2B.1 Application of Regulatory Signs ..........................................................................................2B-1 2B.2 Design of Regulatory Signs ..................................................................................................2B-1 2B.3 Size of Regulatory Signs ......................................................................................................2B-1 2B.4 Right-of-Way at Intersections ...............................................................................................2B-7 2B.5 STOP Sign (R1-1) and ALL WAY Plaque (R1-3P) ...............................................................2B-8 2B.6 STOP Sign Applications .......................................................................................................2B-9 2B.7 Multi-Way Stop Applications ...............................................................................................2B-9 2B.8 YIELD Sign (R1-2) ..............................................................................................................2B-10 2B.9 YIELD Sign Applications .....................................................................................................2B-10 2B.10 STOP Sign or YIELD Sign Placement .................................................................................2B-10 2B.11 Stop Here For Pedestrians Signs (R1-5 Series) ....................................................................2B-11 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian
  • Median U-Turn Intersections Cost

    Median U-Turn Intersections Cost

    System Modification Innovative Intersections MEDIAN U-TURN INTERSECTIONS COST TIME MODERATE STATE MINOR STREET MINOR STREET O REGI NAL IMPACT LOCAL RID OR OR MAJOR STREET MAJOR STREET C PT HO HURDES MAJOR STREET MOVEMENTS MINOR STREET MOVEMENTS CITSTATE RIHT-O-A PUIC ACCEPTANCE More Information: tti.tamu.edu/policy/how-to-fix-congestion SUCCESS STORIES Description How Will This Help? Plano, Texas. In 2011, the City Median U-turn intersections (also called • Costs less and is faster to of Plano installed the state’s only a thruturn or Michigan left) guide all traf- deploy than other innovative median U-turn intersection at fic, except left-turning vehicles, through intersection designs. Legacy Drive and Preston Road. the main intersection. Left-turning vehi- • Simplifies the traffic signal cles turn through U-turn openings in the The intersection timings for the intersection and dramatically improved median beyond the main intersection. whole corridor by eliminating the congestion by reducing Eliminating the left turn at the main need for a left-turn arrow. intersection wait intersection simplifies signal timings and times by 65%. provides more green time and less con- • Increases safety at the gestion to the major direction. intersection by eliminating traffic However, the design conflicts caused by left turns. was abandoned in 2014 Median U-turn intersections are similar due to a lack of public to superstreets but differ in that medi- Implementation Issues understanding and an U-turns allow minor street traffic to This intersection design can require acceptance. pass straight through the intersection. additional right-of-way to accommodate Superstreet intersections require all the U-turn turning radius in the median.
  • In Safe Hands How the Fia Is Enlisting Support for Road Safety at the Highest Levels

    In Safe Hands How the Fia Is Enlisting Support for Road Safety at the Highest Levels

    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE FIA: Q1 2016 ISSUE #14 HEAD FIRST RACING TO EXTREMES How racing driver head From icy wastes to baking protection could be deserts, AUTO examines how revolutionised thanks to motor sport conquers all pioneering FIA research P22 climates and conditions P54 THE HARD WAY WINNING WAYS Double FIA World Touring Car Formula One legend Sir Jackie champion José Maria Lopez on Stewart reveals his secrets for his long road to glory and the continued success on and off challenges ahead P36 the race track P66 P32 IN SAFE HANDS HOW THE FIA IS ENLISTING SUPPORT FOR ROAD SAFETY AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS ISSUE #14 THE FIA The Fédération Internationale ALLIED FOR SAFETY de l’Automobile is the governing body of world motor sport and the federation of the world’s One of the keys to bringing the fight leading motoring organisations. Founded in 1904, it brings for road safety to global attention is INTERNATIONAL together 236 national motoring JOURNAL OF THE FIA and sporting organisations from enlisting support at the highest levels. over 135 countries, representing Editorial Board: millions of motorists worldwide. In this regard, I recently had the opportunity In motor sport, it administers JEAN TODT, OLIVIER FISCH the rules and regulations for all to engage with some of the world’s most GERARD SAILLANT, international four-wheel sport, influential decision-makers, making them SAUL BILLINGSLEY including the FIA Formula One Editor-in-chief: LUCA COLAJANNI World Championship and FIA aware of the pressing need to tackle the World Rally Championship. Executive Editor: MARC CUTLER global road safety pandemic.
  • Multi-Purpose Trails Plan

    Multi-Purpose Trails Plan

    CITY OF COSTA MESA MULTI-PURPOSE TRAILS PLAN JUNE 2016 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Costa Mesa Multi-Purpose Trails Plan was prepared under the guidance of: Raja Sethuraman, Transportation Services Manager This plan was prepared by KTU+A Planning + Landscape Architecture: John Holloway, Principal, PLA, ASLA, LCI Joe Punsalan, Senior Associate, GISP, PTP, LCI Alison Moss, Associate Mobility Planner, AICP Beth Chamberlin, Associate Planner Juan Alberto Bonilla, Planner Diana Smith, GISP, GIS Manager Kristin Bleile, GIS Analyst This is a project for the City of Costs Mesa with funding provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Sustainability Program. The Sustainability Program is a key SCAG initiative for implementing the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS), combining Compass Blueprint assistance for integrated land use and transportation planning with new Green Region Initiative assistance aimed at local sustainability and Active Transportation assistance for bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts. Sustainability Projects are intended to provide SCAG-member jurisdictions the resources to implement regional policies at the local level, focusing on voluntary efforts that will meet local needs and contribute to implementing the SCS, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and providing the range of local and regional benefits outlined in the SCS. The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant(s) from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in accordance with the provisions under the Metropolitan Planning Program as set forth in Section 104(f) of Title 23 of the U.S. Code. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein.
  • Attachment 1 Concept Intersection Designs

    Attachment 1 Concept Intersection Designs

    ATTACHMENT 1 CONCEPT INTERSECTION DESIGNS Ruakaka Service Centre Traffic Impact Assessment Issue E – Draft Ref: 17101 SH 1 Prescott Road Project Title Designed P Kelly Drawn A Zhong Project No - (Sheet No) Scales 1:1000 (A3) Ruakaka Service Centre 17101 - G - (7) TRAFFIC PLANNING CONSULTANTS LTD Checked P Kelly Approved T Langwell Date 27.08.19 Sheet Title Level 1, 400 Titirangi Rd, Titirangi, P.O Box 60-255, Auckland 0604 This drawing is the property of Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd. It is an instrument of service, and as such is a confidential document. It Phone: 09 817-2500 www.trafficplanning.co.nz Overall Plan therefore cannot be traced, scanned, copied, reproduced, used or exhibited by any third party without the express permission in writing of Rev Revisions By Date Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd SH 1 Prescott Road Project Title Designed P Kelly Drawn A Zhong Project No - (Sheet No) Scales 1:1000 (A3) Ruakaka Service Centre 17101 - G - (8) TRAFFIC PLANNING CONSULTANTS LTD Checked P Kelly Approved T Langwell Date 27.08.19 Sheet Title Level 1, 400 Titirangi Rd, Titirangi, P.O Box 60-255, Auckland 0604 This drawing is the property of Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd. It is an instrument of service, and as such is a confidential document. It Phone: 09 817-2500 www.trafficplanning.co.nz Overall Plan therefore cannot be traced, scanned, copied, reproduced, used or exhibited by any third party without the express permission in writing of Rev Revisions By Date Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd 42.2m 275m 5.3m Guide To RoadTable Design
  • Interchange Modification Report

    Interchange Modification Report

    INTERSTATE 75 AND STATE ROAD 884 (COLONIAL BOULEVARD) INTERCHANGE LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION REPORT Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation – District One February 2015 Interchange Modification Report Interstate 75 and State Road 884 (Colonial Boulevard), Lee County, Florida I, Akram M. Hussein, Florida P.E. Number 58069, have prepared or reviewed/supervised the traffic analysis contained in this study. The study has been prepared in accordance and following guidelines and methodologies consistent with FHWA, FDOT and Lee County policies and technical standards. Based on traffic count information, general data sources, and other pertinent information, I certify that this traffic analysis has been prepared using current and acceptable traffic engineering and transportation planning practices and procedures. ______________________________ Akram M. Hussein, P.E. #58069 ______________________________ Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1-1 SECTION 2 PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................. 2-1 SECTION 3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 3-1 SECTION 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 4-1 4.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 4-5 4.2 TRAFFIC FACTORS .........................................................................................................
  • PBOT Traffic Design Manual Volume 1

    PBOT Traffic Design Manual Volume 1

    Traffic Design Manual Volume 1: Permanent Traffic Control and Design CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON January 2020 Updated June 2021 0 of 135 Table of Contents Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 1 Permanent Traffic Control Signs ............................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Regulatory Signs ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Warning Signs .................................................................................................................................. 17 1.3 Guide Signs....................................................................................................................................... 21 2 Pavement Markings ................................................................................................................................. 31 2.1 Centerlines ........................................................................................................................................ 31 2.2 Lane Widths ...................................................................................................................................... 33 2.3 Turn
  • SPOT Pre-6 Division 6

    SPOT Pre-6 Division 6

    SPOT Online Specific Improvement Local comments (from Design notes from Coordination SpotID Project Category ROUTE Cross Street To Street First MPO/RPO First Division TTS Notes Description provided by Requestor Analysis Team Recommendation Design Comments Response to Requestor Submitter Type SPOT online) calls with MPOs/RPOs/DOT US 74/76 BUS @ SR 1005 ‐ Construct a US 76 BUS, US 74 BUS, NC SR 1005 (Peacock 10 ‐ Improve Will analyze and report H184044 Cape Fear RPO Regional Impact Cape Fear RPO Division 6 ‐19000 roundabout on US 74/64 BUS/NC 130 As requested 1 Lane Roundabout 130 (Chadbourn Hwy) Rd) Intersection travel time savings (Chadbourn Hwy) at SR 1005 (Peacock Hwy). What is different this time? H170193 analyzed from 701 to Pireway. This request is from Pireway to 5th Street (NC 410). They also US 701 BYP ‐ Widen US 701 Bypass to a 4‐lane US 701 Superstreet for intersections of US requested H184206 that goes to Joe Brown Hwy. R‐5952 only for Directional Cross‐Over Superstreet at Pireway and 5th SR 1305 4 ‐ Upgrade Arterial superstreet from R‐5952 at SR 1503 (Complex Will analyze and report H184205 Cape Fear RPO Regional Impact US 701 BYP BUS/NC 410 Cape Fear RPO Division 6 68000 701 with 5th and Pireway (R‐5952 Complex and 701? Have model Have counts. Expand Complex St OD. with 1‐Lane Bulb Outs Street. Discuss further with (Complex St) to Superstreet St) to US 701 Business/NC 410 (E 5th St) in travel time savings (E 5th St) was just for 701 and Complex) Take H170193 model, extend model to include NC 410 Bus (5th Street).
  • Public Involvement/Education on Alternative Intersection/Interchange Designs

    Public Involvement/Education on Alternative Intersection/Interchange Designs

    GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 17-26 FINAL REPORT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/EDUCATION ON ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION/INTERCHANGE DESIGNS OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH 600 WEST PEACHTREE NW ATLANTA, GA 30308 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-GA-20-1726 N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Public Involvement/Education on Alternative Intersection/Interchange September 2020 Designs 6. Performing Organization Code N/A 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Michael O. Rodgers, Ph.D. (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6608-9333); N/A Franklin Gbologah, Ph.D. (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0235-4278); Kameria E. Abdella; Torrey Bodiford 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Georgia Tech Research Corporation N/A School of Civil and Environmental Engineering 11. Contract or Grant No. 790 Atlantic Dr. NW, Atlanta, GA 30332 RP17-26 Phone: (404) 385-0569 Email: [email protected] 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Georgia Department of Transportation Final Report (March 2018 – September 2020) Office of Performance-based Management and Research 600 West Peachtree St. NW 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Atlanta, GA 30308 N/A 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract Given the recent introduction of many innovative designs, still relatively limited material exists that explains the concepts, tradeoffs, and benefits underlying such innovative intersection designs in a form accessible to the general public. This project was designed to both test the effectiveness of existing GDOT public information materials and to develop a library of additional presentation materials to support and supplement these existing communications materials.
  • Alternative Intersections Comparative Analysis

    Alternative Intersections Comparative Analysis

    Alternative Intersections Comparative Analysis Morgan State University The Pennsylvania State University University of Maryland University of Virginia Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University West Virginia University The Pennsylvania State University The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute Transportation Research Building University Park, PA 16802-4710 Phone: 814-865-1891 Fax: 814-863-3707 www.mautc.psu.edu OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS By: John Sangster and Hesham Rakha Mid-Atlantic University Transportation Center Final Report Department of Civil and Environment Engineering Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University July 23, 2015 1 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. VT-2012-03 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Operational Analysis of Alternative Intersections July 21, 2015 6. Performing Organization Code Virginia Tech 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. John Sangster and Hesham Rakha 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 3500 Transportation Research Plaza 11. Contract or Grant No. Blacksburg, VA 24061 DTRT12-G-UTC03 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report US Department of Transportation Final Report Research & Innovative Technology Admin UTC Program, RDT-30 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Alternative intersections and interchanges, such as the diverging diamond interchange (DDI), the restricted crossing u-turn (RCUT), and the displaced left-turn intersection (DLT), have the potential to both improve safety and reduce delay. However, partially due to lingering questions about analysis methods and service measures for these designs, their rate of implementation remains low.