(2018) a Model to Evaluate Various Unsignalized Intersection
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A MODEL TO EVALUATE VARIOUS UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION GEOMETRIES AND OPERATIONS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE LOCATIONS TO USE IN LIEU OF A TRADITIONAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION by MICHAEL HOWARD SCHRADER DISSERTATION Submitted to the Graduate School of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2018 MAJOR: CIVIL ENGINEERING Approved By: Advisor Date © COPYRIGHT BY MICHAEL HOWARD SCHRADER 2018 All Rights Reserved DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my late father, Howard George Schrader, one of the many unsung engineering heroes who devoted a lifetime to the engineering profession, making the world a better place. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following people and organizations have contributed to the successful completion of this research: Members of my committee, past and present‐ Drs. Joseph Hummer, Carol Miller, Darin Ellis, Stephen Remias, and Timothy Gates. Those who assisted with data collection ‐ Victoria Schrader; the students of my CE 4600 class; the Transportation Research Group of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of Wayne State University. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii List of Tables xii List of Figures xiii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 General 1 1.2 Importance of this research 3 1.3 Research overview 6 Chapter 2: Research Objectives 12 2.1 Overall paradigm 12 2.2 Scope of this research 15 2.2.1 Alternative intersections: roundabouts 16 2.2.2 Alternative intersections: raised medians 18 2.2.3 Alternative intersections: Median U‐turn (MUT) 18 2.2.4 Alternative intersections: Redirected Crossing U‐turn (RCUT) 21 2.2.5 Alternative intersections: Indirect Left and Crossing (ILAC) 22 2.3 Summary of purpose and scope 23 Chapter 3: Literature Review 27 3.1 General 27 3.2 Safety 28 3.2.1 Operational changes that affect safety 28 iv 3.2.2 Geometric changes that affect safety 32 3.3 Alternative intersections 33 3.3.1 Roundabouts 33 3.3.2 Median U‐Turns (MUTs) 36 3.3.3 Redirected Crossing U‐Turns (RCUTs) 38 3.3.4 Indirect Left and Crossing (ILACs) 41 3.4 Environmental and sociological considerations 44 3.5 Comparison and evaluation strategies 47 3.5.1 Monetization of Benefits and Costs 48 3.5.2 Design Charrette (Analysis by committee) 50 3.5.3 Data Envelopment Analysis 52 3.5.4 Analytic Hierarchy Process 52 3.5.5 Rank Scoring Matrix 53 3.5.6 Weighted Ranking Evaluation 55 3.5.7 Objective Ranking 56 3.5.8 Normalized numbers 57 3.6 Current state of the practice in evaluation of unsignalized geometric alternatives 57 3.7 Summary of literature review 60 Chapter 4: Methodology 63 4.1 Signalized versus unsignalized theory and practice 63 4.2 The unsignalized geometry model 64 4.2.1 Travel time benefit (B$TT) 67 v 4.2.2 Delay benefit (B$D) 71 4.2.3 Maintenance and operation benefit (B$M&O) 71 4.2.4 Runoff benefit (B$R) 72 4.2.5 Stopping benefit (B$S) 74 4.2.6 Construction costs (C$C) 75 4.3 Operational parameters to be compared 77 4.3.1 Traditional signalized operational scenario 78 4.3.2 “Worst case” alternative unsignalized operational scenario 79 4.3.3 “Best case” alternative unsignalized operational scenario 80 4.4 Social impacts 88 4.4.1 Impact on vehicular speeds 90 4.4.2 Impact on pedestrian crossing opportunities 96 4.5 Summary of methodology 103 Chapter 5: Analysis 105 5.1 Design and geometric considerations 105 5.2 Social cost analysis: pedestrian gaps 113 5.3 Signalized intersections reviewed or analyzed 117 5.3.1 City Center subcorridor 118 5.3.2 Belle Isle Access subcorridor 120 5.3.3 Depopulated Zone subcorridor 121 5.3.4 Conner Creek Industrial subcorridor 123 5.3.5 Suburban Transition subcorridor 124 vi 5.4 Affirmation of the methodology 125 Chapter 6: Conclusions 132 6.1 Objectives of this study 132 6.2 Utility and applicability of the methodology 133 6.3 Strengths of the methodology 134 6.4 Weaknesses of the methodology 137 6.5 Opportunities for futher study 138 Appendix A: Corridor Progression Analysis 141 A.1 Purpose of progression analysis 141 A.2 Existing conditions 141 A.2.1 Timing 141 A.2.2 Spacing 142 A.2.3 Two‐way progression 144 A.2.4 Eastbound predominate progression 146 A.2.5 Westbound predominate progression 146 A.3 Proposed conditions 149 A.3.1 Timing 149 A.3.2 Spacing 150 A.3.3 Two‐way progression 151 A.3.4 Eastbound predominate progression 153 A.3.5 Westbound predominate progression 153 A.4 Summary of corridor progression analysis 155 vii Appendix B: Detailed Description of Intersections 157 B.1 City Center subcorridor 157 B.1.1 Signalized Intersection 1: Rivard Street 157 B.1.2 Unsignalized intersections: Riopelle Street, Orleans Street 158 B.1.3 Signalized Intersection 2: Saint Aubin Street (North leg) 159 B.1.4 Unsignalized intersection: Saint Aubin Street (South leg) 162 B.1.5 Signalized Intersection 3: Dubois Street 162 B.1.6 Signalized Intersection 4: Chene Street 164 B.1.7 Signalized Intersection 5: Joseph Campau Street 165 B.1.8 Unsignalized intersection: McDougall Street (South leg) 167 B.1.9 Signalized Intersections 6 & 7: McDougall Street (North leg)/ Walker Street and Mount Elliott Street 167 B.1.10 Unsignalized intersections: Adair Street, Leib Street 169 B.1.11 Unsignalized intersections: Iron Street, Meldrum Street (North leg), Meldrum Street (South leg), Jefferson Court, Beaufait Street, Bellevue Street, Concord Street 170 B.2 Belle Isle Access subcorridor 175 B.2.1 Unsignalized intersections: Canton Street, Helen Street 175 B.2.2 Signalized Intersection 8: East Grand Boulevard 176 B.2.3 Unsignalized intersections: Field Street, Sheridan Street 177 B.3 Depopulated Zone subcorridor 179 B.3.1 Unsignalized intersection: Townsend Street 179 B.3.2 Signalized Intersections 9 & 10: Baldwin Street, Seyburn Street 179 B.3.3 Signalized Intersections 11 & 12: Van Dyke Street, Parker Street 181 viii B.3.4 Unsignalized intersections: Seminole Street, Iroqouis Street 184 B.3.5 Signalized Intersection 13: Burns Street 184 B.3.6 Unsignalized intersections: Fischer Street, Crane Street 187 B.3.7 Signalized Intersection 14: Hibbard Street 188 B.3.8 Unsignalized intersections: Holcomb Street, Fiske Drive, Belvidere Street, Lodge Drive 190 B.3.9 Signalized Intersection 15: McClellan Avenue 191 B.3.10 Unsignalized intersections: Parkview Drive, Parkview Street Pennsylvania Street 193 B.3.11 Signalized Intersection 16: Cadillac Boulevard 195 B.3.12 Unsignalized intersections: Hurlbut Street, Waterworks Park, Bewick Street 197 B.3.13 Signalized Intersection 17: Garland Street/Marquette Drive 198 B.3.14 Unsignalized intersection: Saint Clair Street 200 B.3.15 Signalized Intersection 18: Harding Street 200 B.3.16 Unsignalized intersections: Meadowbrook Street, Montclair Street, Lemay Street, Fairview Street 203 B.3.17 Signalized Intersection 19: Lillibridge Street 206 B.3.18 Unsignalized intersections: Beniteau Street, Defer Place 208 B.4 Conner Creek Industrial subcorridor 208 B.4.1 Signalized Intersection 20: Saint Jean Street 208 B.4.2 Unsignalized intersections: Glover Street, Lycaste Street, Hart Street, Terminal Street 210 B.4.3 Signalized Intersection 21: Conner Street 213 B.5 Suburban Transition subcorridor 215 ix B.5.1 Unsignalized intersections: Navahoe Street, Algonquin Street, Kitchener Street, Continental Street, Gray Street 215 B.5.2 Signalized Intersection 22: Dickerson Avenue 217 B.5.3 Unsignalized intersections: Lenox Street, Drexel Street 219 B.5.4 Signalized Intersection 23: Coplin Street 220 B.5.5 Unsignalized intersections: Piper Boulevard/Lakeview Street, Eastlawn Street, Newport Street, Lakewood Street 222 B.5.6 Signalized Intersection 24: Chalmers Street 224 B.6 Previously modified intersections east of Chalmers 226 B.6.1 Unsignalized intersections east of Signalized Intersection 24 (Chalmers) 226 B.6.2 Signalized Intersection 25: Alter Road 227 Appendix C: Prioritization of Intersection Modifications 229 C.1 NBV (B‐C) versus ROI (B/C) 229 C.2 Using the ROI to prioritize viable projects 230 C.3 Strategies for addressing scenario ROI ranking differences 235 C.3.1 Average ranking 235 C.3.2 Average ranking plus rank differential 236 Appendix D: Template for Selection of Intersection Modification 238 D.1 Overview 238 D.2 Geographic characteristics 238 D.2.1 Intersection type 238 D.2.2 Network type 239 D.3 Land use characteristics 240 x D.4 Design selection 242 D.4.1 Typical alternative geometries 244 D.4.2 Input/output matrix 244 References 247 Abstract 276 Autobiographical Statement 278 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Operating speeds at varying distances downstream of a stopped condition 91 Table 4.2: Chi‐squared test for random distribution 200‐850 ft downstream of a signal 102 Table 5.1: Critical volume for given pedestrian volumes and crossing distances 114 Table 5.2: Changes to signalized intersections in City Center subcorridor 120 Table 5.3: Changes to signalized intersections in Belle Isle Access subcorridor 121 Table 5.4: Changes to signalized intersections in Depopulated Zone subcorridor 122 Table 5.5: Changes to signalized intersections in Conner Creek Industrial subcorridor 124 Table 5.6: Changes to signalized intersections in Suburban Transition subcorridor 125 Table 5.7: Results of analysis 126 Table A.1: Spacing and progression possibilities of existing signalization 143 Table A.2: Spacing and progression possibilities of proposed signalization 150 Table C.1: Percentage change in NBV and ROI for the “Adjusted” and “Unadjusted” scenarios 231 Table C.2: Total benefits and NBV and ROI analysis of viable intersections 232 Table C.3: Prioritization of intersection