Intersection Types North Carolina • 9,500+ Signals Tennessee • 100+ On System AWSC South Carolina

Alabama Georgia

Florida Types North Carolina • 9,500+ Traffic Signals Tennessee • 100+ On System AWSC South • 175+ Carolina

Alabama Georgia

SR 372 @ Providence Florida I-285SR 16 @ @ Riverside SR 54 Dr SR 154 @ Cedar Grove Intersection Types North Carolina • 9,500+ Traffic Signals • 100+ On System AWSC South • 175+ Roundabouts Carolina • 25+ RCUTS

Georgia

Florida SR 20 @ Simpson Mill SR 400 @ N 400 Center Ln

SR 92 @ N. Griffin Square Intersection Types • 9,500+ Traffic Signals • 100+ On System AWSC • 175+ Roundabouts • 25+ RCUTS • 5 DDIs

Jimmy Carter @ I-85 I-285I-85 @ @ Ashford Pleasant Dunwoody Hill Rd Rd Intersection Types • 9,500+ Traffic Signals • 100+ On System AWSC • 175+ Roundabouts • 25+ RCUTS • 5 DDIs • 1 CFI

SR 400 @ SR 53 SR 400 @ SR 53 Intersection Types • 9,500+ Traffic Signals • 100+ On System AWSC • 175+ Roundabouts • 25+ RCUTS • 5 DDIs • 1 CFI • 5+ Continuous Green T

W Oglethorpe Blvd. @ N Slappey Blvd. Deliver a transportation system focused on innovation, safety, sustainability and mobility

http://alphastockimages.com/ DOT Illinois DOT Illinois DOT Integrate safety into our decision making process for intersection control on ALL projects The purpose of ICE is to provide: • Traceability • Transparency • Consistency • Accountability • GDOT Design Policy Manual – Ch. 7 Design Policy Manual: At Grade Intersections – Ch. 8 Design Policy Manual: Roundabouts • MUTCD • Frustration due to the lack of non-traditional alternatives considered • Create a level playing field for all alternatives • Desire to infuse safety throughout our decision making process by bringing attention to “non-traditional” intersection types • Provide documentation to support the intersection control decision 2015

2007 2008

2018 2014

2013

2017

Existing Developing Interest in ICE Policies ICE Policies ICE Policies • ICE is required for all projects that do not have concept approval by July 1, 2017

• If ICE would delay the concept report submittal for any projects that have schedules set by July 1, 2017, ICE may be completed during the preliminary design phase

• Submittals during preliminary design must occur no later than 1/3 of the way through the time allotted for preliminary design

• For GDOT projects, if consultant services have already been procured prior to the effective date, but the concept has not been approved, Office of Traffic Operations will perform the ICE evaluation upon request by the project manager. Intersection Control Evaluation http://www.dot.ga.gov/

Scroll to bottom of the page Not Required Required Waiver

No changes to Project is on ICE may be intersection State waived based footprint or route/NHS on appropriate control and/or uses evidence and a State or Federal written request money A project that will not do any widening, where there is no change to intersection geometry or control. Examples include: – /streetscape improvements – replacement (with no realignment or relocation of intersection) – resurfacing – Signal timing and maintenance. – Signal Permit revision w/ no changes to physical footprint of intersection For permits, where the driveway is not a new leg to an already existing intersection, that satisfy either of the following criteria:

1. The driveway is along a divided, multilane roadway where the access will be limited to a closed median (no median opening) with only right-in/right-out access 2. The driveway is along an undivided roadway and the development will not be required to construct left and/or right turn (as per the Driveway Manual and District Traffic Engineer) In certain circumstances where an ICE would otherwise be required, the requirement may be waived based on appropriate evidence presented with a written request.

• Proposed improvements do not substantially alter the character of the intersection, and are considered minor in nature, such as extending existing turn (s)

• The intersection consists of a public roadway intersecting a divided, multilane roadway where the access will be limited to a closed median with only right-in/right-out access that will operate acceptably;

• The intersection is along an undivided, two-lane roadway that will not be widened and: o Low risk in terms of exposure (less than 1,000 vehicles entering per day). o Latest 5 years of crash history is not indicative of a crash problem o No undesirable geometric features o Proposed changes will not adversely affect safety Level 1: Chief Engineer (or Designee) • Projects going through PDP • New or revised signal permits • New median openings Level 2: District Engineer with notification to Chief Engineer Projects that are not level 1 where: • Leg is added to intersection • Intersection control is changes Level 3: District Engineer • QR, Driveway Permits, Maintenance Work that does not qualify as level 2 Intersection Control Evaluation Stage 1 Stage 2 Alternative ICE Screening Selection

Screening effort to Detailed evaluation of the eliminate non- alternatives identified in competitive options Stage 1 in order to support and identify the selection of the alternatives for further preferred alternative that consideration will be advanced to detailed design Unsignalized • Minor Stop • All-Way Stop • Mini • Single Lane Roundabout • Multilane Roundabout • RCUT • RIRO w/Downstream U-Turn • High-T (unsignalized) • Offset-T Intersections • Diamond (Stop) • (RAB) • Turn Lane/Median Improvements • Other Signalized • Signal • Median U-Turn • RCUT • Displaced Left Turn (CFI) • Continuous Green-T • • Diamond Interchange (signal) • Quadrant Roadway • Diverging Diamond • Single Point Interchange • Turn Lane/Median Improvements • Other 1. Does alternative address the project need in a balanced manner and in scale with the project? 2. Does alternative improve safety performance in terms of reducing severe crashes? 3. Does alternative incorporate convenience and accessibility for pedestrians and/or bicyclists 4. Does alternative improve (or preserve) traffic operations (congestion, delay, reliability, etc.)? 5. Does alternative appear feasible given the site characteristics, constrains and location context? 6. Does alternative appear feasible with respect to other project factors? 7. Overall feasible alternative? Shortlist of Alternatives from Stage 1 • Total Project Cost RCUT RAB • Traffic Operations • Safety Analysis Traffic Signal • Environmental Impacts • Stakeholder Posture

Preferred Alternative Stage 1 • Completed Stage 1 Decision Record • Single intersection projects may proceed seamlessly to Stage 2 • For corridor projects a concurrence memo is recommended • Required for Concept Report Stage 2 • Completed Alternative Selection Decision Record with Supporting documentation • Included in Project Concept Report or as a stand-alone document • Completed waiver form if the ICE recommended alternative is not selected as the preferred alternative • Required in Concept for stand alone intersection projects. Intersection Control Evaluation 1. Provide simplified and consistent way of using data to quantify & evaluate intersection control benefits – Traffic – Safety – Cost – Environmental Impact – Stakeholder Support 2. Provide traceability, transparency, consistency & accountability when evaluating & selecting control types 3. Reduce time to analyze, compare multiple alternatives 4. Select alternative that reflects the overall best value in terms of specific performance-based criteria • Serves as agreed upon Decision Document • GDOT precedent of developing tool for consistent analysis

GDOT Roundabout Analysis Tool INTERSECTION CONTROL TYPE DESCRIPTIONS Click on intersection images for additional resource publications ICE Version 2.1 | Revised 12/13/2017

Unsignalized At-Grade Intersections Signalized At-Grade Intersections

Conventional Minor or All-Way Stop: At minor- street stop (2-way stop) intersections, vehicles on minor Signalized Intersection: The most common type of street stop and give right-of-way to major street. At all-way signalized intersection with high driver familiarity. Signal stop (AWS) intersections, all vehicles must stop and take could be simple two-phase or more complex 8-phase to turns entering the intersection. Both (4-leg) intersection serve vehicular demand. Left turns can be permitted or types have 32 baseline conflict points and have limited protected (or combination of both). At a conventional 4-leg operational and safety benefits as traffic volumes become intersection there are 32 baseline conflict points. significant.

Mini Roundabouts: Roundabout type characterized by a Median U-Turn: Left turn movements otherwise occurring small diameter and traversable central island; offers most of at the main intersection are made via U-turns in the median, the benefits of single-lane roundabouts with added benefit of preceding or following right turns. U-turns may be only on a smaller footprint; best suited to lower-speed environments major roadway or on both major and minor roadways. A and where environmental constraints preclude use of a conventional MUT has 16 baseline conflict points and has larger roundabout with a raised central island. Mini- shown significant operational and safety benefits. roundabouts are emerging in U.S. in states including MD, Also known as: Indirect Left, , MUT MI and GA.

Single-Lane Roundabouts: Form of circular intersection Signalized RCUT: Similar to the Median U-turn but in which traffic travels counterclockwise around a central features break in cross-street traffic that allows signals on island and in which entering traffic must yield to circulating opposite directions to operate independently. Left turns can traffic. Circulating traffic has priority with entries controlled by make directly turns onto the minor but minor road thru yield. Geometry slows all traffic into and thru the and left turn movements are made using the directional U- roundabout. At a 4-leg roundabout there are 8 baseline turn crossovers. An RCUT has 14 baseline conflict points conflict points. (over 3 intersections). Also known as: Modern Roundabout Also known as:

Displaced Left-Turn (DLT): Left turn traffic crosses Multilane Roundabouts: Share same circulatory travel opposing lanes in advance of main intersection and are and yield-at-entry in single-lane roundabouts, but include stored in additional lanes. At main intersection, thru and left multiple entry and circulatory lanes for one or more turns can be made simultaneously during same signal approaches that must accommodate vehicles traveling side phase. A full DLT (both routes) has 28 baseline conflict by side. Important design features include proper entry path points; a partial DLT (one route) has 30 baseline conflict alignment and geometry, signing and marking that allows points. entry to exit paths without forcing a lane change in the circle. Also known as: Continuous Flow Intersection

Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT): Redirects minor Continuous Green-T: Three-leg intersection that features street left turn movements as right-turns followed by a U- raised to allow the “top” through movement to turn movement via a downstream directional crossover in operate under continual green. The opposite direction the median (+/- 500 feet from the main intersection). An intersects with the major and minor street lefts at a RCUT intersection has 14 conflict points and can provide signalized intersection (minor left turns merge with the substantial safety benefits with minor delay increases to continual through movement downstream). A Continuous some movements Green-T has 9 baseline conflict points, the same as a Also known as: “J-turn” intersection conventional 3-leg.

RIRO w/Downstream U-Turn: Redirects minor street thru Jughandle: Much like an at-grade diamond interchange, & left turn movements as right-turns followed by a U-turn via ramps on the major street diverge from the right side in directional median crossover (+/- 500 feet from main advance of a cross street intersection, removing the left turn intersection). Major street lefts are also made indirectly, movement from directly at the cross-street intersection. passing the crossing street and using the same U-turn Major street left turns are made at minor, stop-controlled crossovers in the median. Minor street intersections are intersections on the cross-street. Left turns from the cross- reduced to right-in/right-out movements making this the street remain as direct movements at the main intersection. safest intersection type.

Quadrant Roadway: Left turns are removed from the main Unsignalized High-T: Unsignalized 3-leg intersection intersection via an additional roadway in one intersection features raised channelization to separate “top” thru quadrant. Left-turn movements are routed from the arterial movement from turning lanes at intersection, allowing the and cross-street (using unique turning paths for each through movement to operate continuously. A high-T approach) onto the quadrant roadway to complete the left intersection has 9 baseline conflict points, the same as a turn movement at the quadrant roadway “minor” T- conventional 3-leg. intersections. A Quadrant Roadway has 28 baseline conflict Also known as: “Seagull” intersection points (over 3 intersections).

Offset-Tee Intersection: Creates an offset of minor street Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI): All traffic crosses approaches to form 2 intersections with the major roadway over to left side of road at first ramp terminal intersection separated by some distance (between 300' and 500'). before crossing back over at second ramp terminal. Through movements on the minor street "jog" using the Crossover movements allow left turns to be made major street (right-turns followed by left-turns or vice versa). unopposed. A DDI has a total 14 baseline conflict points The Offset-T has a total of 18 baseline conflict points (over (over two intersections) and has shown both operational two intersections). and safety benefits. Also known as: Paired Intersection Also known as: Double Crossover Diamond

Double : Use of single or dual Single Point Urban Diamond (SPUI): Free-flow major lane roundabouts at traditional diamond interchange ramp street thru movements are provided by creating a separate, terminals. The use of roundabouts requires only through signalized intersection of major street turning movements lanes on the bridge (no turn lane storage lanes) and the with the cross-street on a separate grade, creating an elimination of signal control at the ramp terminals. There intersection either under or over the priority thru roadway. are a total of 16 baseline conflict points (over two Right turns are made at unsignalized ramps separated from intersections). the main intersection. Also known as: Teardrop Interchange Introduction 1. Does alternative address the project need in a balanced manner, in scale with the project?

2. Does alternative improve safety performance in ICE Stage 1 ICE Stage terms of reducing severe crashes? 3. Does alternative incorporate convenience and accessibility for pedestrians and/or bicyclists 4. Does alternative improve (or preserve) traffic operations (congestion, delay, reliability, etc.)? 5. Does alternative appear feasible given the site characteristics, constrains, location context? 6. Does alternative appear feasible with respect to other project factors? 7. Overall feasible alternative? GDOT ICE STAGE 2: ALTERNATIVE SELECTION DECISION RECORD ICE Version 2.1 | Revised 12/13/2017 GDOT PI # (or N/A) 0013332 GDOT District: 3 - Thomaston Date: 12/15/2017 County: Bibb Area Type: Rural Agency/Firm: Arcadis Project Location: SR 22 @ Fulton Mill Rd Analyst: J. Reid Existing Intersection Control: Conventional (Minor Stop) Type of Analysis: Conventional Non-Safety Funded Project

Opening / Design Year Traffic Operations Crash Data: Enter 5 most recent Crash Severity Intersection meets signal/AWS warrants? Meets Signal Warrants Complete years of intersection crash data PDO Injury Crash* Fatal Crash* Traffic Analysis Measure of Effectiveness Intersection Delay Warrants Met? Angle 7 8 1 29% Traffic Analysis Software Used Synchro 9 PEDESTRIANS Head-On 1 0 2 5% Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr BICYCLES Rear End 25 5 0 54%

ICE Stage 2 ICE Stage 2017 Peak Hour Intersection Delay 20.6 sec 27.8 sec TRANSIT Sideswipe - same 0 0 0 0% 2017 Intersection V/C ratio 0.52 0.67 CrashType Sideswipe - opposite 1 0 0 2% 2027 Design Yr No-Build Intersection Delay 74.5 sec 80.5 sec Not Collision w/Motor Veh 3 3 0 11% 2027 Design Yr No-Build Intersection V/C ratio 1.04 1.15 TOTALS: 37 16 3 56 * Number of crashes resulting in injuries / fatalities, not number of persons

Alternatives Analysis: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Single Lane Proposed Control Type/Improvement: Multilane Roundabout RCUT (stop control) Add Left Turn Lanes Traffic Signal Roundabout Project Cost: (From CostEst Worksheet) Additional description here Additional description here Additional description here Additional description here Add three LT bays Construction Cost $1,412,000 $2,037,000 $479,000 $588,000 $401,000 ROW Cost $76,000 $149,000 $12,000 $0 $0 Environmental Cost $0 $66,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 Reimbursable Utility Cost $42,000 $119,000 $16,000 $20,000 $8,000 Design & Contingency Cost $394,000 $588,000 $122,000 $149,000 $140,000 Cost Adjustment (justification req'd) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Cost $1,924,000 $2,959,000 $639,000 $767,000 $549,000 Traffic Operations: Traffic Analysis Software Used GDOT RND Tool 4.1 GDOT RND Tool 4.1 Synchro 9 Synchro 9 Synchro 9 Analysis Period AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr 2027 Design Yr Build Intersection Delay 16.5 sec 21.0 sec 10.8 sec 11.7 sec 32.0 sec 40.8 sec 74.0 sec 78.2 sec 27.9 sec 32.0 sec 2027 Design Yr Build Intersection V/C 0.59 0.65 0.51 0.58 0.65 0.74 1.03 1.13 0.67 0.75 Safety Analysis: Predefined CRF: PDO 71% 63% 20% 48% 44% Predefined CRF: Fatal/Inj 87% 63% 36% 58% 40% FHWA Clearinghouse FHWA Clearinghouse FHWA Clearinghouse FHWA Clearinghouse FHWA Clearinghouse Predefined CRF Source: #s 229 / 230 #s 4927 / 4927 #s 351 / 353 #s 268 / 272 #s 7982 / 7984 Crash Modification Factors GDOT ICE STAGE 2: ALTERNATIVE SELECTION DECISION RECORD ICE Version 2.1 | Revised 12/13/2017 GDOT PI # (or N/A) 0013332 GDOT District: 3 - Thomaston Date: 12/15/2017 County: Bibb Area Type: Rural Agency/Firm: Arcadis Project Location: SR 22 @ Fulton Mill Rd Analyst: J. Reid Existing Intersection Control: Conventional (Minor Stop) Type of Analysis: Conventional Non-Safety Funded Project

Opening / Design Year Traffic Operations Crash Data: Enter 5 most recent Crash Severity Intersection meets signal/AWS warrants? Meets Signal Warrants years of intersection crash data PDO Injury Crash* Fatal Crash* Traffic Analysis Measure of Effectiveness Intersection Delay Warrants Met? Angle 7 8 1 29% Traffic Analysis Software Used Synchro 9 PEDESTRIANS Head-On 1 0 2 5% Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr BICYCLES Rear End 25 5 0 54% 2017 Peak Hour Intersection Delay 20.6 sec 27.8 sec TRANSIT Sideswipe - same 0 0 0 0% 2017 Intersection V/C ratio 0.52 0.67 CrashType Sideswipe - opposite 1 0 0 2% 2027 Design Yr No-Build Intersection Delay 74.5 sec 80.5 sec Not Collision w/Motor Veh 3 3 0 11%

ICE Stage 2 ICE Stage 2027 Design Yr No-Build Intersection V/C ratio 1.04 1.15 TOTALS: 37 16 3 56 * Number of crashes resulting in injuries / fatalities, not number of persons

Alternatives Analysis: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Single Lane Proposed Control Type/Improvement: Multilane Roundabout RCUT (stop control) Add Left Turn Lanes Traffic Signal Roundabout Environmental Impacts:1 Historic District/Property None None None None None Archaeology Resources None None None None None Graveyard None None None None None Stream None Minimal None None None Underground Tank/Hazmat None None None None None Park Land None None None None None EJ Community None None None None None Wooded Area None None Minimal Minimal None Wetland None None None None None Note: If environmental impact is significant ( RED ), provide justification impact won't jeopardize project delivery using "Env" worksheet Stakeholder Posture: 1 Environmental impacts are only preliminary estimates; detailed environmental impact documentation will be included with project concept report Local Community Support Neutral Negative Neutral Supportive Supportive GDOT Support Supportive Neutral Supportive Neutral Neutral

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 7.0 5.5 5.3 4.6 6.0 1 3 4 5 2 ICE Waiver Form

• Second Tab in the Multi-File Summary Worksheet

• Used for low volume RIRO along corridors

• Manual entry of Data

• Optional section for intersection operations What ICE Tool is NOT

• Viable for 100% of alternative analyses (due to extent of intersection control change possibilities and variabilities) • A replacement for good engineering judgment in evaluating alternatives • A determinate of project cost for the preferred alternative 1. Do I have to have a certain number of alternatives? – There is no minimum required number of alternatives. We recommend not having more than 5. 2. What happens if I only have 1 alternative make it past Stage 1? – You may either fill our a waiver form or document information on Stage 2. Do whichever is easier for you. 3. For an ICE Waiver, when is the traffic and Crash data required and when is it optional? – Provide the information needed to justify the waiver request. Generally, crash data should be provided for existing intersections and ADTs if available. Capacity data is optional unless needed to justify the waiver request. 4. What about Roundabout Feasibility Studies? – Roundabout feasibility studies are no longer required.

Intersection Control Evaluation • Need – Reduce delay and crashes (crash history predominantly rear ends) on rural, two-lane section with high truck traffic • CR – Submitted Nov. 2017 • ICE – 12 intersections total – 12 Stage 1’s only • 8 Existing Conditions • 4 Add turn lanes on major rd.

• Need – Safer opportunities to pass, high truck traffic • Location – Oconee National Forest • ICE – 1 intersection within project limits impacted by work

• ICE – 1 intersection within project limits – Work = realignment only, no change in control, or addtnl lanes

– RAB does not address crash pattern

– Head-on fatality due to stationary left turning vehicle on mainline

– RAB cost likely higher – would score worse

– Lots of angle collisions - injuries

– RAB addresses specific crash type

• Need – Crash problem • History – Had TE Study and Roundabout Feasibility Study previously

<- Signal

Flyover Ramp ->

Signalized High-T ->

• Need – Ease traffic congestion and decrease crash frequency and/or severity • Revised CR – Oct. 2017 • ICE – 8 intersections requiring ICE – All RCUT’s • Except 1 RIRO (waiver)