Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

What Why How CFI - SR 400 @ SR 53, Dawson County, GA Intersection Control Evaluation A performance-based approach to objectively screen alternatives by focusing on the safety related benefits of each. Traditional Intersections SR 11 @ SR 124, Jackson County, GA Johnson Rd @ SR 74, Fayette County, GA Dogwood Trail @ SR 74, Fayette County, GA Roundabout SR 138 @ Hembree Rd, Fulton County, GA Roundabout • 215+ Existing • 50+ On System/or GDOT $$ • 165+ Off System • 20+ Currently Under Construction • 155+ Planned/programmed RBTs 6 Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) I-95 @ SR 21, Port Wentworth, Chatham County, GA Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) • 6 Existing • 2 Design/under construction • 10+ Under consideration Total: 18+ Continuous Green T SR 120 @ John Ward Rd SW, Cobb County, GA Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) SR 400 @ Lenox Rd NE, Fulton County, GA Reduced Conflict U-Turn (RCUT) SR 20 @ Nail Rd, Henry County, GA Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) SR 400 @ SR 53, Dawson County, GA Unsignalized Signalized • Minor Stop • Signal • All-Way Stop • Median U-Turn • Mini Roundabout • RCUT • Single Lane Roundabout • Displaced Left Turn (CFI) • Multilane Roundabout • Continuous Green-T • RCUT • Jughandle • RIRO w/Downstream U-Turn • Diamond Interchange (signal) • High-T (unsignalized) • Quadrant Roadway • Offset-T Intersections • Diverging Diamond • Diamond Interchange (Stop) • Single Point Interchange • Diamond Interchange (RAB) • Turn Lane Improvements • Turn Lane Improvements • Other Intersection Control Evaluation Deliver a transportation system focused on innovation, safety, sustainability and mobility. Why ICE?? • Enhance Safety • Institutionalize Innovation • Aid young designers • Provide Data Driven Solutions Intersection Control Evaluation Stage 1 Stage 2 Alternative ICE Screening Selection Unsignalized Signalized • Minor Stop • Signal • All-Way Stop • Median U-Turn • Multilane Roundabout • Signalized RCUT • Mini Roundabout • Displaced Left Turn (CFI) • Single Lane Roundabout • Continuous Green-T • RCUT • Jughandle • RIRO w/Downstream U-Turn • Diamond Interchange (signal) • High-T (unsignalized) • Quadrant Roadway • Offset-T Intersections • Diverging Diamond • Diamond Interchange (Stop) • Single Point Interchange • Diamond Interchange (RAB) • Turn Lane Improvements • Turn Lane Improvements • Other Unsignalized Signalized • Minor Stop • Signal • All-Way Stop • Median U-Turn • Multilane Roundabout • Signalized RCUT • Mini Roundabout • Displaced Left Turn (CFI) • Single Lane Roundabout • Continuous Green-T • RCUT • Jughandle • RIRO w/Downstream U-Turn • Diamond Interchange (signal) • High-T (unsignalized) • Quadrant Roadway • Offset-T Intersections • Diverging Diamond • Diamond Interchange (Stop) • Single Point Interchange • Diamond Interchange (RAB) • Turn Lane Improvements • Turn Lane Improvements • Other Stage 2 - Alternative Selection Shortlist of Alternatives from Stage 1 • Safety Benefit RCUT RAB • Operational Benefit • Overall Cost Benefit Traffic Signal • Environmental Impacts • Stakeholder Posture Preferred Alternative Automated Tool: 1. Streamline Process 2. Ease of Use 3. Add Consistency What are Other States Doing? 2015 2007 2008 2018 2018 2014 2013 2017 2018 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Chapter 10 Grade Separations and Interchanges
2005 Grade Separations and Interchanges CHAPTER 10 GRADE SEPARATIONS AND INTERCHANGES 10.0 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL TYPES OF INTERCHANGES The ability to accommodate high volumes of traffic safely and efficiently through intersections depends largely on the arrangement that is provided for handling intersecting traffic. The greatest efficiency, safety, and capacity, and least amount of air pollution are attained when the intersecting through traffic lanes are grade separated. An interchange is a system of interconnecting roadways in conjunction with one or more grade separations that provide for the movement of traffic between two or more roadways or highways on different levels. Interchange design is the most specialized and highly developed form of intersection design. The designer should be thoroughly familiar with the material in Chapter 9 before starting the design of an interchange. Relevant portions of the following material covered in Chapter 9 also apply to interchange design: • general factors affecting design • basic data required • principles of channelization • design procedure • design standards Material previously covered is not repeated. The discussion which follows covers modifications in the above-mentioned material and additional material pertaining exclusively to interchanges. The economic effect on abutting properties resulting from the design of an intersection at-grade is usually confined to the area in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. An interchange or series of interchanges on a freeway or expressway through a community may affect large contiguous areas or even the entire community. For this reason, consideration should be given to an active public process to encourage context sensitive solutions. Interchanges must be located and designed to provide the most desirable overall plan of access, traffic service, and community development.
[Show full text]
GUIDELINES for TIMING and COORDINATING DIAMOND November 2000 INTERCHANGES with ADJACENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS 6
Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. TX-00/4913-2 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date GUIDELINES FOR TIMING AND COORDINATING DIAMOND November 2000 INTERCHANGES WITH ADJACENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Nadeem A. Chaudhary and Chi-Leung Chu Report 4913-2 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 7-4913 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research: Construction Division September 1998 – August 2000 Research and Technology Transfer Section 14. Sponsoring Agency Code P. O. Box 5080 Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation. Research Project Title: Operational Strategies for Arterial Congestion at Interchanges 16. Abstract This report contains guidelines for timing diamond interchanges and for coordinating diamond interchanges with closely spaced adjacent signals on the arterial. Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) researchers developed these guidelines during a two-year project funded by the Texas Department of Transportation. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Diamond Interchanges, Capacity Analysis, Traffic No restrictions. This document is available to the Signal Coordination, Traffic Congestion, Signalized public through NTIS: Arterials National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 50 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized GUIDELINES FOR TIMING AND COORDINATING DIAMOND INTERCHANGES WITH ADJACENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS by Nadeem A.
[Show full text]
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
[Show full text]
Recommended Ramp Design Procedures for Facilities Without Frontage Roads
Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-05/0-4538-3 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date RECOMMENDED RAMP DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR September 2004 FACILITIES WITHOUT FRONTAGE ROADS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. J. Bonneson, K. Zimmerman, C. Messer, and M. Wooldridge Report 0-4538-3 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 0-4538 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2002 - August 2004 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Ramp Design Considerations for Facilities without Frontage Roads 16. Abstract Based on a recent change in Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) policy, frontage roads are not to be included along controlled-access highways unless a study indicates that the frontage road improves safety, improves operations, lowers overall facility costs, or provides essential access. Interchange design options that do not include frontage roads are to be considered for all new freeway construction. Ramps in non- frontage-road settings can be more challenging to design than those in frontage-road settings for several reasons. Adequate ramp length, appropriate horizontal and vertical curvature, and flaring to increase storage area at the crossroad intersection should all be used to design safe and efficient ramps for non-frontage-road settings.
[Show full text]
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
[Show full text]
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.
[Show full text]
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 .........................................................................................................
[Show full text]
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
[Show full text]
TAC 2003 Jughandle Final
UNCONVENTIONAL ARTERIAL DESIGN Jughandle Intersection Concept for McKnight Boulevard in Calgary G. FurtadoA, G. TenchaA and, H. DevosB A McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Surrey, BC B McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Edmonton, AB ABSTRACT: A functional planning study was initiated along McKnight Boulevard by the City of Calgary in response to the growing traffic and peak hour congestion routinely experienced along the corridor. The objective of the study was to identify and define, the most suitable improvements for medium term (2015 horizon) and long-term (2038 horizon) traffic demands, while conforming to a large number of independent constraints. Numerous alternatives were identified, and in due course rejected, due to their inability to adequately address the project requirements or satisfactorily meet stakeholder needs. Ultimately, a conventional intersection design involving widening along the south side of the corridor and the jughandle intersection concept were short listed for further evaluation and comparison. These design alternatives were subjected to a relatively rigorous appraisal that included performance, signing, laning and signalization requirements, property impacts, access and transit requirements, safety considerations, human factors and environmental impacts to name a few. It was found that operationally, the jughandle intersection design has compelling application potential in high volume corridors where local access is required and full grade separation is impractical or too costly. However, the jughandle property acquisition requirements and resulting costs along highly urbanized corridors, combined with their limited implementation experience in North America, can preclude their use in less than optimum circumstances. 1. INTRODUCTION Arterial roadways are typically designed and built with the intention of providing superior traffic service over collector and local roads (1).
[Show full text]
Draft Transportation
Sturbridge Master Plan 2010 (DRAFT) February 2011 7 Transportation Introduction Positioned at the junction of two major Interstate highways, I-84 and I-90, Sturbridge has excellent regional access to major urban areas. This regional interstate proximity brings benefits in terms of convenient access but also brings high traffic volumes and speeds, which compromises pedestrian, bicyclist and driver safety. For this reason, the location of Sturbridge at the junction of I-84 and I-90 is considered to be both a strength and weakness in terms of transportation and land use balance. In addition, Sturbridge’s Main Street, Route 20, is a state-owned roadway. The 1988 Sturbridge Master Plan identified traffic as one of Sturbridge’s most pressing issues. During the public outreach efforts for this Master Plan, Sturbridge residents reiterated similar transportation-related themes from the 1988 Master Plan including: Develop an identity and sense of arrival into Sturbridge through the creation of distinct gateways and streetscaping, especially given the number of tourists coming to the area; Balance the need to facilitate traffic flow with desires to make the roadways more walkable and bikeable; calm vehicle traffic speeds where appropriate (especially through the Commercial Tourist District (CTD) along Route 20); Eliminate sign clutter and improve wayfinding to the key destinations; Ensure that paratransit service meets the expanding needs for elderly and disabled residents; and Make public transportation more available. Over the last 30 years, Sturbridge has experienced rapid residential growth. The population is expected to continue to increase due to the availability of land, the relatively low cost of house lots, and the proximity and access to major highways.
[Show full text]
Diverging Diamond Interchange Agenda
Diverging Diamond Interchange Agenda . DDI Design . DDI vs. SPUI . SPUI Lessons Learned . DDI Retrofit Design . DDI – I-15/Pioneer Crossing What is a DDI? A DDI is a concept that requires drivers to briefly cross to the left, or opposite side of the road at carefully designed crossover intersections, to eliminate a signal phase. Primary Goal: Better accommodate left turns and eliminate a phase in the signal cycle. What is a DDI? Advantages Disadvantages . Reduces Signal Phases; . Lower Speed Through Improves Operations Interchange . Reduces Conflict Points; . Requires Longer Footprint Improves Safety Between Intersections . Reduces Bridge Area; . Not Practical with a One-way Lowers Costs Frontage Road DDI Design Signal Phasing Alternating Progression Left Turn Progression DDI Design Safety . About 50% Fewer Points of Conflict . Conflict Comes From Only One Direction . Lower Speed Conflicts (less severity, fewer accidents) DDI Design . When is a DDI a possible solution? • Heavily Congested Locations • Intersections Spacing of Approximately 500 Feet or More • Skewed Intersections Work Well Interchange Design DDI Intersection DDI Facts: First 5 Constructed in 3 States DDI Facts: Currently 34 Locations in 14 States SPUI Facts: First 3 Constructed in 3 States SPUI Facts: Currently over 250 in 35 States SPUI’s in Arizona: First Constructed . University Dr/Hohokam Expwy (SR-143) . I-10/7th Street and 7th Avenue . SR-51 (Squaw Peak Parkway) SPUI’s in Arizona: ADOT Comments . Early Designs Work Well . Tight Footprint is Most Effective . Right Turns can be an Issue . Pedestrian Crossings need more research . Left Turn Design is Critical University/Hohokam, Phoenix, AZ DDI Retrofit Design - St George, Utah DDI Retrofit Design - St George, Utah DDI Retrofit Design - SR 210/Baseline DDI Retrofit Design - SR 210/Baseline DDI Retrofit Design - Graves Mill Rd/US 501 DDI Retrofit Design - Graves Mill Rd/US 501 CPHX Examples I-10/University Drive CPHX Examples SR 101/Thunderbird Selection of DDI - I-15/Pioneer Crossing .
[Show full text]
Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool User Manual
Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool User Manual FHWA Safety Program http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or the use thereof. This Report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The contents of this Report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers named herein. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. ii TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-SA-18-026 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool User Guide October 2018 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jenior, P., Butsick, A., Haas, P. and Ray, B. 20447 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
[Show full text]