233.5 Intersection Alternatives

From Engineering Policy Guide
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alternative intersection configurations may provide advantages over traditional at-grade intersections, or in some cases, even grade-separated interchanges. A given alternative intersection may provide safety, operational, or cost benefits at a specific project location. This article provides policy guidance and planning-level information on three types of potential alternative intersections, as well as traditional at-grade intersections and roundabouts.

This article does not attempt to provide geometric or traffic control guidance for any given intersection type. Appropriate articles within EPG 200 and EPG 900, respectively, shall be used for design guidance on geometric or traffic control elements for specific projects or proposed improvements.

Further analysis of an alternative intersection type at a given location may be required as part of a project scope (EPG 104), guidelines for which are described in EPG 905.

Glossary of Terms for Intersection Alternatives

AWSC: All-Way Stop Control
TWSC: Two-Way Stop Control
MUT: Median U-Turn
RCI: Reduced Conflict Intersection
RCUT: Restricted Crossing U-Turn
DLT: Displaced Left-Turn
CFI: Continuous Flow Intersection
PDLT: Partial Displaced Left-Turn
XDLT: Crossover Displaced Left-Turn

233.5.1 Alternative Intersection Comparisons

233.5.1.1 Alternative Intersection Summary

This article provides guidance, typically in the form of tables, figures, or nomographs, for further evaluation of given alternative intersection types. A range of criteria may be utilized for alternative intersection selection, such as intersection vehicular volumes (on an hourly or daily basis) or vulnerable road user safety considerations.

233.5.1.2 Intersection Selection by Traffic Volumes

The following figures provide potential guidance for alternative intersection selection either by the total entering daily volume for the intersection or by the peak two-way hourly volumes on the major and minor streets at the intersection.

Potential Intersection Control by Total Entering Daily Volume (ADT) provides guidance for generic ADT-based scenarios under which a specific intersection control type could be used. The term “Non-traditional Intersection” refers to intersection types with unique geometrics or flow patterns. Non-traditional intersections considered by MoDOT include: Roundabouts, J-Turns (Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection (RCUT)/Reduced Conflict Intersection (RCI)), Median U-Turns (MUT), and Displaced Left Turns (DLT/Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI)).

Intersection Control Type by Peak Hour Volume Thresholds utilizes the peak hour directional distribution splits and two-way traffic volumes for both the major and minor roadways to determine the most appropriate intersection treatment, with a primary focus on traditional intersection control types. All lines shown are defined by the MUTCD 8-hour traffic signal warrant, MUTCD all-way stop warrant, and HCM methods for calculating roundabout capacity and stop-controlled intersection delay. Dashed lines represent an extrapolation of a capacity threshold for a given intersection type and geometric configuration, such as comparing a single-lane roundabout to a multi-lane roundabout.

233.5.1.3 Intersection Selection by Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Criteria

The following figures present the optimum feasible intersection configuration choice (per original source research study, not through MoDOT determination) for pedestrians and bicyclists given the number of through lanes and daily traffic volumes on the minor and major streets.

Pedestrian Optimum Feasible Intersection Design

Bicyclist Optimum Feasible Intersection Design

233.5.1.4 Intersection Selection by Vehicular Safety Criteria

The following figures show the intersection type that maximizes safety (per original source research study, not through MoDOT determination) based on various approach configurations and daily roadway volumes. Areas without a specific intersection type listed are either infeasible regions in which the minor street demand exceeds the major street demand, or where the alternative intersection types being considered are not feasible.

Intersection Type that Maximizes Safety Design for a Four-Lane Major Street Meeting a Two-Lane Minor Street

Intersection Type that Maximizes Safety Design for a Four-Lane Major Street Meeting a Four-Lane Minor Street

Intersection Type that Maximizes Safety Design for a Six-Lane Major Street Meeting a Two-Lane Minor Street

233.5.2 Traditional Intersections

Figures

233.5.2.1 Traditional Intersection Summary

Traditional intersections, which may also be referred to as conventional or standard intersections, allow direct movements (left, through, and right) on all approaches. These intersections may operate under traffic signal, all-way stop, or two-way stop control.

233.5.2.2 Traditional Intersection Applicability

Traditional intersections may be considered across a wide variety of contexts. Several articles of EPG 900 (Traffic Control) provide specific directional guidelines for when a given traffic control device may be used. Specifically, EPG 903.5.4 provides guidance on stop sign applications, and EPG 902.3 provides guidance for traffic signal installations.

233.5.2.3 Traditional Operational Based Criteria

There are several daily volumetric thresholds at which a given traffic control method at a traditional intersection may become infeasible and require further improvements.

Maximum Major Street Volume (vpd) Maximum Total Entering Volume (vpd)
Two-Way Stop Control (One Through Lane)
14,000
All-Way Stop Control (One Through Lane)
15,000
Signalized Intersection with Left-Turn Lanes
30,000
Signalized Intersection with Left- and Right-Turn Lanes
40,000

233.5.2.4 Traditional Intersection Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

  • This commonly used intersection layout leads to familiarity and intuitiveness for all users.

Disadvantages

  • Safety issues may arise under certain geometric conditions, such as when slip lanes are included or left -turn visibility is obstructed by opposing movements.
  • Two-way stop control is ineffective at serving high minor roadway volumes.
  • All-way stop control has the lowest capacity of any intersection type.

233.5.2.5 Traditional Intersection Pedestrian and Other Nonmotorized User Considerations

Under a two-way stop controlled condition, there are no protected movements across the major roadway without supplemental traffic control devices. At signalized intersections, long traffic signal cycle lengths may limit crossing opportunities and lead to poor pedestrian levels of service. At both signalized and unsignalized intersections, the presence of channelizing and median islands may simplify movements for pedestrians by minimizing the number of conflicting movements for the pedestrians.

233.5.2.6 Traditional Intersection Costs and Maintenance

Due to the widespread use of traditional intersections, the costs associated with construction and maintenance are often predictable. Stop controlled intersections are typically low cost, and signal controlled intersections often have reasonably estimated costs. Signalized intersections require additional equipment and timing maintenance.

233.5.2.7 Traditional Intersection Conflict Points

Conflict points for a 4-leg traditional intersection may be viewed in the table below and in the Traditional Intersection Conflict Point Diagram.

Conflict Point Type Conflict Points
Vehicle-Vehicle - Total 32
Vehicle-Vehicle - Crossing 16
Vehicle-Vehicle - Merging 8
Vehicle-Vehicle - Diverging 8
Nonmotorized-Vehicle 24

233.5.2.8 Traditional Intersection Additional Resources

EPG 233.2 At-Grade Intersections with Stop and Yield Control

EPG 233.4 At-Grade Intersections with Signal Control

EPG 902 Signals

EPG 940 Access Management

233.5.3 Roundabouts

Figures

233.5.3.1 Roundabout Summary

Roundabouts remove direct left-turn movements on all intersection approaches, which typically operate under yield control. All vehicular movements circulate counter-clockwise around a center island. Where appropriate, right-turn bypass lanes may be added for potential capacity or operational benefits. Roundabouts may either be placed at a single intersection or be placed in series along a corridor.

Information included as part of this article does not replace information provided in EPG 233.3, which provides specific guidance and information on roundabouts.

233.5.3.2 Roundabout Applicability

Roundabouts may be applicable where high frequencies of left-turn or right-angle crashes are being experienced, or in some situations where there are heavy traffic delays. Furthermore, roundabouts may work well in situations with non-conventional approach geometry (i.e., skewed intersections, more than four legs, etc.). At some intersections, roundabouts may also be used as an alternative to a traffic signal installation.

233.5.3.3 Roundabout Operational Based Criteria

There are several volumetric thresholds for which a given roundabout type may be viable. One available threshold estimates the hourly sum of the entering flow on a given approach with the conflicting circulating flow, while another threshold approximates the maximum daily capacity of a given roundabout configuration. These thresholds are outlined in both the table below and in Planning Level Practical Estimates for Roundabouts Using Peak Hour Volumes.

Roundabout Type Sum of Entering and Conflicting Flows (vph) Maximum Daily Capacity (vpd)
Mini 10,000
Urban Compact 15,000
Urban Single-Lane 1,000-1,300 20,000-25,000
Urban Double-Lane 1,300-2,300 40,000-50,000
Rural Single-Lane 1,000-1,300 20,000-25,000
Rural Double-Lane 1,300-2,300 40,000-50,000

233.5.3.4 Roundabout Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

  • Reduces overall conflict points and eliminates left-turn conflicts.
  • Geometry and yield control leads to reduced vehicle speeds and crash severity, especially for fatal/injury crashes as compared to signalized control.
  • Provides an opportunity for a transitional zone along a corridor, facilitates access management, and provides traffic calming.

Disadvantages

  • Cannot provide explicit priority for specific users without supplemental traffic control devices.
  • Increase in single-vehicle and fixed-object crashes as compared to other intersection treatments.
  • Implementation of multi-lane roundabouts may create unique challenges, such as path overlap and higher crash rates.
  • Multi-lane roundabouts may require supplemental lane markings and wayfinding signage for correct utilization.
  • Roundabouts operating near volume/capacity thresholds lose efficiency or may even gridlock.

233.5.3.5 Roundabout Pedestrian and Other Nonmotorized User Considerations

At roundabouts, pedestrians typically only cross one direction of conflicting traffic at a time, and splitter islands provide refuge for two-stage crossings. Multilane approaches to roundabouts may require additional pedestrian protective measures, such as activated signals, beacons, or raised crosswalks. Cyclists may be provided multiple options to navigate through roundabouts based on skill and comfort level. Pedestrian users with visual impairments may have navigational difficulties at roundabouts due to the non-traditional vehicular movements and multi-stage crossings required.

233.5.3.6 Roundabout Costs and Maintenance

Roundabouts have comparable, or sometimes higher, initial geometric costs when compared to a new signalized intersection with auxiliary turn lanes. Some roundabouts may require more right-of-way than a traditional intersection, leading to increased acquisition costs. Additionally, some roundabouts may have costs associated with aesthetics and landscaping maintenance. Roundabouts eliminate the need for ongoing traffic signal equipment, maintenance, and power supply costs.

233.5.3.7 Roundabout Conflict Points

Conflict points for a 4-leg roundabout may be viewed in the table below and in the Roundabout Conflict Point Diagram.

Conflict Point Type Conflict Points Roundabout (Traditional Intersection)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Total 20 (32)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Crossing 4 (16)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Merging 8 (8)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Diverging 8 (8)
Nonmotorized-Vehicle 8 (24)

233.5.3.8 High Speed Roundabout Design Considerations

Roundabouts located on high-speed roadways may require special geometric and safety design considerations. Appropriate design related measures may include, but are not limited to:

  • Provide a minimum of stopping sight distance to the entry point based on approach operating speed.
  • Align approach roadways and vertical profiles to make the central island conspicuous with landscaping and sight-blocking amenities.
  • Extend splitter islands at least 200’ upstream to a point at which entering drivers are expected to begin decelerating.
  • Use landscaping on extended splitter islands and roadside to create a tunneling effect for approaching vehicles.
  • Provide roadway illumination in transition to the roundabout.
  • Use proper signage and pavement markings to advise the appropriate speed and path for approaching vehicles.

233.5.3.9 Roundabout Additional Resources

EPG 620.3 Roundabout Markings

EPG 903.6.37 Intersection Warning Signs

MoDOT Roundabouts

NCHRP 1043 Guide for Roundabouts

FHWA Roundabouts

233.5.4 J-Turns

Figures

233.5.4.1 J-Turn Summary

J-Turns may also be referred to as Restricted Crossing U-Turns (RCUT), Superstreets, or Reduced Conflict Intersections (RCI). J-Turns allow direct left-turn and through movements from the major roadway but divert through and left--turn movements from the minor roadway to a downstream U--turn location. The primary intersection in a J-turn configuration may operate under either traffic signal or yield control, while the downstream U--turn may operate under signal, stop, or yield control.

Information included as part of this article does not replace information provided in EPG 233.2.6, which provides additional guidance and information on J-Turns.

233.5.4.2 J-Turn Applicability

J-Turns are most applicable in locations where there are low left-turn and through volumes from the minor road or where there are heavy through and left turn volumes on major road approaches. J--turns may also be appropriate in locations where a high frequency of right-angle crashes is experienced.

233.5.4.3 J-Turn Operational Based Criteria

There are several volumetric thresholds at which J-Turns may become a more feasible design option relative to another alternative or traditional intersection type. In addition to the table below, the daily volume thresholds for signalized and unsignalized J-Turns based on major and minor street demands are summarized visually in Feasible Demand Space for J-Turns. Additional volumetric thresholds utilize the minor road approach volume ratio or combined volumes at the crossroad or downstream U-turn locations.

Signalized J-Turn Minor Street Demand Threshold 2,250 vph (25,000 vpd)
Unsignalized J-Turn Minor Street Demand Threshold 450 vph (5,000 vpd)
Minor Road Approach Volume Ratio to Total Entering Intersection Volume Less Than 0.20
Combined Volume of Through + Merging Movement (From Crossroad or U-Turn Entry) Less Than 1,800-1,900 veh/hr/ln

233.5.4.4 J-Turn Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

  • Eliminates most crossing conflict points.
  • Reduces turning and angle crashes and reduces overall crash severity.
  • Increases intersection throughput by approximately 30%.
  • Lower exposure time for large vehicles compared to traditional two-way stop-controlled intersections.
  • May be implemented as a signalized or unsignalized intersection.
  • May be a treatment at a single intersection or may be applied to multiple intersections along a corridor.

Disadvantages

  • May require additional right-of-way to construct supplemental turning areas (i.e., loons) or a wider median.
  • Prioritizes major road movements at the cost of minor road movements, which have additional travel distance and time.
  • Not a suitable treatment at the intersection of arterials, where two roadways have balanced and high traffic volumes.

233.5.4.5 J-Turn Pedestrian and Other Nonmotorized User Considerations

J-Turns typically utilize a Z-pattern pedestrian crossing configuration, which results in non-traditional and indirect pedestrian movements. If the primary intersection is signalized, shorter cycle lengths may provide more frequent pedestrian crossing opportunities. Additionally, while the wider intersection footprint lengthens pedestrian crossing distances, medians may provide refuge for multistage pedestrian crossings. Midblock crossings may also be provided near downstream U--turn crossovers.

The non-traditional layout of a J-Turn intersection allows for various bicycle treatments to be provided, some of which may depend on the intended riding location of cyclists.

J-Turns may pose potential navigational difficulties for pedestrian users with visual impairments.

233.5.4.6 J-Turn Costs and Maintenance

Unsignalized J-Turns eliminate additional costs associated with traffic signal equipment, ongoing maintenance, and required power supply. When compared to a traditional intersection configuration, the construction of a J-Turn intersection is typically 29%-34% higher, according to FHWA estimates. Additional project costs may be associated with increased right-of-way acquisition or median widening to accommodate U-turns.

233.5.4.7 J-Turn Conflict Points

Conflict points for both signalized and unsignalized configurations of a J-Turn intersection may be viewed in the table below and in the J-Turn Conflict Point Diagrams.

Conflict Point Type Conflict Points J-Turn (Traditional Intersection)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Total 14 (32)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Crossing 2 (16)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Merging 6 (8)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Diverging 6 (8)
Nonmotorized-Vehicle 10 (24)

233.5.4.8 J-Turn Additional Resources

MoDOT J-Turns

FHWA Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections

FHWA Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR) Chapter 4

233.5.5 Median U-Turns (MUT)

Figures

233.5.5.1 MUT Summary

A Median U-Turn (MUT) may also be referred to as a ThrU-Turn, Indirect Left, Express Left, or Michigan Left/Loon. MUTs remove direct left-turn movements from both the major and minor roadways and replace them with downstream U-turn maneuvers. Through and right-turn movements remain at the main intersection for both the major and minor roadways. The main intersection is signalized, while the downstream U-turns may operate under yield, stop, or signal control.

233.5.5.2 MUT Applicability

MUTs are most applicable in locations where there is a high proportion of through volumes to left -turning volumes, or where there are heavy through volumes and only moderate left-turn volumes on all approaches. From a safety perspective, MUTs may be appropriate where there is a high frequency of right-angle or rear-end crashes. Additionally, corridors with wide medians to accommodate downstream U-Turn maneuvers may be appropriate candidates for MUTs.

233.5.5.3 MUT Operational Based Criteria

There are several volumetric thresholds at which MUTs may become a more feasible design option relative to another alternative or traditional intersection type. These various thresholds shown in the table below may be based on hourly volumes per lane or intersection approach, volume/capacity ratio comparisons, or left-turn movement percentages.

Major street volumes of 300-1,900 veh/hr/ln and minor street volumes of 100-500 veh/hr/ln.
Left-turning volume < 400 veh/hr/ln and opposing through volume > 700 veh/hr/ln on two opposing approaches.
Volume to Capacity Ratio > 0.8 on two opposing approaches.
Left-turn approach volume < 20% of total approach volume on all approaches.
Cross product of hourly left-turn and opposing through volume > 150,000 on two opposing approaches.

233.5.5.4 MUT Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

  • Reduces crossing conflict points.
  • Increases capacity and improves operational efficiency.
  • May reduce crashes by 20%-50%.
  • Typically increases throughput by 30%-45%.
  • Better suited for high minor road through volumes than a J-turn intersection.
  • May be a treatment at a single intersection or may be applied to multiple intersections along a corridor.

Disadvantages

  • Has a lower overall intersection capacity at high left-turn demands.
  • Left turns have longer travel times and delays.
  • No geometric barriers are provided to prohibit left-turn movements at main intersection.
  • May require additional right-of-way to construct supplemental turning areas (i.e., loons) or a wider median.

233.5.5.5 MUT Pedestrian and Other Nonmotorized User Considerations

MUTs typically utilize a similar pedestrian crossing pattern to a traditional intersection. Shorter traffic signal cycle lengths at the primary intersection may provide more frequent pedestrian crossing opportunities. Additionally, while the wider intersection footprint lengthens pedestrian crossing distances, medians of the major road may be utilized to provide refuge for multistage pedestrian crossings. Midblock crossings may also be provided at or near the downstream U--turn crossovers.

The non-traditional layout of a MUT allows for various bicycle treatments, some of which may depend on the intended riding location of cyclists.

MUTs may pose potential navigational difficulties for pedestrian users with visual impairments.

233.5.5.6 MUT Costs and Maintenance

MUTs are typically more expensive than traditional intersection types. Additional costs may be associated with right-of-way acquisition or median widening.

233.5.5.7 MUT Conflict Points

Conflict points for both signalized and unsignalized configurations of a MUT intersection may be viewed in the table below and in the MUT Conflict Point Diagram.

Conflict Point Type Conflict Points MUT (Traditional Intersection)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Total 16 (32)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Crossing 4 (16)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Merging 6 (8)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Diverging 6 (8)
Nonmotorized-Vehicle 16 (24)

233.5.5.8 MUT Additional Resources

FHWA Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections

FHWA Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR) Chapter 3

233.5.6 Displaced Left-Turns (DLT)

Figures

233.5.6.1 DLT Summary

A Displaced Left-Turn (DLT) may also be referred to as a Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI), Partial Displaced Left-Turn (PDLT), or Crossover Displaced Left-Turn (XDLT). In a DLT intersection, left turns cross over to the left side of the roadway at secondary intersections upstream of the main junction. These displaced left-turns operate simultaneously with through movements at the main intersection without conflict. Both the main junction and secondary crossover intersections are signalized.

233.5.6.2 DLT Applicability

DLTs are most applicable in locations where there are heavy through and left-turning volumes, or where left-turn queues exceed existing storage distances. From a safety perspective, DLTs may be most appropriate where there is high left-turn crash frequency. DLTs are most applicable in urban or suburban locations and are typically not appropriate for rural locations.

233.5.6.3 DLT Operational Based Criteria

There are several volumetric thresholds at which DLTs may become a more feasible design option relative to another alternative or traditional intersection type. These various thresholds may be based on total entering volumes for the intersection, hourly volumes per lane or intersection approach, or volume/capacity ratio comparisons and are shown in the table below.

Full DLT Maximum Intersection Volume Max 12,000 vph
Partial DLT Maximum Intersection Volume Max 10,000 vph
Major street volume > 2,000 veh/hr/ln and minor street volume > 300 veh/hr/ln.
Mainline left-turning volumes > 250 veh/hr/ln and opposing through volumes > 500 veh/hr/ln on two opposing approaches.
Cross product of hourly left-turns and opposing through volumes exceed 150,000 on two opposing approaches.
Volume to Capacity Ratio > 0.8 on two opposing approaches.

233.5.6.4 DLT Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

  • May accommodate high intersection volumes and is a viable alternative to grade separation.
  • Increases capacity and operational efficiency.
  • Well suited to accommodate high left-turn volumes.
  • Intersection delays are typically reduced by 50%-85% for a full DLT (30%-40% for partial).
  • Throughput is typically increased by 10%-25% for a full DLT (10%-20% for partial).

Disadvantages

  • Unique access management techniques may need to be utilized to provide access to adjacent parcels, such as frontage roads.
  • U-turn movements are impractical at intersection.
  • Footprint of intersection is large relative to other at-grade alternatives.
  • Challenges regarding navigation and adherence to traffic control devices may arise where right turn bypass lanes are omitted.

233.5.6.5 DLT Pedestrian and Other Nonmotorized User Considerations

DLTs have more complex movements than standard intersections, as traffic may approach pedestrians from unexpected directions. Shorter traffic signal cycle lengths at the primary intersection may provide more frequent pedestrian crossing opportunities. Additionally, while the wider intersection footprint lengthens pedestrian crossing distances, medians may provide refuge for multistage pedestrian crossings.

The non-traditional layout of a DLT allows for various bicycle treatments, some of which may depend on the intended riding location of cyclists.

DLTs may pose potential navigational difficulties for pedestrian users with visual impairments.

233.5.6.6 DLT Costs and Maintenance

DLTs are typically 30% more expensive than traditional intersections, according to estimates from the FHWA. There are an increased number of traffic signals and associated equipment than at a traditional intersection. DLTs typically also have larger right-of-way needs than traditional intersections due to additional lanes for the displaced left-turn movements. However, construction of a DLT is significantly cheaper than grade separated alternatives which may provide equivalent capacity.

233.5.6.7 DLT Conflict Points

Conflict points for both partial and full configurations of a DLT intersection may be viewed in the table below and in the DLT Conflict Point Diagrams.

Conflict Point Type Conflict Points DLT (Traditional Intersection)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Total Partial – 30; Full – 28 (32)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Crossing Partial – 14; Full – 12 (16)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Merging Partial – 8; Full – 8 (8)
Vehicle-Vehicle - Diverging Partial – 8; Full – 8 (8)
Nonmotorized-Vehicle Partial – 22; Full – 20 (24)

233.5.6.8 DLT Additional Resources

FHWA Crossover Intersections

FHWA Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR) Chapter 8