San Diego State University Displaced Left Turns Essay Comparing 4- Restricted Crossing U-Turns (RCUTs) intersections. First, need to write an overview intr

San Diego State University Displaced Left Turns Essay Comparing 4- Restricted Crossing U-Turns (RCUTs) intersections. First, need to write an overview introduction about RCUT, then describe the area of each intersection. After that, need to compare between the Geometric Design. Then write a conclusion. Restricted Crossing U-Turns (RCUTs)
Comparing 4- Restricted Crossing U-Turns (RCUTs) intersections. First, need to write an overview
introduction about RCUT, then describe the area of each intersection. After that, need to
compare between the Geometric Design. Then write a conclusion.
1- Rock Bridge Rd and US 231, Dothan, AL @ 31°15’18.70″N, 85°25’52.50″W (built 2009)
a. Area description:
b. Geometric Design:
i. Signalized RCUT.
ii. 6-lane major street & 4-lane minor street.
iii. 4 approaches
iv. Main intersection turn-lanes
1. 3-lane Left-Turn Crossovers
v. U-turn crossovers
1. East:
a. Single-directional crossovers (merge)
2. West:
a. Conventional intersection
vi. Median width
1. Median width (25-ft)
2. No loons
vii. Right-way Requirements; 155-ft
viii. Spacing:
1. between Main intersection and U-Turn crossover
a. East; 570-ft
b. West; 850-ft
o Note: MDOT recommends a distance of 660 feet ±100
feet between the main intersection and the U-turn
crossover for a RCUT intersection.
2. consideration for minor street through or left turn movement:
a. Lane change; 192-ft
b. Deceleration; 182-ft
c. Storage; 205-ft
3. between crossovers along a RCUT corridor of intersections:
a. East; 72-ft
o Note: MDOT guidance for MUT corridors suggests a
100 feet minimum and 150 feet desirable distance.
ix. Pedestrian crossing. (Crossing Type; Z)
x. No Bus stop.
2- Big Beaver and Lakeview Dr, Troy, MI @ 42°33’40.97″N, 83°10’52.85″W (built 1990)
a. Area description:
b. Geometric Design:
i. Signalized RCUT.
ii. 6-lane major street & 4-lane minor street.
iii. 4 approaches
iv. Main intersection turn-lanes
1. 3-lane Left-Turn Crossovers
v. U-turn crossovers
1. East:
a. Single-directional crossovers (signal)
2. West:
a. Conventional intersection
vi. Median width
1. Median width (25-ft)
2. No loons
vii. Right-way Requirements; 155-ft
viii. Spacing:
1. between Main intersection and U-Turn crossover
a. East; 570-ft
b. West; 850-ft
o Note: MDOT recommends a distance of 660 feet ±100
feet between the main intersection and the U-turn
crossover for a RCUT intersection.
2. consideration for minor street through or left turn movement:
a. Lane change; 192-ft
b. Deceleration; 182-ft
c. Storage; 205-ft
3. between crossovers along a RCUT corridor of intersections:
a. East; 72-ft
o Note: MDOT guidance for MUT corridors suggests a
100 feet minimum and 150 feet desirable distance.
ix. Pedestrian crossing. (Crossing Type; Z)
x. No Bus stop.
3- US212 and MN284,Cologne,MN @ 44°45’55.01″N, 93°46’52.47″W (built unkown)
a. Area description:
b. Geometric Design:
i. Merge RCUT.
ii. 4-lane major street & 2-lane minor street.
iii. 4 approaches
iv. Main intersection turn-lanes
1. 2-lane Left-Turn Crossovers
v. U-turn crossovers
1. East:
a. Single-directional crossovers (merge)
2. West:
a. Single-directional crossovers (merge)
vi. Median width
1. Median width 10-45-ft (east and west)
2. No loons
vii. Right-way Requirements; 190-ft
viii. Spacing:
1. between Main intersection and U-Turn crossover
a. (east and west); 560-ft
o Note: MDOT recommends a distance of 660 feet ±100
feet between the main intersection and the U-turn
crossover for a RCUT intersection.
2. consideration for minor street through or left turn movement: (east
and west);
a. Lane change; 140-ft
b. Deceleration; 440-ft
c. Storage; 320-ft
3. between crossovers along a RCUT corridor of intersections:
a. no other RCUTs
o Note: MDOT guidance for MUT corridors suggests a
100 feet minimum and 150 feet desirable distance.
ix. No Pedestrian crossing.
x. No Bus stop.
4- US 17 & Gregory Rd, Leland, NC @ 34°12’49.91″N, 78° 1’22.16″W (build 2007)
a. Area description:
b. Geometric Design:
i. Signalized RCUT.
ii. 4-lane major street & 4-lane minor street.
iii. 4 approaches
iv. Main intersection turn-lanes
1. 3-lane Left-Turn Crossovers
v. U-turn crossovers
1. East:
a. Single-directional crossovers (signal)
2. West:
a. Single-directional crossovers (signal)
vi. Median width
1. Median width
a. East; 10-ft
b. West; 45-ft
2. loons
vii. Right-way Requirements; 165-ft
viii. Spacing:
1. between Main intersection and U-Turn crossover
a. East; 630-ft
b. West; 830-ft
o Note: MDOT recommends a distance of 660 feet ±100
feet between the main intersection and the U-turn
crossover for a RCUT intersection.
2. consideration for minor street through or left turn movement:
a. East
o Lane change; 420-ft
o Deceleration; 160-ft
o Storage; 260-ft
b. West
o Lane change; 260-ft
o Deceleration; 200-ft
o Storage; 220-ft
3. between crossovers along a RCUT corridor of intersections:
a. East; 25-ft
o Note: MDOT guidance for MUT corridors suggests a
100 feet minimum and 150 feet desirable distance.
ix. No Pedestrian crossing.
x. No Bus stop.
Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational
Guide
Publication No. FHWA-SA-14-070
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590
August 2014
FOREWORD
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative is designed to
identify and deploy innovation aimed at reducing project delivery time, enhancing safety and
protecting the environment. In 2012, FHWA chose Intersection & Interchange Geometrics (IIG)
to feature as one of the innovative technologies in EDC-2. Specifically, IIG consists of a family
of alternative intersection designs that improve intersection safety while also reducing delay, and
at lower cost and with fewer impacts than comparable traditional solutions.
As part of the effort to mainstream these intersections, FHWA has produced a series of guides to
help transportation professionals routinely consider and implement these designs. Concurrent
with this Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT) Informational Guide, FHWA developed and
published guides for three other designs: Median U-turn (MUT), Displaced Left Turn (DLT),
and Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI). These guides represent summaries of the current
state of knowledge and practice, and are intended to inform project planning, scoping, design and
implementation decisions.
An electronic version of this document is available on the Office of Safety website at
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/. Additionally, limited quantities of hard copies are available from the
Report Center; inquiries may be directed to report.center@dot.gov or 814-239-1160.
Michael S. Griffith
Director
Office of Safety Technologies
Notice
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation
in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of
the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or
manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the
objective of the document.
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.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA-SA-14-070
2. Government Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational Guide
3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
5. Report Date
August 2014
7. Authors
Joe Hummer, Wayne State University; Brian Ray, Andy Daleiden, Pete Jenior,
Julia Knudsen, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
6. Performing Organization Code
8. Performing Organization Report No.
Project 13517
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700
Portland, OR 97205
11. Contract or Grant No.
TO DTFH61-00023-T-13002
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
13. Type of Report and Period
Technical Report
Informational Report
September 2013 to August 2014
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
FHWA
15. Supplementary Notes
Jeffrey Shaw (jeffrey.shaw@dot.gov), Office of Safety Technologies (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/), served as the Technical
Manager for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The following FHWA staff contributed as technical working group
members, reviewers and/or provided input or feedback to the project at various stages: Joe Bared, Mark Doctor, Brian Fouch,
Elizabeth Hilton, Jim McCarthy, George Merritt, Will Stein, Jim Sturrock and Wei Zhang.
16. Abstract
This document provides information and guidance on Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) intersections. To the extent possible,
the guide addresses a variety of conditions found in the United States, to achieve designs suitable for a wide array of potential
users. This guide provides general information, planning techniques, evaluation procedures for assessing safety and operational
performance, design guidelines, and principles to be considered for selecting and designing RCUT intersections.
17. Key Words
RCUT, Superstreet, J-turn, Restricted Crossing U-turn, Reduced Conflict
Intersection, Synchronized Street, Alternative Intersections, Innovative
Intersections
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions.
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
186
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
22. Price
Reproduction of completed pages authorized
i
Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational Guide
ii
Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational Guide
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1— INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………… 1
OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS AND INTERCHANGES ………………. 1
INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS ……………………. 1
ORGANIZATION OF THE GUIDELINES …………………………………………………………………… 2
SCOPE OF THE GUIDE ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
RCUT INTERSECTION OVERVIEW ………………………………………………………………………….. 3
APPLICATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
RESOURCE DOCUMENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
CHAPTER 2— POLICY AND PLANNING ………………………………………………………………… 15
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS AND
INTERCHANGES …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………… 21
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………… 22
PLANNING CHALLENGES ……………………………………………………………………………………… 24
PROJECT PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS ……………………………………………………… 25
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ……………………………………………………………………… 26
SUMMARY OF RCUT ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES …………………………….. 27
CHAPTER 3—MULTIMODAL CONSIDERATIONS…………………………………………………. 31
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH …………………………………………………………………. 31
PEDESTRIANS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32
BICYCLISTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42
TRANSIT VEHICLE CONSIDERATION …………………………………………………………………… 47
HEAVY VEHICLE CONSIDERATIONS ……………………………………………………………………. 49
CHAPTER 4 — SAFETY ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 51
SAFETY PRINCIPLES ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 51
OBSERVED SAFETY PERFORMANCE ……………………………………………………………………. 54
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………… 58
INCIDENT RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS …………………………………………………………….. 61
SAFETY EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS …………………………………………………………… 61
CHAPTER 5 — OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ……………………………………………. 63
OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES ………………………………………………………………………………….. 63
SYSTEM-WIDE CONSIDERATIONS ……………………………………………………………………….. 76
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE STUDIES ……………………………………………………………. 79
iii
Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational Guide
CHAPTER 6 — OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………….. 83
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OVERVIEW ………………………………………………………………… 84
PLANNING ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………………………………… 87
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (HCM) ANALYSIS ……………………………………………… 88
MICROSIMULATION ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………………………. 91
CHAPTER 7 — GEOMETRIC DESIGN …………………………………………………………………….. 95
DESIGN APPROACH……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 95
GEOMETRIC DESIGN PARAMETERS/PRINCIPLES………………………………………………… 98
RANGE OF RCUT CONFIGURATIONS ……………………………………………………………………. 98
OPERATIONAL EFFECTS OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN …………………………………………….. 102
DESIGN GUIDANCE ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 104
CHAPTER 8–SIGNALS, SIGNING, MARKING, AND LIGHTING ………………………….. 121
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH ……………………………………………………………….. 121
SIGNALIZED VERSUS UNSIGNALIZED RCUT INTERSECTIONS ………………………… 121
SIGNALS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 122
SIGNING ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 129
PAVEMENT MARKINGS ………………………………………………………………………………………. 137
LIGHTING …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 138
CHAPTER 9 – CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ………………………………………… 141
CONSTRUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 141
COSTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 145
MAINTENANCE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 149
LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS ………………………………………………………………………………. 150
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 153
Appendix A
CATALOG OF ALL KNOWN INSTALLATIONS IN THE UNITED
STATES …………………………………………………………………………………………. 157
Appendix B
SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY DETAILS ………. 159
Appendix C
MARKETING AND OUTREACH MATERIALS ……………………………. 165
iv
Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational Guide
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1-1. Example of a RCUT intersection with signals…………………………………………………… 5
Exhibit 1-2. Example of a RCUT intersection with stop-control. ………………………………………….. 5
Exhibit 1-3. Example of a RCUT intersection with merges. …………………………………………………. 6
Exhibit 1-4. Locations of RCUT Intersections. …………………………………………………………………… 7
Exhibit 1-5. Signalized RCUT intersection on US-281 in San Antonio, TX with four-lane major
street and four-lane minor street.(2) ……………………………………………………………………………………. 8
Exhibit 1-6. Stop-controlled RCUT intersection on US-1 near Southern Pines, NC.(2) …………….. 9
Exhibit 1-7. Merge-controlled RCUT intersection on US-15 in Emmitsburg, MD.(3) ………………. 9
Exhibit 1-8. RCUT intersection on US-15/501 in Chapel Hill, NC with no left-turn crossovers.(2)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Exhibit 1-9. Loon implemented on RCUT intersection in Wilmington, NC.(3)………………………. 11
Exhibit 1-10. Signalized RCUT intersection in operation near San Antonio, TX showing a
pedestrian “Z” crossing.(3)………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
Exhibit 1-11. Three-legged RCUT intersection on US-17 at Brunswick Forest Parkway in
Leland, NC.(2) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Exhibit 1-12. RCUT corridor on US-17 in Leland, NC.(4)…………………………………………………… 13
Exhibit 2-1. Relationship between total entering volume and intersection type. ……………………. 17
Exhibit 2-2. Superstreet intersection public brochure from NCDOT.(4) ………………………………… 19
Exhibit 2-3. Superstreet intersection graphic by NCDOT.(15)………………………………………………. 20
Exhibit 2-4. Reduced conflict intersection video by MnDOT.(16) ………………………………………… 20
Exhibit 2-5. J-Turn intersection video by MoDOT.(17) ……………………………………………………….. 21
Exhibit 2-6. Project development process. ……………………………………………………………………….. 26
Exhibit 3-1. Pedestrian movements in a RCUT intersection. ………………………………………………. 32
Exhibit 3-2. Signalized RCUT with “Z” crossing near San Antonio, TX.(3) ………………………….. 33
Exhibit 3-3. Pedestrian-vehicle conflict points at conventional intersection. …………………………. 34
Exhibit 3-4. Pedestrian-vehicle conflict points at RCUT intersection…………………………………… 34
Exhibit 3-5. RCUT intersection wit…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Submit a Comment