EVALUATION OF STAGGERED

AND C R O S S INTERSECTIONS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

By David Mahalel, 1 Joseph Craus, 2 and A. Polus, 3 M. ASCE

(Reviewed by the Highway Division)

ABSTRACT: This paper presents an evaluation of two types of staggered inter-

sections compared with a four-leg cross intersection, with the aim of analyzing
the safety and operational characteristics of the intersection layout. The advan-
tages of the staggered intersection are advanced as an alternative layout to the
cross intersection. Although the main advantage of a staggered intersection is
in safety, this type also has operational advantages in some cases. The safety
advantage manifests itself in the need of crossing major road traffic from the
minor road to slow down, and in the lower number of conflict points and con-
flict streams. The operational advantage of a right-left staggered intersection
results from the driver having to cross only one traffic stream with each turn.
A quantitative evaluation of different traffic characteristics is carried out. De-
lays, number of stops, capacity, and geometric delay of the minor road are
analyzed for the three types of intersections; the interferences to the major road
are also discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Various changes in the past decade have led to an emphasis in the

approach to traffic problem solving on extracting all inherent possibili-
ties from existing systems, increasing their efficiency, and, conse^
quently, raising the level of service a n d the capacity of the road network.
Special consideration has been given to improving the traffic flow at in-
tersections, from a recognition that these areas frequently constitute the
bottleneck of the traffic system. This particular emphasis is reflected in
the many studies that have b e e n conducted, the p u r p o s e of which has
been to improve the level of service a n d control at intersections. A m o n g
the measures suggested and studied at signalized intersections have been
channelization and left-turn lanes (6,11), improvement of signal con-
trollers (5,8), right turn o n red (6), a n d flashing signals (3,13). For u n -
signalized priority intersections, there have been studies dealing with
the differences between " s t o p " a n d "yield" signs (9,19). Some research-
ers, like Upchurch (19) a n d Pretty (17), have r e c o m m e n d e d adapting the
level of control at an intersection to actual needs, with a view to reduc-
ing the quantity of delays, the n u m b e r of stops, a n d the a m o u n t of en-
ergy that is consumed at junctions. The common motif of their studies
is that over-control might lower the level of service at an intersection,
:
Sr. Lect., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Transportation Research Inst., Technion-Israel
Inst, of Tech., Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel.
2
Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Transportation Research Inst., Technion, Haifa
32000, Israel. •
3
Sr. Lect., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Transportation Research Inst., Technion, Haifa
32000, Israel.
Note.—Discussion open until February 1, 1987. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
October 31, 1985. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation Engineering,
Vol. 112, No. 5, September, 1986. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-947X/86/0005-0495/$01.00.
Paper No. 20898.

495

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 495-506

 cause a waste of resources, and at times even worsen the level of safety.
This paper evaluates a certain low-cost improvement aimed at reduc-
ing vehicle delays and stops and decreasing accident risk. The idea is
to convert a cross intersection into two adjacent T junctions, which re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sults in a device called a staggered intersection. This device is more suit-

able for rural locations, as it requires a relatively large amount of space.
There are two basic types of staggered intersections (see Fig. 1). One is
the RL (right-left) layout, in which the straight crossing of the main road
is replaced by first a right turn from the minor road and then a left turn
from the main road. With the second type, the LR (left-right) layout, the
straight crossing of the main road is replaced by first a left turn from
the minor road and afterwards a right turn from the main road. The
specific purpose of the study is to conduct a comparative evaluation of
the safety and operational characteristics of unsignalized cross and stag-
gered intersections on two-lane rural highways.
Although a staggered intersection might increase the amount of in-
terferences to vehicles on the main road because of the added number
of slow-moving vehicles between the two T intersections, this type of
intersection provides advantages to drivers on the minor road, as well
as certain improvements in the safety level of the intersections, as will
be explained later.

CROSS INTERSECTION
CROSSING POINT •
MERGING POINT •
DIVERGING POINT X

LEFT RIGHT STAGGERED INTERSECTION

Ah
MAJOR ROAD

w
RIGHT LEFT STAGGERED INTERSECTION

MAJOR ROAD

f?
F!G. 1.—Layouts of Staggered and Cross Intersections
496

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 495-506

 The final decision of a designer as to the layout of an intersection de-
pends on many factors, such as right-of-way, available topography, and
costs, many of which are not considered in this work. Nevertheless, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

findings of this study may help the designer to better understand the
impact on safety and operational characteristics of staggered intersec-
tions compared with cross intersections.

SAFETY EVALUATION

There should be a clear distinction between the major and minor roads
at a priority cross intersection, since the right-of-way is granted to the
driver on the main road. The driver on a minor road must stop or yield
to the former. A serious problem that often exists at rural cross inter-
sections is the lack of an intuitive understanding of the priority regime,
particularly when the hierarchy of the crossing roads is similar. Drivers
on rural roads do not always distinguish traffic signs, and this results
in more right-angle accidents. At staggered intersections, on the other
hand, drivers on the minor leg must slow down and turn left or right;
therefore, they have a natural tendency to yield to crossing vehicles. In
this manner, a situation is created in which an understanding of the
priority regime is brought about through the geometric layout. Driver
behavior at staggered intersections, then, is not based solely on traffic-
control signs, which are not always perceived, but rather on a better
intuitive understanding of the priority regime.
Staggered intersections provide another advantage: a reduction in and
dispersion of conflict points. As shown in Fig. 1, there are some 32 con-
flict points at a cross intersection: 16 crossing points; 8 merging points;
and 8 diverging points. At a staggered intersection of either type, there
are only 18 conflict points: 6 crossing; 6 merging; and 6 diverging. Be-
sides the safety advantage from the absolute reduction in the number
of conflict points, there is an advantage in their spatial dispersion, which
also leads to their dispersion over time. Thus the driver who passes
through a staggered intersection faces a smaller number of potential
problems in a unit of time. The smaller number of conflicting streams
at a staggered intersection, in turn, reduces the critical gaps, the amount
of delays, and the number of stops, and increases the level of safety.
The staggered intersection does have certain disadvantages, which are
expressed in interferences to traffic on the main road. Several types of
interferences may be distinguished, such as an addition of slow-moving
vehicles and a lessening of the overtaking ability.
The addition of slow-moving vehicles on the main road results from
those vehicles from the minor road that want to cross the main road.
At a cross intersection, these vehicles would not create any interference
to the main road if the drivers choose the appropriate gap. At a stag-
gered intersection, in contrast, crossing vehicles move on the main road
between the two vertical legs at lower speeds than the average speed
on the throughway, thereby creating possible interferences and perhaps
some reduction in the overall safety level.
A specific source of risk might be created at an RL-staggered inter-
section during the left turn from the main road. In the absence of a left-
turn lane, the turning vehicle may block the lane for the through ve-
497

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 495-506

 hides. In order to obviate such an obstacle, which might lead to a high
accident potential, particularly on interurban highways, an RL-type stag-
gered intersection is always assumed to include a left-turn lane.
A before-and-after accident study (1,7,18) revealed that changing a cross
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

intersection to a staggered intersection may result in a reduction of up

to 60% in the number of injury accidents. Larger reductions in the num-
ber of injury accidents were recorded at LR-type intersections than at
the RL type. Bennett and Blackmore (2) showed that through traffic
movement at a cross intersection is three times more dangerous than
the risks in the right and left movements at the two T junctions of a
staggered intersection. Craus (4) found that the number of accidents at
cross intersections grew as the percentage of traffic volume from the
minor road increased, in particular as the relative proportion of through
traffic rose. Investigating a sample of intersections at which traffic vol-
ume from the minor road was high, Craus (4) found that the average
number of accidents at cross intersections was more than double that of
the two T intersections. His finding supports the hypothesis discussed
here, according to which the risk at a cross intersection is especially great
when the hierarchy of the crossing roads seems to be equal and the
driver cannot intuitively know the priority regime at the intersection.

QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF FLOW CHARACTERISTICS

A quantitative analysis of a number of flow characteristics was con-

ducted in order to further evaluate a cross intersection against the two
types of staggered intersections. Since the essence of the impact created
when changing from a cross intersection to a staggered intersection is
with the through traffic from the minor road, the study focused on the
effect of the change. This traffic will henceforth be termed crossing ma-
jor road (CMR) traffic. The traffic characteristics evaluated for this anal-
ysis were the capacities of the minor approach and the subsequent left
turn from the major road; geometric delay; the probability of not stop-
ping for CMR traffic; delays to CMR traffic; and interferences on the
main road.

Capacity
The capacity of an unsignalized rural intersection was estimated using
the procedure described in the Interim Material on Highway Capacity
(10), which was adopted from a European study on capacity of at-grade
junctions (16). According to this procedure, capacity is defined, not for
the intersection as a whole, but for each secondary movement, according
to existing traffic volumes on the other movements (main and minor).
Thus, one cannot refer in general to the capacity of the minor-road traffic;
rather, one relates to the capacity of a specific movement as a function
of the traffic volumes of other movements. Calculation of capacity on a
certain leg is thus dependent on the sum of the conflicting traffic stream
and the critical gap. This last element was chosen according to the type
of maneuver and the type of control ("stop" or "yield") at the intersec-
tion.
A graphic representation of the secondary road capacity was obtained
for certain critical gaps and conflicting traffic streams, based on the in-
498

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 495-506

 terim material on highway capacity. Adjustments were made for various
impedance factors, including shared lanes for turning movements. The
capacities of the minor road and of the left turn from the major road
were computed, using the following assumptions: (1) On each ap-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

proach, 20% of all vehicles turn right and 20% turn left; (2) on the minor
approach, there is only one lane in each direction, i.e., there are no
separate turning lanes; and (3) 80% of the total traffic volume on the
main road enters the intersection in equal proportion from each direc-
tion, while 10% enters from each minor road.
Fig. 2 describes the capacities of the minor road and of the left turn
from the main road for all three intersection types. As can be seen, the
capacity of the minor road is highest with an RL-type staggered inter-
section. In comparison, the minor-road capacity at a cross intersection
is similar to that at an LR-type staggered intersection. The advantage of
the RL intersection results from converting CMR traffic to a right turn
before it reaches the cross intersection making a right turn, drivers ac-
cept a lower critical gap and meet fewer vehicle streams. The similarity
between the cross intersection and the LR intersection stems from their
similar critical gaps and conflicting traffic streams.
The capacity of the left turn from the main road is highest at a cross
intersection. The reason lies in the traffic-stream patterns created in
changing to a staggered intersection, at which CMR traffic is added to
the major road.
Since the results in Fig. 2 are subject to some extent to selected traffic-
volume combinations, another calculation was carried out for computing
capacity. This time, the assumption made was that of equal traffic vol-
umes at each approach to the intersection. The results of this calculation

_L_ CROSS
j.
LR
1000-
V \ —- -^-r
N
900
\
x V
\
\
—
^_L RL

800- \ \ \ -
LEFT TURN FROM
V \ * MAJOR ROAD
700-
\ \
eoo- \
\
500-
\
\, \
400-
\ -,
300-
•MINOR APPROACH

200-
v J
100-

0- 1 1 —i 1 ' ""-
200 (00 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 16C0

TOTAL No. OF ENTERING VEHICLES (V,P,H)

FIG. 2.—Capacity of Minor Approach and Left Turn at Three Types of Intersec-
tions
499

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 495-506

 also showed higher capacities on the minor road and in the left-turn
lane. The important point, however, is that the relative ranking of the
various intersections did not change.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Geometric Delay
McDonald, Hounsell, and Kimber (12) defined the extra travel time
required by vehicles as they slow down to negotiate an intersection as
"geometric delay." The calculations of this delay assumed no vehicle
traffic at the intersection. Generally, the calculations were made relative
to the alternative of a straight road with no intersection. In the current
work, the additional geometric delay created at a staggered intersection
was calculated relative to a cross intersection. In this case, the additional
delay is the result of the added travel time of CMR traffic on the major
road, i.e., the time on the two horizontal arcs and on the road section
between the T junctions.
A major element in calculating vehicle travel time on the main road
is the set of assumptions that creates the speed profile. In this work,
the following assumptions were made: (1) The turning speed along the
horizontal curves is constant at 20 kph; (2) on the major road, the driver
first accelerates and then slows down, and between these two actions
travels at a constant speed for a minimum of two seconds; and (3) max-
imum travel speed on the major road is 80 kph. Employing these three
assumptions and the known distance between the staggered intersec-
tions, it is possible to calculate the travel time of crossing vehicles.
The geometric delay on the section of the major road that is brought
about at a staggered intersection is described in Fig. 3. As may be seen,
the derivative of the geometric delay over distance is a decreasing func-
tion. The reason for this phenomenon is the higher speed the driver

—30

20

•-15

5-

50 100 150 200 250 300

D I S T A N C E (ml

FIG. 3.—Additional Geometric Delays Caused by Staggered Intersection as Func-

tion of Distance between Legs

500

J
J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 495-506
 attains as the distance increases. In other words, the added geometric
delay is not a linear function distance.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Probability of Not Stopping

The number of stops that take place at an intersection is a potential
estimator of the level of service and energy consumption. Under a "yield"
control, the level of service that may be determined for the intersection
becomes higher as the probability of not stopping increases for the mi-
nor streams. This probability was calculated. Similarly, the probability
of zero traffic delay under a "stop" control was calculated. The calcu-
lations for CMR traffic contained these assumptions: (1) The conflicting
traffic streams are on the main road only; (2) traffic is equally divided
between the two directions; (3) the distribution of lags and gaps on the
major road is negatively exponential; and (4) the critical gaps of drivers
are based on Interim Material on Highway Capacity (10).
At cross and LR intersections, vehicles from the minor road cross two
traffic lanes at a time. The probability of accepting a lag immediately
upon arrival, without stopping, may be given as:
P (no stopping) = P(X > T) = e~^X2)T (1)
in which X = the available lag; ^ , \ 2 = traffic volumes of the near and
far lanes, respectively (vehicles per sec); and T = the critical lag (sec).
When the driver crosses the two lanes, but not at one time, the prob-
ability of his not stopping is a multiplication of the two probabilities of
not stopping at each stream. Thus the probability of not stopping at an
RL-staggered intersection is calculated according to this formulation:

1.0 RL

CROSS
09
LR
-H-
08

>• 07

- i 0.6

" 05
<
CO

C£
O. 03

0.2

0.1

0 4 —i 1 ' ' 1 1 1 1——

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 WOO 1600
TRAFFIC V O L U M E (V.P.H)

FIG. 4.—Probability of Not Stopping as Function of Traffic Volume

501

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 495-506

 P (no stopping) = P ( X > r , ) x P ( X > T2) = e"(Mri+X2T2) (2)
in which all the parameters are as previously defined, and T^ and T2 are
the critical lags of the right and left movements, respectively.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4 presents the probability of not stopping for CMR traffic for the
three types of intersections. Although the differences are not great, the
probability is highest at an RL-type intersection, followed by a cross in-
tersection, and lowest at an LR intersection. This result stems both from
the lower critical gaps at a right turn from the minor road (at the RL
intersection) and from the fact that the driver does not cross two traffic
lanes at a time.

Delays
The amount of delay caused drivers on the minor road, like stops,
constitutes an estimator of both the level of service and the energy con-
sumption in the area of the intersection. An estimate of delays was made
for CMR traffic only. The assumptions behind the calculations are iden-
tical to those used when computing the probability of not stopping.
An estimate of the quantity of delays at a stop control was made ac-
cording to McNeil and Weiss (15) by means of the following equation:

i = - (eXT - X T • 1) (3)
X.

LR
CROSS

40 RL

30

.20-

10

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 K00 1600

TRAFfIC VOLUME (V.P.H)

FIG. 5.—Average Delay at Stop Lines

502

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 495-506

 in which I = the average delay (sec); k = the sum of the traffic volumes
on the major road from both directions (vehicles per sec); and T = the
critical gap (sec).
When the crossing is executed in two stages, such as at an RL inter-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

section, the delay must be calculated at each stop line separately and
the two average values added together. Fig. 5 presents the average delay
for crossing vehicles from the minor road for various traffic volumes on
the major road. The lowest delay can be seen to be created at an RL-
staggered intersection, a higher delay at the cross intersection, and the
highest at an LR-type intersection.
As in the previous cases, the reason for the advantages of the RL-type
staggered intersection is the low critical gap and the fact that the driver
on the minor road does not cross more than one traffic lane at a time.

Interferences on Major Road

Interferences on the major road are caused by slow-moving vehicles
that enter from the minor road. Although this phenomenon exists for
each type of intersection, it assumes greater dimensions at a staggered
intersection because of the change in course of the CMR traffic. The ma-
neuvering of this traffic causes more interferences than does a turning
vehicle (whether left or right), since there is a slowing down (before the
turn) after a period of accelerations. On the other hand, a turning ve-
hicle only accelerates.
For this work, the potential interferences of CMR traffic were calcu-
lated for vehicles on the major road. In addition to the assumptions made
when calculating the nonstopping probability, the following were in-
corporated: (1) The speed of a vehicle from the minor road is in accord-
ance with the profile assumed for the geometric-delay calculations; (2)
travel time on the horizontal arc of an RL intersection is 1.7 sec, and on
the horizontal arcs of an LR>intersection 2.9 sec; (3) the maximum speed
on the major road is 80 kph; (4) the possibility of multiple interference
on the main road is not taken into account; and (5) at an RL-staggered
intersection, there are left-turn lanes from the major road.
Following these assumptions, the probability that a vehicle on the main
road will be interfered with was calculated according to Eq. 4:
P (interference with vehicle on main road)
= P(T < Gap < D) = e"XT - e'w (4)
in which X = the sum of the conflicting streams (vehicles per sec);
T = the critical gap of drivers on the minor road; and D = the difference
in travel time (on the main road) between a vehicle entering from the
minor road and one already on the main road (for the section between
the two intersections).
The meaning of this formula is as follows: A vehicle on the main road
that travels in a small headway (lower than critical) will not be interfered
with, as the gap will be rejected. A vehicle that travels in a very large
headway will not be interfered with, since the driver from the minor
road will complete the CMR maneuver without interference. The vehi-
cles that are interfered with, therefore, are those accepting a gap that is
503

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 495-506

 120- -rXRL
-Lj-LR
110-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

100- _ jf0~v7ir
/
90- /
3 /
O 80- /
V? /
iSSo- /
o /
z
sy 6o- /
UJ / ^ ' lBOO'VPH
a 50-
UJ
Z
/ /
- 40- / /
/ /
30-
/ / .^- 7oo"W
20-
/ / ^ - ^ ^.^-" 400 V.RH
/ / / ^ >
10-

,0 50
l/S 100 ISO 200 250 300 350 400
D I S T A N C E Im)

FIG. 6.—Potential Interferences for Vehicles on Major Road Caused by CMR Traffic
i

larger than the critical gap but smaller than the travel-time differences
(discussed in Eq. 4).
Multiplying the probability that the vehicle will be interfered with by
the number of vehicles per hour gives the potential number of interfer-
ences. Fig. 6 presents the quantity of interferences for vehicles on the
main road for different distances between the T intersection and for var-
ious traffic volumes. The principal conclusions that can be drawn are
these: (1) The quantity of interferences to vehicles on the main road is
higher at an RL-type staggered intersection than at an LR-staggered in-
tersection because of lower critical gaps; (2) when the distance between
the two T intersections is small (under 60-80 m), no interferences are
brought about on the main road; and (3) when the distance between the
two T intersections is large (longer than 250 m), the amount of inter-
ferences is constant.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has presented a comparative evaluation of two types of

staggered intersections and a cross intersection. Although the main ad-
vantage of the staggered intersection is in safety, it has some operational
advantages, as well. The safety advantage manifests itself in three major
elements: a better understanding of the priority regime at the intersec-
tion area; a lower number of conflict points and their dispersion over
space; and lower critical gaps.
On the minor approach roads, the traffic that crosses the major roads
has the following operational advantages with an RL-type staggered in-
504
i
J

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 495-506

 tersection: lower delays at the stop line; higher probabilities of not hav-
ing to stop at the stop line at a "yield" control; and higher capacities.
These advantages result mainly from the lower critical gaps created w h e n
the crossing maneuver is divided into two consecutive maneuvers—a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

right turn followed by a left turn—conducted at one traffic lane at one

time. At an LR-type intersection, the critical gaps are higher, since the
two lanes have to be crossed at one time, a n d therefore the resulting
operational level of service for CMR traffic is generally lower.
On the major road, the layout of any staggered intersection generally
causes a d d e d traffic interferences relative to a cross intersection. The
quantity of interferences w a s found to be an increasing function of the
distance between the two intersections. At an RL-staggered intersection,
assuming that a left-turn lane exists, almost n o interferences to the major
road traffic are found if the distance b e t w e e n the two T intersections is
short. This fact is d u e to the ability of the driver on the minor road to
conclude the passage through the main road during the critical gap.
In summary, it seems that for a newly developed intersection, the
staggered layout controlled b y a stop or yield sign has some operational
and safety advantages a n d should be considered favorably.

APPENDIX I.—REFERENCES

1. Bennett, G. T., "Road Junctions: Suggestions for Improved Designs," Public

Works Road and Transportation Congress, 1947.
2. Bennett, G. T., and Blackmore, F. C , "Accident Risks and Capacity of Single
Level Intersections," Theme 11, 10th International Study Week in Traffic and
Safety Engineering, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1970.
3. Bernioff, B., Carson, C , and Dock, F., "A Study of Clearance Intervals,
Flashing Operations and Left-Turn Phasing at Traffic Signals," FHWA-RD-
78-48, Washington, D.C., 1980.
4. Craus, J., "Analysis of Operational Characteristics of Staggered Intersec-
tions," Research Report 83-Z6, Transportation Research Institute, Haifa, Israel,
Apr., 1983.
5. Euler, G. W., "Traffic Signal Timing Optimization Achieving National Ob-
jectives Through State and Local Government Actions," ITE Journal, Sept.,
1983, pp. 14-17.
6. Foody, T. J., and Richardson, W. C , "Evaluation of Left-Turn Lanes as a
Traffic Control Device," Ohio Department of Transportation, 1983.
7. Garwood, F., and Tanner, J. C , "Accident Studies Before and After Road
Changes," Public Works and Municipal Services Congress, 1956.
8. Gartner, N. H., "Opac: A Demand Responsive Strategy for Traffic Signal
Control," Transportation Research Record 906, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 1983.
9. Hall, L. D., Sinha, K. C , and Michael, H. L., "A Comprehensive Evaluation
of Non-Signalized Control at Low Volume Intersections," presented at the
1978 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 1978.
10. "Interim Materials on Highway Capacity," Transportation Research Circular No.
212, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1980.
11. Lin, H. J., and Machemehl, R. B., "Developmental Study of Implementation
Guidelines for Left-Turn Treatments," Transportation Research Record 905,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1983.
12. McDonald, M., Hounsell, N. D., and Kimber, R. M., "Geometric Delay at
Non-Signalized Intersections," TRRL Supplementary Report 810, Crowthorne,
U.K., 1984.
505

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 495-506

 13. Mahalel, D., and Peled, A., "A Safety, Energy and Environmental Evalua-
tion of Traffic Signal Operation at Off-Peak Hours," Traffic Engineering and
Control, Vol. 25, No. 2, Feb., 1984.
14. McGee, H. W., "Guidelines for Prohibiting Right-Turn on Red at Signalized
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Intersections," Transportation Engineering, Jan., 1978.

15. McNeil, D. R., and Weiss, G. H., "Delay Problems for Isolated Intersec-
tions," Traffic Science, D. C. Gazis, Ed., Wiley Interscience Publishers, 1974.
16. Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, "Capacity of At Grade
Junctions," Paris, France, 1974.
17. Pretty, R. L., "Alternative Methods of Intersection Control Subject to War-
rants," Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 24, No. 6, 1983, pp. 296-300.
18. Road Research Laboratory, "Research on Road Traffic," HMSO, London, U.K.,
1965.
19. Upchurch, J. E., "Guidelines for Use of Sign Control at Intersections to Re-
duce Energy Consumption," ITE Journal, Vol. 53, No. 1, Jan., 1983, pp. 22-
34.

APPENDIX II.—NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

D = difference in travel time (on main road) between vehicle en-

tering from minor road and one already on main road (sec);
T = critical gap (sec);
T\, T2 = critical gaps of right and left m o v e m e n t s , respectively;
X = available lag; <
X = traffic volumes for both directions (vehicles per sec); a n d
X], X2 = traffic volumes of near and far lanes, respectively (vehicles
per sec).

506

J. Transp. Eng., 1986, 112(5): 495-506