Journal of Engineering Research (ERJ)
ISSN: 2356-9441 Vol. 8 – No. 1, 2024
A Comparative Analysis of Displaced Left-Turn
and Four-Leg Signalized Intersections:
Operational, Safety, and Environmental
Perspectives
Aishah Elsayed1, Ibrahim Hashem2, Ahmed Hassan3
1Faculty of Engineering, Menoufia University, Egypt, – email: aisha.alsayed.373@sh-eng.menofia.edu.eg
2, Faculty of Engineering, Menoufia University, Egypt, – email: Ibrahim.hashim@sh-eng.menofia.edu.eg
3 Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt, – email: ahmedehassan@cu.edu.eg ,second email:ahmedehassan@gmail.com
Abstract- Numerous unconventional intersection designs
have been suggested as a creative solution to mitigate traffic
congestion at heavily crowded at-grade signalized intersections.
A lot of these unconventional configurations have demonstrated
superior performance compared to conventional intersections
regarding average control delay and overall intersection
capacity. This study aims to compare the operational, safety,
and environmental effectiveness of one such unconventional
intersection design known as Displaced Left-turn (DLT). The
assessment considers both balanced and unbalanced scenarios
in comparison to a conventional intersection (i.e., four-leg
signalized intersection). This analysis employs the microscopic
simulation software VISSIM along with the Surrogate Safety
Assessment Model (SSAM). Operational performance is
evaluated based on average vehicle delay, safety performance
on simulated conflicts, and environmental performance on CO2
emissions and fuel consumption. Results indicate that the
average delays for the DLT were lower than those of the
conventional intersection, while the DLT exhibited higher
capacity. Moreover, DLT improved safety conditions relative to
the conventional intersection and demonstrated clear
advantages in terms of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
Keywords- UAIDs, VISSIM, at-grade signalized intersection,
unconventional four-legged intersection, SSAM.
I. INTRODUCTION
Intersections, where roads intersect, are commonly seen as
crucial points in the network, and evaluating their
effectiveness provides valuable insights and significant
indicators of the overall system performance [1]. With
increasing traffic demand, congestion and compromised
traffic safety become prominent issues, especially at at-grade
intersections. The main culprits behind congestion and
collisions are typically high volumes of left-turning traffic at
these intersections. Despite occupying a small portion of the
road network, intersections hold significant importance. This
is because they are decision points for drivers, determining
whether to turn left, right, or proceed straight ahead. As a
result, the significance of the intersections cannot be
overstated.
doi: XXXXXXXXXX
©Tanta University, Faculty of Engineering e ISSN: 2735-4873
In urban areas, intersections with high vehicle demand
pose challenges for traffic engineers, who propose solutions
like double left turn bays, signal optimization, lane
expansion, and overpass construction. Optimizing traffic
signals can reduce vehicle travel time and increases
intersection capacity, though it requires more engineers and
incurs costs. Despite its benefits in enhancing road capacity,
decreasing fuel consumption, and reducing congestion and
accidents, it may not suffice when demand exceeds capacity.
Additionally, traffic congestion negatively impacts the
economy by raising business operational costs due to
extended travel times, delayed shipments, and increased fuel
expenses. Recently, unconventional Arterial Intersection
Designs (UAIDs) have emerged as a pioneering solution for
alleviating traffic congestion, notably enhancing safety and
operational efficiency at at-grade intersections. UAIDs, such
as the median U-turn, super street, jug handle, displaced left-
turn (DLT), and parallel flow intersection (PFI), share the
principle of redirecting specific traffic movements away
from direct through and/or turning movements at
intersections. Consequently, unconventional intersections
typically have fewer conflict points than conventional
counterparts, resulting in a reduced number of signal phases
and thus improving traffic operation and safety compared to
traditional intersection designs. As the adoption of UAIDs
shows promise in addressing congestion and safety issues,
researchers advocate for further investigation and discussion
to fully comprehend their efficacy and safety implications.
This study delves into the operational, safety, and
environmental performance of the Displaced Left-turn
intersection in comparison to the conventional signalized
four-leg intersection.
1
 Journal of Engineering Research (ERJ)
ISSN: 2356-9441 Vol. 8 – No. 1, 2024
Displaced Left-turn Intersections (DLT), alternatively
known as Continuous Flow Intersections (CFI) or Crossover
Displaced Left-turn Intersections (XDL), present distinct
advantages and have been effectively deployed across
various locations in the United States. DLTs, featuring partial
or complete geometric configurations, incorporate crossover
lanes preceding the main intersection, facilitating
simultaneous through and left-turn movements without
conflicts. Right turns are directed to bypass the primary
intersection, as illustrated in (Figure 1). The safety benefits
are clear in the decrease of conflict points compared to
conventional intersections. The primary intersection follows
a two-phase cycle, ensuring streamlined traffic flow.
Instances in New York, Oakland, Louisiana, Maryland, and
Utah highlight the success of this unconventional
intersection design [2].
Fig 1. The Displaced Left-Turn Intersection [3]
The primary aim of this research is to evaluate the
operational, safety, and environmental effectiveness of DLT
in comparison to a conventional intersection across various
balanced and unbalanced traffic volume scenarios.
II. PREVIOUS WORK
Unconventional intersection designs have the potential to
improve the efficiency and safety of at-grade intersections by
decreasing both the number of signal phases and conflicts
within the intersection zone [4]. In recent times, several
studies have been conducted to assess the operational and
safety effectiveness of UAIDs utilizing a range of
methodologies. Some instances of these investigations
encompass the evaluation of the Median U-turn (MUT)
[5-9]
, unconventional MUT [10, 11] , Superstreet Median
doi: XXXXXXXXXX
2
©Tanta University, Faculty of Engineering e ISSN: 2735-4873
(SSM) [7,8,12,13], bowtie [14-16], Continuous Flow
Intersection, also referred to as DLT [2, 15-19] and Upstream
Signalized Crossover (USC) [9, 19] ,among numerous
others.
Reid and Hummer [14] evaluated travel time across seven
unconventional intersection designs, including the quadrant
roadway intersection, split intersection, superstreet median,
median U-turn, bowtie, jughandle, and continuous flow
intersection (CFI) designs, utilizing CORSIM software. They
analyzed turning movement data gathered from seven
different intersections of diverse sizes located in Virginia and
North Carolina. The findings showed that the CFI showed
improvement over its conventional counterpart in several
scenarios.
Jagannathan and Bared [18] investigated the operational
efficiency of Displaced left-turn intersections (DLT)
compared to a traditional intersection using VISSIM
software. The researchers developed three different
configurations including a four-legged intersection with four
corresponding displaced left-turn lanes, a four-legged
intersection with only two opposing displaced left-turn lanes
on the major road, and a T-intersection with one displaced
left-turn. The findings consistently demonstrated that the
Displaced Left-turn intersection design outperformed the
conventional intersection design. Consequently, the average
intersection delay was reduced by 48 percent, 48 to 85
percent, 58 to 71 percent, and 19 to 90 percent for the first,
second, and third configurations, respectively.
Cheong et al. [20] performed an extensive examination of
a parallel flow intersection (PFI), a continuous flow
intersection (CFI), and an upstream-signalized crossover,
evaluating both balanced and unbalanced traffic scenarios.
The analysis employed VISSIM software with default
settings. All nontraditional intersections displayed
enhancements over the conventional design, with the CFI
typically surpassing others, except under certain traffic
conditions where the PFI demonstrated comparable or
superior average delays.
Parsons [21] conducted an analysis comparing the
performance of a four-legged, two-phase parallel flow
intersection (PFI) to that of a continuous flow intersection
(CFI), a modern roundabout, and a conventional intersection.
Utilizing the VISSIM microsimulation platform, the study
focused on a scenario with high entrance volume,
specifically 6,375 vehicles per hour. The paraflow and CFI
achieved Level of Service C, with reductions in delay of
80% and 75%, respectively, while the roundabout and
conventional intersection resulted in Level of Service E. The
 Journal of Engineering Research (ERJ)
ISSN: 2356-9441 Vol. 8 – No. 1, 2024
average delay values for both the PFI and DLT were almost
identical and notably lower than those experienced in both
the roundabout and the conventional intersection.
Dhatrak et al. [2] analyzed the effectiveness of the parallel
flow intersection (PFI) and displaced left-turn intersection
(DLT) in scenarios with high traffic volume. Utilizing
VISSIM software, the study evaluated the maximum
capacities for straight-through and left-turn traffic for both
partial and full designs of DLT and PFI configurations. The
DLT proved more efficient than the PFI in accommodating a
higher number of vehicles per hour per lane across different
traffic conditions, with fewer delays for left-turning vehicles,
indicating its viability as an alternative to conventional
intersections. Generally, the previous research indicates that
the DLT exhibits superior performance compared to
traditional intersections. Additionally, it is recommended to
employ DLT when faced with high left-turn volumes [2, 21].
The safety effectiveness of Unconventional Arterial
Intersection Designs (UAIDs) can be assessed using various
methods, such as analyzing the theoretical number of
conflict points, studying actual crash records, and conducting
traffic microsimulation analyses utilizing surrogate safety
indicators. Several inquiries have investigated the safety
performance of different UAID layouts, examining both
crash data and employing simulation models like the
Displaced Left-Turn (DLT) [8, 22, 23] the continuous green
T-intersection (CGT) [24,25] and the jughandle intersection
[26]. All safety evaluation simulations utilized the Surrogate
Safety Assessment Model (SSAM) software, which was
developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA)
[27].
The Surrogate Safety Assessment Model (SSAM)
functions as a simulation instrument crafted to assess
roadway safety when empirical data is unavailable, as
delineated in the "Surrogate Safety Assessment Model and
Validation: Final Report" [28]. It functions by utilizing
vehicle trajectory files generated by simulation software like
VISSIM. SSAM is adaptable to a range of models, including
VISSIM, AIMSUN, Paramics, and TEXAS [27].
Kim et al. [12] tested the safety performance of the
superstreet intersection design using SSAM software. Najaf
and Pulugurtha [29] conducted a comparison of the safety
effectiveness of six UAIDs (Unsignalized MUT, Signalized
MUT, SSM, Bowtie, Forward Jughandle, and Reverse
Jughandle) in relation to three conventional intersection
designs (pre-timed, optimized, and actuated) utilizing the
Surrogate Safety Assessment Model (SSAM). El Esawey et
al. [30] assessed the safety of the parallel flow intersection
doi: XXXXXXXXXX
3
©Tanta University, Faculty of Engineering e ISSN: 2735-4873
(PFI) and a conventional intersection under varied traffic
volumes using SSAM.
The environmental impacts due to road traffic are main
topics within both local and national regulations and
international agreements. Road traffic stands as one of the
major contributors to energy consumption, air pollution, and
the emission of greenhouse gases [31].Today, roads
accommodate a substantial volume of vehicles, virtually all
of them are powered by gasoline and diesel engines, burning
petroleum comprised of hydrocarbons. Several studies have
investigated the impact of road traffic on air emissions. For
instance, Mustafa & Vougias [32] conducted a study to
explore the relationship between traffic volumes and vehicle
emissions at urban intersections. The findings of that
simulation showed that, traffic signals produce air emissions
50% higher than those generated by roundabouts. Chen and
Yu [33] created an integrated microscopic traffic emission
simulation system using VISSIM software and the
comprehensive modal emission model CMEM.
III. METHODOLOGY
The aim of this research is to evaluate the operational,
safety, and environmental efficacy of the Displaced left-turn
(DLT) design compared to the traditional counterpart.
Utilizing VISSIM microsimulation, the study simulated and
assessed both the DLT and conventional designs across
different traffic volume scenarios. Furthermore, a safety
evaluation was carried out using SSAM to ascertain any
potential safety benefits of the DLT over conventional
alternatives.
Geometric Design
In order to ensure an equitable comparison, uniform
geometry was preserved across all intersections. The lane
geometry for both intersection designs (i.e., displaced left-
turn and conventional intersections) was organized to closely
mimic the geometric features scrutinized in Cheong's
intersection analysis [20], as outlined below:
 All intersections have four approaches.
 All four approaches have the same number of
lanes for every movement per approach: two
through-only lanes, one right-turn lane, and
one left-turn lane
 each left-turn movement has an exclusive left-
turn lane of 100m in length.
 and right-turn movements are channeled
through a separate lane of 100m in length.
 Journal of Engineering Research (ERJ)
ISSN: 2356-9441 Vol. 8 – No. 1, 2024 ©Tanta University, Faculty of Engineering e ISSN: 2735-4873

A crucial aspect of UAID design involves the spacing
between primary and secondary intersections, which
influences the storage capacity for left-turning traffic. Prior
studies propose distances between major and minor
intersections in UAIDs ranging from 300ft (90m) to 500ft
(150m) [20]. In this study, a distance of 90m (300ft) is set for
both balanced and unbalanced traffic scenarios in cases
involving DLT. Figure 2 illustrates the geometric layout of
the examined DLT.
A. Traffic Volume Scenarios
To ensure equitable comparison between the DLT and its
conventional counterpart, this study employs hypothetical
traffic volumes that are identical for both scenarios,
guided into designated left-turn bays and come to a stop at
the crossover intersection, where they intersect with
oncoming through traffic. When the signal turns green, left-
turning vehicles proceed across the opposing through lanes
and travel through the displaced left-turn lane until they get
to the signal at the main intersection. In Phase 1 of the main
intersection, both eastbound and westbound traffic move
forward together along with their respective left-turn
movements (see Figure 3). At the same time, through traffic
at the east and west crossover intersections, as well as left
turns at the north and south crossover intersections, are
allowed to proceed when the signal is green. All other
movements occur during the subsequent phase.
Researchers have utilized Synchro, a software, to
determine the optimal duration of signal cycles for complex
intersections. The functioning of Synchro involves an
iterative process in which it calculates delays, queues, and
vehicle stops at the intersection while simultaneously
adjusting the signal timing. Each iteration is assigned a
score, and the most efficient cycle is ultimately chosen [34].

Table I. Balanced and unbalanced volumes

Approach Geometry Turning fraction
volume (veh/h) Examined

Major Minor Through/left/right

Road Road (%)

Balanced 500 500 Allx 70/20/10

conditions
1000 1000 Allx
following the traffic volume specifications used in a prior
study [9]. These volumes span from low to high values, 1250 1250 Conventional
Onlyy
allowing for the simulation of various traffic conditions, 1500 1500 Allx
including peak and off-peak periods.
1750 1750 Conventional
Fig 2. Layout of The Displaced Left-Turn Intersection Onlyy
2000 2000 Allx
Additionally, the traffic volumes are systematically 2500 2500 Allx
designed to accommodate both balanced and unbalanced Unbalanced 1200 300 Allx 70/20/10
scenarios, addressing potential fluctuations in traffic conditions
patterns. Consistency is maintained across scenarios by 1200 600 Allx
adopting a uniform approach, with each approach featuring a 1200 900 Allx
10% right-turn and 20% left-turn movement. The study 1200 1200 Allx
investigates the effect of increasing left-turn volumes (10% x
Includes Displaced left-turn intersection and the conventional intersection.
and 20%) on the performance of the DLT under unbalanced y
Volumes examined to determine intersection failure point.
conditions while keeping the total approach volume
constant. Table 1 outlines the balanced and unbalanced
traffic volume scenarios utilized in this research. Due to the absence of signal control for right-turn
movements, Synchro did not account for them. In the
B. Signal Phasing and Timing
The full displaced left-turn maneuver operates under a
two-phase signal system. Vehicles making left turns are
doi: XXXXXXXXXX
4
 Journal of Engineering Research (ERJ)
ISSN: 2356-9441 Vol. 8 – No. 1, 2024
Displaced Left-Turn (DLT) design, left-turn lanes crossed to
the opposite side, a characteristic that Synchro was unable to
replicate.
Fig 3. Signal Phasing for Displaced Left Turn [2]
Consequently, Synchro treated these left-turn lanes as
right-turn lanes in its simulation. Furthermore, dummy roads
with zero traffic volume were introduced to represent
secondary intersections [19]. A pre-timed signal was
configured with 1 second of all-red time and 4 seconds of
amber time for all scenarios analyzed in this study.
C. Microsimulation Modeling
The VISSIM microsimulation tool was employed to
simulate and evaluate various traffic volume scenarios at all
examined intersections. This software was used to mimic the
DLT incorporating different types of data such as traffic
volume, turning movement percentages, and signal timings.
It was chosen because of its flexible lane-by-lane modeling
capability, which allowed for the simulation of a variety of
creative designs. Additionally, the software's capabilities to
generate vehicle trajectory files, needed for safety analysis
using SSAM, impacted its choice. Moreover, VISSIM was
previously widely used to model non-traditional intersection
configurations [9, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 35].
The Wiedemann-74 car-following model was employed
with its default parameter settings. The lane width, without
shoulders, was established at 3.5 meters. Heavy vehicle
ratios of 2% were taken into account. All vehicles
maintained a consistent average speed of 50 km/h
(approximately 31 mph), with designated turning zone
speeds of 25 km/h (about 15.5 mph) for passenger cars and
20 km/h (around 12.5 mph) for heavy vehicles. It’s
important to note that this study did not consider the crossing
movements of pedestrians or cyclists at the intersections. In
the conventional intersection, Protected phases were
assigned for all left-turn movements.
For each intersection design, the operational performance
was assessed in relation to the average vehicle delay. To
monitor delays at each intersection, travel time detectors
were installed at both upstream and downstream of the main
intersection. The study conducted two runs using different
random seeds for each volume scenario. Each run lasted
5400 seconds, of which the first 900 were regarded as a
warm-up and the last 900 as a cool-down. The analysis did
not take into account either of these time intervals.
SSAM Version 3, a widely employed tool, was utilized to
assess the number of conflicts at each intersection under
different volume scenarios. SSAM, or Surrogate Safety
Assessment Model, is post-processing tool that can produce
doi: XXXXXXXXXX
5
©Tanta University, Faculty of Engineering e ISSN: 2735-4873
160
DLT
140
Average Vehicle Delay (s/veh.)
120 CONVENTIONAL
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Total Volume Per Approach(veh./hr.)
conflict outcomes by examining vehicle trajectories obtained
from micro-simulation models. Many models, including
VISSIM, AIMSUN, Paramics, and TEXAS, are compatible
with SSAM [36]. The software utilized the vehicle
trajectories produced by every VISSIM model run for the
intersections under investigation in this study.
Concerning environmental evaluation, VISSIM measures
vehicle emissions throughout the network using the API add-
on module, with results presented in grams. VISSIM
considers various factors for emission computations, such as
operating mode, road/network specifics, vehicle attributes
(age/mileage/year), speed, fuel characteristics (gasoline,
diesel), and acceleration/deceleration. This study will
specifically concentrate on assessing CO2 emissions and fuel
usage for all intersections.
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
A. Operational Performance Analysis
The DLT design was examined in terms of operational
effectiveness compared to the conventional design in
different balanced and unbalanced scenarios. The average
vehicle delay computed using VISSIM software was
employed as a measure of effectiveness.
1-Balanced Volume Scenarios
Under balanced flow conditions, there's uniform traffic
input across all directions—eastbound, westbound,
northbound, and southbound. Figure 4 depicts average
delays for both intersections in scenarios with balanced
volumes, alongside their capacities. The study explored
various volume scenarios until intersections reached
capacity. VISSIM flagged capacity reached by generating an
error message indicating incomplete input volume. In Figure
4, the furthest point to the right for each intersection marks
its capacity. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) states
that an intersection is considered to be at capacity when it
 Journal of Engineering Research (ERJ)
ISSN: 2356-9441 Vol. 8 – No. 1, 2024 ©Tanta University, Faculty of Engineering e ISSN: 2735-4873

achieves a Level of Service (LOS) F, which is equivalent to 40

DLT Conventional
an average vehicle delay of eighty seconds [37]. 35

Average Vehicle Delay (s/veh.)

The results of the conventional intersection closely align 30
with those of the DLT intersection, particularly under low
25
traffic volumes (specifically, up to 1,000 vehicles per hour
per approach). Once traffic volumes surpass a certain 20
threshold, the DLT configurations notably outperform the 15
performance of the conventional one. When the approach
10
volume was 500 vehicles per hour, the conventional design's
average delay was as low as 20 seconds per vehicle. This 5
makes sense since, when traffic is light, cars may move 0
through gaps in the intersection and navigate it with ease. 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Minor Approach Volume (veh./hr.)
Fig 4. Average Delay Time Comparison for the balanced Scenarios
With 20% Left-Turn turn (DLT) and the parallel flow intersection (PFI) with that
of conventional intersection.
But when traffic numbers rose, it become harder for cars
to find appropriate openings to pass through. Moreover, any 3-Analysis of Left Turn Movements
rise in the input volume within VISSIM (beyond 1,750
vehicles per hour) did not lead to a corresponding increase in As depicted in Figure 6, the Displaced Left-turn
the actual generated volume. performance of this intersection maintains consistency for
scenarios involving 10 and 20 percent left-turn movement.
In general, the DLT increases the intersection's overall However, when the minor approach volume is 900 vehicles
capacity as compared to the conventional intersection. The per hour, there is a noticeable shift in the intersection's
main reason for this intersection's large capacity is probably behavior, leading to a slight increase in average delay. It is
this bay extending between the main and secondary evident that the influence of increasing left-turn volume had
intersections, which adds length to the storage. Eliminating Unnoticeable effect on the displaced left turn. When
the left turn at the intersection and forcing oncoming traffic comparing these outcomes with findings from previous
to cross prior to the main junction is clearly advantageous studies [9] , [19] , and [30] , there were some minor
for the intersection as a whole. differences. Notably, in this study, the delay outcomes for
the conventional intersection were marginally higher in
2-Unbalanced Volume Scenarios
contrast to prior research. These variances could be
Under different unbalanced volume scenarios, the
18
Displaced Left-Turn (DLT) designs' operational efficacy was DLT with 10% left turn
evaluated in relation to its conventional equivalent. 17.5 DLT with 20 % left turn
Average Vehicle Delay (s/veh.)

Furthermore, two separate left turn percentages—10% and

17
20%—were examined in order to measure the influence of
the left turn movement in the unconventional intersection. 16.5
The volume levels for the main direction were fixed at 1,200
vehicles per hour per approach. The DLT intersection 16
showed lower average delay than the conventional 15.5
counterpart, as seen in Figure 5. Furthermore, it was noted
that the delay values at the conventional intersection, which 15
had a minor traffic volume of up to 300 vehicles per hour, 14.5
were noticeably close to those at the DLT intersection.
14
Fig 5. Average Delay Time Comparison for the Unbalanced 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Scenarios With 20% Left-Turn Minor Approach Volume(veh./hr.)
attributed to the configurations of the links within the
Overall, it is important to emphasize that the DLT
designs or the signal cycle length.
intersection exhibited lower delays than the conventional
intersection across the majority of volume levels. These Fig 6. Average Delay Time Comparison for Displaced Left-Turn
results align with a previous study [20] , which also Intersection for Different Left Turn Movement
compared the operational performance of the displaced left-
doi: XXXXXXXXXX
6
 Journal of Engineering Research (ERJ)
ISSN: 2356-9441 Vol. 8 – No. 1, 2024 ©Tanta University, Faculty of Engineering e ISSN: 2735-4873

900 number of accidents increased significantly compared to the

DLT accident rates for the DLT intersection.
800
conventional
700 Fig 7. Total Number of Conflicts for the analyzed intersections
Total Number Of Conflicts

Under Balanced Volumes

600
500 2-Conflict Results Under Unbalanced Volumes

400 Figure 8 depicts that the conventional intersection

300 consistently showed low conflict count until an approach
volume of 900 vehicles per hour, but it becomes less feasible
200
for higher approach volumes. Overall, the total conflict
100 count suggests promising prospects for improving safety
0 with the DLT design compared to a conventional
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 intersection, especially in scenarios with moderate to high
Total Volume Per Approach (Veh./Hr.)
balanced volumes.
Nevertheless, it's crucial to emphasize that these variances
were not significant and would not impact the ranking based Fig 8. Total Number of Conflicts for the analyzed intersections Under
on actual delays when compared to other designs. Unbalanced Volumes

3500
DLT C. Environmental Evaluation Results
3000 Conventional
1-Balanced Volume Scenarios

2500
Total Number Of Conflicts

Figure 9 shows the relationship between the average fuel

consumption and approach volume of all vehicles with a
2000 20% left-turn for both conventional and DLT intersection.
The results show that as approach volume increases, so does
1500 vehicle fuel consumption.

1000 80000
DLT
70000
500 Conventional
Fuel Consumption (Grams)

60000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 50000
Total Volume Per Approach (Veh./Hr.)
40000
B. Safety Evaluation Results 30000

In theory, compared to a traditional design, the DLT 20000

design aims to reduce conflict points from 32 to 28,
enhancing traffic safety [38]. As previously stated, this study 10000
evaluates the safety results of DLT utilizing SSAM in a 0
variety of balanced and unbalanced volume scenarios. For 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
every simulation, "trj" trajectory data were taken out of Total Volume Per Approach (Veh./Hr.)
VISSIM and subjected to SSAM analysis. As mentioned
before, this study entails measuring the number of traffic Fig 9. Fuel Consumption for All Intersections Under Balanced
conflicts at every intersection. Volume Scenarios

1-Conflict Results Under Balanced Volume Scenarios Under all balanced volume scenarios, the comparison
analysis shows that the Displaced Left-Turn (DLT)
As depicted in Figure 7, the conventional intersection
intersection consistently exhibits lower fuel usage than the
consistently exhibited few conflicts until the approach
other intersection.
volume reached 1000 veh./hr. However, following that, the
doi: XXXXXXXXXX
7
 Journal of Engineering Research (ERJ)
ISSN: 2356-9441 Vol. 8 – No. 1, 2024 ©Tanta University, Faculty of Engineering e ISSN: 2735-4873

The relation between CO2 emissions and approach 30000

volume for the analyzed intersections reflects the trend DLT
observed in the relationship between approach volume and Conventional
25000
fuel consumption across different balanced volume levels.

Fuel Consumption (Grams)

As illustrated in Figure 10, it was noted that increasing the
approach volume consistently resulted in higher air 20000
emissions. Notably, the displaced left-turn intersection
consistently exhibited lower emissions than the conventional 15000
intersection under all balanced volume scenarios.
Additionally, up to around 1000 vehicles per hour per 10000
approach, the impact of increasing approach volume on CO2
emissions is minimal at low volumes. Above this threshold,
differences between different types of air pollution become 5000
more apparent.
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Minor Approach Volume (veh./hr.)
Fig 11. Fuel Consumption for All Intersections Under Unbalanced
Volume Scenarios
45000
DLT The relationship between approach volume and CO2
40000 emissions is shown in Figure 12 for all intersections under
Conventional
35000 investigation at different imbalanced volume levels.
Increasing the approach volume consistently resulted in
CO2 Emissions(Grams)

30000 higher CO2 emissions. At lower volumes, up to about 1000

25000 vehicles per hour/approach, the difference in CO2 emissions
18000
20000 DLT Conventional
15000 16000
10000
14000
5000
12000
CO2 Emissions (Grams)

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
10000
Total Volume Per Approach(Veh./Hr.)
8000
Fig 10. CO2 Emissions for All Intersections Under Balanced Volume
Scenarios
6000
2-Unbalanced Volume Scenarios
4000
Figure 11 depicts the correlation between average fuel
consumption and approach volume across all examined 2000
intersections under different unbalanced volume conditions.
As shown in the figure, increasing the approach volume 0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
consistently led to increased fuel consumption. At lower
volumes, up to about 1000 vehicles per hour/approach, the Minor Approach Volume (veh./hr.)
fuel consumption difference between the conventional between the traditional intersection and the displaced left-
intersection and the displaced left-turn intersection (DLT) is turn intersection (DLT) is negligible. When CO2 emissions
negligible. There is an apparent disparity in fuel above this volume level, the difference in emissions becomes
consumption over this volume threshold. more noticeable.

Fig 12. CO2 Emissions for All Intersections Under Unbalanced

Volume Scenarios
doi: XXXXXXXXXX
8
 Journal of Engineering Research (ERJ)
ISSN: 2356-9441 Vol. 8 – No. 1, 2024 ©Tanta University, Faculty of Engineering e ISSN: 2735-4873

Overall, the analysis of the findings showed that the Table 3. Summary of results for unbalanced volume scenarios
displaced left-turn exhibited a distinct advantage over the
Intersectionintersection
conventional type unbalanced
in terms Delay
of fuel consumption and Number of Co2 emissions Fuel consumption
volumes (sec/veh) conflicts (grams) (grams)
CO2 emissions, particularly in high-volume situations. This
(major-minor)
makes sense because there are less delays at the DLT
(veh/hr)
intersection than at its conventional counterpart.
DLT 1200-300 16.05 255 5760 9601
V. SConventional
UMMARY AND CONCLUSION
1200-300 22.57 112 6811 11352.49
This research aimed to evaluate and compare the
operational,
DLT safety, and environmental aspects of one 15.9
1200-600 322 6869 11448
Conventional 1200-600
unconventional arterial intersection 27.51
design (UAID), namely 183 8747 14578.4
the Displaced Left-turn intersection (DLT), in addition to the
DLT
conventional signalized four-leg1200-900
Conventional intersection.
1200-900
15.5
30.7
413
235
7914
11008
13190
18347.2
Concerning operational performance, DLT demonstrated
DLTdelays compared to1200-1200
low average the conventional 17.37 583 9383 15639
Conventional 1200-1200 35.68 790 16979 28132.76
counterpart under all traffic conditions. The conventional
intersection experienced significant delays, particularly
under high traffic volumes. Also, the impact of increasing
left-turn volume for the DLT was very minimal. In
summary, the outcomes favored the DLT design, as it
demonstrated lower overall intersection delay compared to a
conventional intersection.

Table 2. Summary of results for balanced volume scenarios

Intersection type balanced Delay Number of conflicts Co2 emissions Fuel consumption

volumes (sec/veh) (grams) (grams)

(veh/hr)

DLT 500 12.46 162 3986 6643.42

Conventional 500 20 100 4421 7368.885

DLT 1000 16.2 504 8078 13464.6

Conventional 1000 27.62 350 9846 16993.9

Conventional 1250 67.2 1000 18246 30410.03

DLT 1500 20.1 754 12734 21307

Conventional 1500 118.36 2100 30252 50421.56

conventional 1750 150 2890 40087 70545.02

DLT 2000 26.5 1350 18177 30296

Conventional - - - - -

DLT 2500 53 2315 32008 51847

Conventional - - - - -

doi: XXXXXXXXXX
9
 Journal of Engineering Research (ERJ)
ISSN: 2356-9441 Vol. 8 – No. 1, 2024
With regard to safety analysis, the DLT design completely
eliminated all conflicts at the intersection, a significant
improvement over the conventional intersection. In terms of
the environmental aspect, both vehicle fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions increase with rising approach volume.
However, comparative analysis revealed that, particularly
under high traffic volumes in both balanced and unbalanced
scenarios, the DLT consistently showed lower fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions compared to the
conventional intersection.
The study's conclusions and recommendations are limited to
the configurations and traffic volume conditions that were
looked at. However, the techniques and methodologies
utilized in this study could be modified for application in
other contexts and with other traffic circumstances.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
This research focused only on the complete DLT design.
However, there is potential for additional investigation into
the operational, safety, and environmental aspects of partial
DLT designs across various traffic scenarios. This inquiry
will also assess how including pedestrian phases in the
signals affects the overall efficacy of the designs.
Additionally, it will analyze construction expenses and
conduct cost-benefit analyses. Moreover, certain designs of
UAIDs present greater challenges in terms of driver
confusion. Many questions remain unanswered, such as how
to compare levels of confusion among drivers in different
designs and how quickly this confusion dissipates over time
across various designs. Also, a DLT intersection has a
larger footprint compared to conventional. This means that
when replacing an existing conventional intersection design,
the DLT is more suitable at locations where additional right-
of-way is available.
Disclosure: A part of this paper belongs to the MSc thesis of
the first author titled: Analysis of Operational, Environmental,
And Safety Performance of Unconventional Intersections.
doi: XXXXXXXXXX
10
©Tanta University, Faculty of Engineering e ISSN: 2735-4873
Funding: The authors declare that they have not received any
fundings.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there is a no
conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
S. KumarV and J. Ranjitha, “Improvement of traffic
operations in congested signalized intersections-A case study
in Bangalore city,” International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology, pp. 2284–2291, 2013.
A. Dhatrak, P. Edara, and J. G. Bared, “Performance
analysis of parallel flow intersection and displaced left-turn
intersection designs,” Transp Res Rec, no. 2171, pp. 33–43,
2010, doi: 10.3141/2171-04.
H. Steyn et al., “Displaced left turn intersection:
informational guide.,” 2014.
M. El Esawey and T. Sayed, “Analysis of unconventional
arterial intersection designs (UAIDs): state-of-the-art
methodologies and future research directions,”
Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, vol. 9, no. 10, pp.
860–895, Nov. 2013, doi: 10.1080/18128602.2012.672344.
P. W. Dorothy, T. L. Maleck, and S. E. Nolf, “Operational
aspects of Michigan design for divided highways,” Transp
Res Rec, vol. 1579, no. 1, pp. 18–26, 1997.
J. G. Bared, E. I. Kaisar, and others, “Median U-turn design
as an alternative treatment for left turns at signalized
intersections,” 2002.
L. A. Rodegerdts et al., “Signalized intersections:
informational guide,” 2004.
“Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational
Report (AIIR),” 2010.
J. Autey, T. Sayed, and M. El Esawey, “Operational
performance comparison of four unconventional intersection
designs using micro-simulation,” J Adv Transp, vol. 47, no.
5, pp. 536–552, Aug. 2013, doi: 10.1002/atr.181.
J. Shahi and A.-A. Choupani, “Modelling the operational
effects of unconventional U-turns at a highway intersection,”
Transportmetrica, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 173–191, 2009.
M. El Esawey and T. Sayed, “Operational performance
analysis of the unconventional median U-turn intersection
design,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 38, no.
11, pp. 1249–1261, 2011.
T. Kim, P. K. Edara, and J. G. Bared, “Operational and
safety performance of a nontraditional intersection design:
the superstreet,” 2007.
 Journal of Engineering Research (ERJ)
ISSN: 2356-9441 Vol. 8 – No. 1, 2024
[13] J. E. Hummer and R. Jagannathan, “An update on superstreet
implementation and research,” in Eighth National
Conference on Access Management, Transportation
Research Board, Baltimore, Md, 2008.
[14] J. D. Reid and J. E. Hummer, “Travel time comparisons
between seven unconventional arterial intersection designs,”
Transp Res Rec, vol. 1751, no. 1, pp. 56–66, 2001.
[15] T. E. Hildebrand, “Unconventional intersection designs for
improving through traffic along the arterial road,” 2007.
[16] J. Hummer and J. Reid, “Unconventional left-turn
alternatives for urban and suburban arterials: an update,”
Transportation research circular, no. 501, pp. 17–p, 2000.
[17] J. E. Hummer, “Unconventional left-turn alternatives for
urban and suburban arterials—Part two,” ITE journal, vol.
68, no. 11, pp. 101–106, 1998.
[18] R. Jagannathan and J. G. Bared, “Design and operational
performance of crossover displaced left-turn intersections,”
Transp Res Rec, no. 1881, pp. 1–10, 2004, doi:
10.3141/1881-01.
[19] M. El Esawey and T. Sayed, “Comparison of two
unconventional intersection schemes: Crossover displaced
left-turn and upstream signalized crossover intersections,”
Transp Res Rec, no. 2023, pp. 10–19, 2007, doi:
10.3141/2023-02.
[20] S. Cheong, S. Rahwanji, and G. Chang, “Comparison of
Three Unconventional Arterial Intersection Designs:
Continuous Flow Intersection, Parallel Flow Intersection,
and Upstream Signalized Crossover,” Intelligent
Transportation Systems, 11th International IEEE
Conference on, 2008.
[21] G. F. Parsons, “The parallel flow intersection: A new high
capacity urban intersection,” IET Conference Publications,
vol. 2009, no. 560 CP, pp. 143–150, 2009, doi:
10.1049/cp.2009.1603.
[22] Y. Qi et al., “Use of Innovative Intersection Designs for
Improving Mobility and Reducing Roadway Traffic
Congestion,” 2018.
[23] J. Wolfgram, “A safety and emissions analysis of continuous
flow intersections,” 2018.
[24] E. Rice and Z. Znamenacek, “Intersection Safety Case
Study: Continuous Green T-Intersections,” Federal Highway
Administration, 2009.
[25] E. T. Donnell, J. S. Wood, K. A. Eccles, and others, “Safety
evaluation of continuous green T intersections.,” 2016.
doi: XXXXXXXXXX
11
©Tanta University, Faculty of Engineering e ISSN: 2735-4873
R. Jagannathan, M. Gimbel, J. G. Bared, W. E. Hughes, B.
Persaud, and C. Lyon, “Safety comparison of New Jersey
jug handle intersections and conventional intersections,”
Transp Res Rec, vol. 1953, no. 1, pp. 187–200, 2006.
L. Pu, R. Joshi, S. Energy, and others, “Surrogate safety
assessment model (SSAM)–Software user manual,” 2008.
S. Shelby, “Surrogate Safety Assessment Model and
Validation: Final Report,” 2008.
P. Najaf and S. S. Pulugurtha, “Efficiency and Safety
Evaluation of Unconventional Intersections,” 2014. [Online].
Available: www.SID.ir
S. Abo-Bakr, M. El Esawey, and A. Osama, “Operational
and Safety Performance Evaluation of Parallel Flow
Intersection,” Transp Res Rec, vol. 2676, no. 6, pp. 61–74,
2022, doi: 10.1177/03611981211070283.
M. WBCSD, “World Mobility at the End of the Twentieth
Century and Its Sustainability,” World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, Switzerland, 2001.
M. A. S. Mustafa and S. Vougias, “Analysis of pollutant
emissions and concentrations at urban intersections,” in
Compendium of Technical Papers, ITE, 63rd Annual
MeetingInstitute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 1993.
C. Kun and Y. U. Lei, “Microscopic traffic-emission
simulation and case study for evaluation of traffic control
strategies,” Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering
and Information Technology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 93–99, 2007.
D. Husch and J. Albeck, “Synchro 6: Traffic signal software,
user guide,” Albany, Calif, vol. 364, p. 368, 2003.
J.-P. Moon, Y.-R. Kim, D.-G. Kim, and S.-K. Lee, “The
potential to implement a superstreet as an unconventional
arterial intersection design in Korea,” KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, vol. 15, pp. 1109–1114, 2011.
D. Gettman, L. Pu, T. Sayed, S. G. Shelby, S. Energy, and
others, “Surrogate safety assessment model and validation,”
2008.
H. C. Manual, “Highway capacity manual,” Washington,
DC, vol. 2, no. 1, 2000.
M. El Esawey and T. Sayed, “Analysis of unconventional
arterial intersection designs (UAIDs): state-of-the-art
methodologies and future research directions,”
Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, vol. 9, no. 10, pp.
860–895, 2013, doi: 10.1080/18128602.2012.672344.
 Journal of Engineering Research (ERJ)
ISSN: 2356-9441 Vol. 8 – No. 1, 2024 ©Tanta University, Faculty of Engineering e ISSN: 2735-4873

doi: XXXXXXXXXX
12