Mulungushi University

School of Science, Engineering and Technology

Department of Engineering

CIE 435 – HIGHWAY ENGINEERING

(Pre-requisite – CIE 352 – SOIL MECHANICS)
Fourth Year 1st Semester– Civil Engineering

Lecturer: Michael M. Kopulande

BEng (Civil), MSc Eng. (Struct), MSc. (Infra. & Mgt), MEIZ, R.Eng.
 INTERSECTION AND
INTERCHANGE DESIGN
 INTRODUCTION

Intersections and interchanges are important parts of

the highway system.
They typically have much higher collision rates and
cause much more delay than midblock segments.
They are also particularly expensive parts of the
highway system.
 BASIC INTERSECTION
ELEMENTS
 Spacing
 For safe and efficient vehicular traffic, intersections should not be placed too
close together. Drivers accelerating away from one intersection are not
expecting to encounter traffic slowing for another intersection, for example.
 Also, a queue of vehicles from one intersection that blocks another intersection,
called spill-back, will cause congestion to propagate and cause extra delay,
 On the other hand, pedestrians and bicyclists enjoy shorter paths and greater
mobility when intersections are more closely spaced works well for pedestrians
and bicyclists.
 Spacing between signalized intersections is critical. To ensure optimum
progression in both directions on an arterial, signals should be spaced far
enough apart that vehicles travel from one signal to the next in one-half the
signal cycle length.
 For typical suburban speeds and cycle lengths, signal spacing around 800m
provides for optimum two-way progression. Good two-way progression is often
impossible with signal spacing from150 to 600m.
 Location
 Intersections are safer in some locations than others. One
important guideline is that intersections should not be on a
horizontal curve if possible.
 Horizontal curves could restrict sight distances to the intersection
and to traffic signals or signs near the intersection.
 A horizontal curve requires some drivers turning at the
intersection to make complex reverse u-turn maneuvers.
 Also, horizontal curves are often superelevated, which makes the
profile of the intersecting street very difficult to negotiate for
turning or crossing motorists.
 Relative to the vertical alignment of a road, intersections should
not be near a crest vertical curve,again due to restrictions on
sight distance.
 Angle
 The angle of intersection is important to operations. As the angle between the
two streets departs further from 90, vehicle and pedestrian time in the area
conflicting with other traffic streams increase so delays and collisions increase.
 In addition, the paved area—and therefore construction and maintenance cost
—will increase. Tradition is that these effects increase dramatically with angles
less than 60 or greater than 120.
 Several options exist for treating existing or proposed intersections with
unfavorable angles.
 One or both streets could be realigned with horizontal curves to create a more
favorable angle.
 In some cases, one intersection can be made into two, creating an offset
intersection as described below.
 Another option is to use islands to guide drivers and pedestrians better through
the intersection and reduce the paved area
 Number of Approaches
 All else being equal, an intersection with fewer approaches will be
safer and more efficient than an intersection with more approaches.
 The reason for this is the number of conflict points in the intersection
—points where one traffic stream crosses, merges with, or diverges
from, another traffic stream.
 A standard three-legged (T) intersection has 9 vehicle conflict points,
a standard intersection between a two-way street and a one-way
street has 13 vehicle conflict points, and a standard four-approach
intersection has 32 vehicle conflict points.
 Among other effects, fewer conflict points mean fewer phases are
needed at a traffic signal, which in turn means less lost time and
lower delays.
 There is a lively ongoing debate about whether it is safer and more
efficient to create one four-legged intersection or two three-legged
intersections separated by several hundred feet, an offset
intersection.
 It appears that for some combinations of traffic volumes and spacing
the offset intersection is a better choice than one standard four-
legged intersection.
 Analysis tools like the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB 2000) and
CORSIM (ITT 1995–2001) are good ways to examine the efficiency
of the offset design compared to a standard four-legged design.
 Intersections with five or more approaches are particularly inefficient
and difficult for road users to negotiate.
 The treatments for such cases include terminating one or more legs
before they reach the intersection, using horizontal curves to redirect
one or more legs (likely creating another intersection), or making one
or more legs one-way moving away from the intersection.
 Turn Bays

 Turn bays provide room for left-turning or right-turning vehicles to

decelerate before their turns and/or to queue while waiting to turn.
 Left-turn bays are particularly effective at reducing delay and
collisions by getting those vehicles out of the way of through
vehicles.
 At busy signalized intersections, dual and triple left-turn lanes are
used effectively to reduce the time that those vehicles need the
right-of-way.
 Dual right-turn lanes are also used at some intersections. The
drawbacks to using turn bays include higher right-of-way costs and
longer crossing distances for pedestrians.
 Through the years, many criteria have been published for left-turn
and right-turn bays.
 The criteria are typically different for unsignalized and signalized
intersections. For signalized intersections, one well-known set of
turn bay criteria is provided in the Highway Capacity Manual.
 The Manual recommends:
 • A single left-turn bay for peak hour left-turn volumes of 100
veh/hr or more
 • A dual left-turn bay for peak hour left-turn volumes of 300 veh/hr
or more
 • A single right-turn bay for peak hour left-turn volumes of 300
veh/hr or more
 The Manual also recommends additional through lanes for each
450 veh/hr of through volume.
 Once a designer has decided to provide turn bays, he or she must decide on bay
length.
 AASHTO (2001) recommends that overall turn bay length should be the sum of
the taper length, deceleration length, and storage length.
 Taper rates into a turn bay are typically between 8 in 1 and 15 in1, with lower
rates for bays on urban roads with lower speeds. Taper rates into dual left-turn
bays are sometimes even lower than 8 in1 to maximize storage area.
 It is desirable to allow vehicles to decelerate fully after having departed a through
lane, although this is sometimes impractical in urban areas.
 AASHTO (2001) states that typically lengths needed to decelerate from 72kmh,
80mph, and 88 mph speeds to a full stop are 140, 170, and 200m, respectively,
on grades of less than 3 percent.
 Storage lengths needed for unsignalized intersections are typically short,
accommodating only a couple of vehicles. At signalized intersections, storage
lengths typically must be much longer.
 AASHTO (2001) passes along traditional guidance that the turn bay should be
able to store 1.5 to 2 times the average number of vehicles desiring storage per
cycle.
 However, more sophisticated methods are available that consider more factors,
including the possibility that a queue of through vehicles could block the entrance
to the turn bay (Kickuchi, Chakroborty, and Vukadinovic 1993).
 Islands
 Providing islands to separate traffic streams, also called
channelization, has a number of benefits and a few drawbacks.
The benefits generally include (AASHTO 2001):
 • Separation of conflicts
 • Control of angle of conflict
 • Reduction in excessive pavement areas
 • Regulation of traffic and indication of proper use of intersection
 • Arrangements to favor a predominant turning movement
 • Protection of pedestrians
 • Protection and storage of turning and crossing vehicles
 • Location of traffic control devices
 • Aesthetics
 Curb Radii
 The choice of curb radii is critical to optimum intersection function.
 Curb radii that are too small will lead to large vehicles slowing dramatically
and/or encroaching over curbs and lane lines, causing delays and possibly
collisions.
 Curb radii that are too large waste construction and right-of-way funds and
cause longer intersection crossing times for pedestrians, which also causes
delays and leads to collisions.
 Larger curb radii also decrease the distance from the curb to the right-of-way
edge when the right-of-way edges are not curved (i.e. corner clearance), which
could restrict pedestrian queuing area, among other effects.
 As noted above in the discussion of islands, choice of a design vehicle and the
context of the intersection are critical in this aspect of design. In an ex-urban
area with higher speeds and higher truck volumes larger curb radii (30 feet or
more) are appropriate, while in a denser urban area with fewer large vehicles
where pedestrians are encouraged smaller curb radii (15 to 25 feet) are
appropriate.
 Parking lanes, with parking appropriately restricted near the intersection,
 help reduce the radius that would otherwise be needed.
Turning Roadway Widths
 AASHTO (2001) recommends widths of turning roadways at
intersections based on several factors, including the radius of the
inner edge of the turn, the number of lanes, design vehicles, and
the type of curb or shoulder.
 Recommended widths range from 3.65m for a 140m radius turn
with one lane serving predominantly passenger cars to 18m for a
15m radius turn with two lanes serving large numbers of large
semi-trailer trucks.
Grades
 Steep grades hamper traffic operations at intersections.
 Steep downgrades on an intersection approach increase
stopping distances and make turning more difficult.
 Steep upgrades on an intersection approach make idling difficult
for vehicles with manual transmissions and make acceleration
slower for all vehicles, which in turn increases necessary gap
sizes and sight distances for crossing and turning movements.
 Generally, grades under 2 percent do not cause many operational
problems, grades from 2 to 4 percent begin to introduce
noticeable problems, and grades over 4 percent should be
avoided where practical.
 Overpass or Underpass
 Sometimes the alignments of the freeway and crossroad dictate whether the freeway
must be over or under the crossroad.
 Where the designer has a choice, though, it is an important one. Some of the
positive aspects of placing the crossroad under the freeway include:
 • A single structure, probably smaller than for the freeway going over the crossroad
 • Off-ramps go uphill and on-ramps go downhill, allowing gravity to aid deceleration
and acceleration
 • Good visibility on the freeway to the crossroad, providing an early alert to exiting
drivers
 • Less noise impact from the freeway

 Some of the positive aspects of placing the freeway over the crossroad include:
 • Shorter structural spans
 • No height restrictions on the freeway
 • Less disturbance to the crossroad during construction
 • Easier to drain the freeway