Data Collection
• 11 treatment sites in four US states (AL, NC, OH, TX)
• Crash data of 5 years before and 2-5 years after were taken for analysis
• Overall of 709 crashes in the before period and 305 crashes in the after period
noticed
• For each treatment site, 4 comparison sites were selected having similar
characteristics
Results & Conclusions
Research by
• Joseph E. Hummer, Ph.D., P.E (PI) & Sathish Rao
Future Research
• Where a RCUT intersection would be a good solution
SAFETY OF RESTRICTED CROSSING U-TURN INTERSECTIONSDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
Theory
• RCUTs also known as Superstreets, J-Turns, Reduced Conflict Intersections,
and Synchronized Streets
• RCUTs offer reduced travel time and delay, perfect signal progression, excellent
pedestrian crossing and reduces the number of conflict points
• RCUTs rely on medians, so head-on and driveway collisions are expected to be
lower than typical (safer than conventional intersections)
• The “theta” is the estimate of the
effect of the treatment
• Signalized RCUTs safer because 8
out of 11 site’s theta values are
below 1 (from comparison sites)
• The CMF for total crashes is 0.7 for
the application of RCUTs.
Analysis Method
• Naïve Analysis
• Adjustment for Traffic Volume
• Comparison Site Evaluations
• Choosing comparison sites using odds ratios