Wei Zhang, Ph.D., P.E. Program Manager, Intersection Safety R&D HRDS-10, Office of Safety R&D – TFHRC Tel: (202)493-3317 Email: wei.zhang@dot.gov

Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Intersection Concept, Case Studies, and Design Guide

2015 ITE Midwest Annual Meeting

June 30, 2015 Branson, MO

• Introduction of RCUT intersection design Concept Function Classification

• Case studies of select rural RCUTs • Balancing cost and safety in RCUT design • Signalized RCUTs, condition for use • Summary and discussions • Q & A

Presentation Outline

RCUT Concept

Credit: Bolton & Menk, Inc RCUT at US 212 & MN

284/CR 53, Cologne, MN

RCUT Function - Safety

4

About RCUT

• Also known as J-Turn, Superstreet, Reduced Conflict intersections, etc.

• It was conceived by Richard Kramer of Alabama in 1987 and later implemented in LA, MD, MN, MO, NC, and WI, etc.

• Currently, there are over 50 RCUT implementations in the U.S.

• It is one of the alternative intersection designs heavily promoted by FHWA under Every Day Count 2 (EDC2) initiative “Intersection and Interchange Geometrics” between 2012 and 2014. 5

RCUT Classifications

• Un-signalized (Rural) RCUT – Without right-turn acceleration lane – With right-turn acceleration lane

• Signalized RCUT

6

US 212 & Mn 284/CR 53, MN

Credit: Bolton & Menk, Inc

RCUT W/O Right-Turn Acceleration Lane

Example of RCUT Intersection Layout

8

RCUT with Right-Turn Acceleration Lane US-15 & Old Frederick Rd, Frederick, MD

Signalized RCUT

9

FHWA RCUT Informational Guide, Exhibit 1-1

Un-signalized RCUT

• Reduce and relocate conflict points • Allow drivers to deal with one conflict a time • Need of right-turn acceleration lane depends on major

road traffic volume and speed • U-Turn offset about 1,000 ft to 3,000 ft

Signalized RCUT

• Signal control to allow minor road right-turn • Can allow or prohibit major road left-turn at the main

intersection • 2-phase operation in each direction of travel, good for ped. • U-Turn offset 250 ft to 500 ft

Median(Michigan) U-turn is Not RCUT

13

After # Crashes: Total Right Angle 2009 ̶ 4 0 2010 ̶ 3 0 2011 ̶ 0 0

HWY 169 and Co Rd 3, Belle Plaine, MN

US 212 & MN 284/CR 53, Cologne, MN

14 Credit: Bolton & Menk, Inc

6 fatal and 1 major injury crashes from 2001 to 2010, No severe injury crash since converted into RCUT

15

Planned RCI

Constructed RCI

TH 52 and CO 9 on TV

MnDOT RCUT Deployment Plan

Credit: William Stein

US 15

US 301

RCUTs in Maryland

Locations Total No. of Crashes (Fatal / Injury) AADT (Major)

Speed (mph)

U-Turn Location

(ft)

Presence of Acc/Dec Lanes Before After %

Reduction

US 15 @ Old Frederick Rd 22 (1 / 21) 17 (1 / 16) –23% 21,510 55 2000 / 2500 Yes (500’)

US 15 @ College Ln 28 (0 / 28) 5 (0 / 5) –82% 21,510 55 3000 / 3000 Yes (650’)

US 15 @ Sundays Ln 12 (0 / 12) 9 (0 / 9) –25% 33,960 55 1700 Yes (500’)

US15 @ Biggs Ford Rd 47 (1/46) 11 (1 / 10) –77% 33,960 55 1700 Yes (500’)

US15 @ Willow Rd 23 (1/22) 22 (0 / 22) –4% 44,856 55 3000 Yes (500’)

US15 @ Hayward Rd 42 (1/41) 59 (0 / 59) +40% 41,960 50 1900 Yes (1200’)

Crash Data and Design of Existing RCUT in Maryland

Locations Total No. of Crashes (Fatal / Injury) AADT (Major)

Speed (mph)

U-Turn Location

(ft)

Presence and Length

of Accel Lanes (ft)

Before (3-year)

After (3-year)

% Reduction

US 301 @ Galena Rd (MD 313) 21 (0 / 21) 2 (1 / 1) –90% 8,500 55 1500 / 1500 Yes (250’)

US 301 @ Main St (MD 18C) 3 (1 / 2) 3 (0 / 3) 0% 27,500 55 2600 Yes (500’)

US 301 @ Del Rhodes Ave (MD 456) 10 (1 / 9) 0 (0 / 0) –100% 27,400 55 2600 / 1500 Yes (300’)

US 301 @ Sudlersville Rd (MD 300) 10 (0 / 10) 2 (0 / 2) –80% 10,100 55 1500 / 1500 Yes (250’)

US 301 @ McGinnes Rd (MD 544) 3 (0 / 3) 0 (0 / 0) –100% 10,400 55 1500 / 1500 Yes (300’)

US 301 @ Ruthsburg Rd (MD 304) 9 (1 / 8) 0 (0 / 0) * –100% 19,100 55 2,600 Yes (300’)

* Based on 17-month after period

US 15 @ Old Hayward Rd, Frederick, MD

Competing Designs

• Grade separation – Delivers mobility and safety – Avg $12 million in rural area

• Signal

– Penalize major road traffic – May not improve safety on highway road – costs $400 K to $750 K

• RCUT

– Preserve major road capacity and increase minor road capacity – Effective in reducing fatal/injury crashes – Minor road traffic TH/LT re-routed extra distance for their own safety – Avg $600 K, comparable to traffic signal

Cost Benefit Assessment When Selecting Improvement Designs

• Interchange costs 20 times more than RCUT and takes about 12 times more land

• Traffic signal may not solve the safety problem at high speed intersections

• For arterial roads with ADT up to 35,000, the safety benefit of RCUT is comparable to grade separation, but RCUT costs less than 10% of grade separation

• Many special access needs (farm vehicles and ped/bike) can be addressed with RCUT design if considered early on

21

Rural RCUT Geometric Design

• Rural RCUT promises very high safety return on investment • Both design philosophies for rural RCUT are effective safety

solutions under suitable traffic condition, but they require very different U-turn offset distances.

22

Crash Frequency – Total Crashes

23

Crash Frequency – Fatal & Injury Crashes

24

• Traffic and site characteristics of the 35 RCUTs

– Major road AADT: 5,900 to 44,856 vpd

– Minor road AADT: 434 to 5,000 vpd

– Ratio of Minor road AADT/Intersection AADT: 2% to 44% (less than 10% when major road AADT exceed 20,000 vpd)

– U-turn offsets for RCUTs w/o RT acceleration lane: 800 ft to 1,800 ft

– U-turn offsets for RCUTs w RT acceleration lane: 2,000 ft to 3,000 ft

• The charts were produced using representative major and minor road AADT combinations.

• Charts can be used for estimating crash frequencies of existing rural RCUTs or setting the desired range of U-turn offset for planned new RCUTs to achieve certain safety results.

How the Crash Frequency Charts Were Derived

Signalized RCUT - Applications

• Corridor application to improve arterial throughput • Installed next to DDI or SPUI to better utilize the capacity

potential of the high capacity interchange designs • Under special conditions, may be used to tackle safety

and operational problems

25

IL-13 and Camberia

26

Total

NB SB

EB

WB

• 12-hr Volume (Major Road) ≈ 24,728 veh

• 12-hr Volume (Minor Road) ≈ 2,040 veh (7.6% of total traffic)

Travel Demand at US-15 and Cambria Rd

Cam

bria

Rd

US-13

Hav

en L

n

87

1079

0

1166

0

0

1

1

287

0

84

371

36

1363

0

1399

2937

Current Year 2011 AM

Peak Hour Factor = 0.77

US-13

Cam

bria

Rd

Hav

en L

n

238

1574

0

1812

0

1

1

2

113

0

32

145

87

1247

1

1335

3294

Current Year 2011 PM

Peak Hour Factor = 0.90

Design Hourly Turning Movement Counts

US-13

Design Year 2030 AM

Growth Rate = 2.2% per year for 20 years

US-13

Design Year 2030 PM

Growth Rate = 2.2% per year for 20 years

Cam

bria

Rd

Hav

en L

n

133

1652

0

1785

0

0

1

1

441

0

130

571

56

2100

0

2156

4513

Cam

bria

Rd

Hav

en L

n

363

2407

0

2770

0

1

1

2

175

0

50

225

135

1934

1

2070

5067

Design Hourly Turning Movement Counts

Capacity Analysis

Year Period Movement Minor-Road Volume (vph)

Conflicting Volume Near- / Far-side

(vph)

Capacity (vph)

v/c

2011 AM SB / LT&TH 84 1,363 / 1,079 60 1.4 2011 PM SB / LT&TH 32 1,247 / 1,574 50 0.6

2030 AM SB / LT&TH 130 2,100 / 1,652 15 8.7 2030 PM SB / LT&TH 50 1,934 / 2,407 10 5.0

1363

60

2030 AM Movement Queue Length Avg / Max (ft)

Throughput (vph)

Travel Time (sec)

Approach Delay and LOS

Intersection Delay and LOS

STOP (NO-BUILD)

EB – LT 169 / 492 128 203 > 150 (F)

v/c > 1.0 (F) EB – TH 0 / 0 1683 14 0.6 (A)

WB – TH 0 / 0 2106 13 0.2 (A)

SB – LT > 1000 9 3293 > 500 (F)

SIGNAL (PRE-TIMED

170-sec cycle)

EB – LT 57 / 251 134 91 74.2 (E)

16.1 (B) EB – TH 22 / 601 1646 19 5.8 (A)

WB – TH 125 / 954 2101 31 17.1 (B)

SB – LT 52 / 225 130 87 69.6 (E)

SIGNAL (ACTUATED)

EB – LT 30 / 211 134 59 42.3 (D)

13.8 (B) EB – TH 47 / 773 1651 24 10.7 (B)

WB – TH 64 / 616 2107 26 12.5 (B)

SB – LT 31 / 177 133 62 44.2 (D)

RCUT (PRE-TIMED)

EB - LT 34 / 208 134 56 45.9 (D)

9.8 (A)

EB – TH 39 / 750 1779 20 9.0 (A)

WB - TH 21 / 328 2099 16 5.4 (A)

SB – LT 31 / 166 132 52 43.2 (D)

SB – LT (UT) 14 / 160 130 35 19.8 (B)

RCUT (ACTUATED)

EB - LT 8 / 144 132 23.9 13.8 (B)

4.6 (A)

EB – TH 6 / 286 1775 13.7 3.2 (A)

WB - TH 10 / 233 2108 14.7 4.2 (A)

SB – LT 8 / 108 131 22.8 13.5 (B)

SB – LT (UT) 8 / 120 132 26.6 12.4 (B)

2030 PM Movement Queue Length Avg / Max (ft)

Throughput (vph)

Travel Time (sec)

Approach Delay and LOS

Intersection Delay and LOS

STOP (NO-BUILD)

EB – LT > 1000 172 755 > 500 (F)

v/c > 1.0 (F) EB – TH 0 / 0 1261 18 4.7 (A)

WB – TH 0 / 0 1945 13 0.2 (A)

SB – LT 1000 NO GAP 0 > 500 (F)

SIGNAL (PRE-TIMED

170-sec cycle)

EB – LT 154 / 564 362 88 71.0 (E)

20.6 (C) EB – TH 72 / 1307 2423 21 8.0 (A)

WB – TH 206 / 1072 1931 40 25.8 (C)

SB – LT 17 / 108 47 83 65.1 (E)

SIGNAL (ACTUATED)

EB – LT 253 / 1044 348 122 105.0 (F)

19.9 (B) EB – TH 132 / 1574 2432 28 14.8 (B)

WB – TH 48 / 499 1950 24 10.3 (B)

SB – LT 13 / 88 47 70 52.6 (D)

RCUT (PRE-TIMED)

EB - LT 59 / 339 353 39.3 29.2 (C)

12.1 (B)

EB – TH 138 / 1563 2780 21.1 10.6 (B)

WB - TH 42 / 384 1946 20.7 10.2 (B)

SB – LT 5 / 67 48 31.1 21.7 (C)

SB – LT (UT) 10 / 77 48 54.1 39.8 (D)

RCUT (ACTUATED)

EB - LT 24 / 277 353 23.9 13.8 (B)

5.0 (A)

EB – TH 6 / 353 2776 13.9 3.3 (A)

WB - TH 14 / 251 1948 15.9 5.4 (A)

SB – LT 2 / 50 48 19.0 9.7 (A)

SB – LT (UT) 3 / 66 48 26.1 11.8 (B)

Conclusions

• At grade intersection improvement designs involve: – re-prioritizing/re-routing of traffic movements – elimination/relocation of traffic conflicts – improvement of the overall intersection MOE – usually some “sacrifice” of certain users.

• RCUT design improves safety by eliminating far side conflicts and relocating near side conflicts.

• RCUT design can increase minor road capacity while maintaining the capacity and LOS of major road

• Proper location of the median U-Turn opening is key in balancing mobility, safety, and cost

Conclusions - Continue

• Signalized RCUTs are – known to be effective in improving corridor

throughputs – good choice for congested intersections next to DDI – Suitable under constrained ROW condition for solving

safety and operational problems

34

35

Questions ?

Wei Zhang, Ph.D. PE

Intersection R&D Program Manager Federal Highway Administration

Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101

202-493-3317 wei.zhang@dot.gov