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