Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

Eliminating Left-Turns at a Signalized Intersection

With The Use of Nearby Roundabouts

May 30, 2007

Authored by

Benjamin T. Waldman, P.E., PTOE


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.,
1889 York Street
Denver, CO 80206
Phone: 303-333-1105

Co-Authored by

Alex J. Ariniello, P.E., PTOE


SM Alam, P.E.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.,
1889 York Street
Denver, CO 80206
Phone: 303-333-1105

ABSTRACT

Left-turn movements have a major impact on the capacity of a signalized intersection. If one could
convert left-turning traffic to right-turning and through traffic at a signalized intersection, the signal
could operate with only two phases and capacity of the intersection would be increased. This paper
will discuss the concept of converting left-turn movements to right and through movements at a
major intersection with the use of two roundabouts on either side of the major arterial roadway.
Left-turn movements from the major arterial would be converted to right-turns at the signal, travel to
the adjacent roundabout, make a u-turn through the adjacent roundabout, travel back to the
signalized intersection and then become a through movement at the signalized intersection.
Similarly, left-turn movements from the minor arterial would be converted to through traffic at the
signal, travel to the adjacent roundabout, make a u-turn through the adjacent roundabout, travel back
to the signalized intersection and then make a right turn at the signalized intersection. This concept
and a traditional full-movement signalized intersection with roundabouts on either side of it will be
compared through simulation with the use of the SimTraffic simulation package. Measures of
Effectiveness (MOEs) will be estimated and compared for the two scenarios. In addition, the
challenges of field implementation of this concept will be discussed.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Most transportation engineers would agree that congestion on suburban and urban arterials is
primarily due to congestion at major signalized intersections. In an attempt to relieve this
congestion, transportation engineers typically adjust signal timing and/or add capacity by
constructing additional deceleration and acceleration lanes. However, in some locations traffic
Benjamin T. Waldman Page 2

volumes are high enough that even implementation of these measures will not relieve traffic
congestion. The next logical step for a traffic engineer has traditionally been to consider a grade-
separated interchange. However, this option is both expensive and disruptive to the surrounding
land uses. This paper examines an unconventional design option called the Bowtie intersection,
which makes use of two roundabouts on either side of the major arterial roadway to convert left-turn
movements to right and through movements at a major intersection. The SimTraffic micro-
simulation software package will be utilized to model a traditional at grade, signalized intersection
and the bowtie intersection concept for two traffic volume scenarios. Measures of effectiveness are
then compared and evaluated.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The idea of the Bowtie intersection was inspired by the teardrop interchange which is common in
England and has been implemented successfully in many locations throughout the United States
(most notably Vail, Colorado). The idea was first conceived of and discussed in Unconventional
Left-Turn Alternatives for Urban and Suburban Arterial, Joseph Hummer, 1994, and further
discussed in Unconventional Left-Turn Alternatives for Urban and Suburban Arterial, An Update,
Joseph E. Hummer and Jonathan D. Reid, 2004. In the 2004 update article it is stated that no
agency to the authors knowledge has consciously designed a complete bowtie alternative. Several
advantages and disadvantages are discussed in the 2004 update article, but no analysis was
performed to compare this concept with a traditional signalized intersection.

METHODOLOGY

The SimTraffic micro-simulation software package will be used to compare MOEs for the Bowtie
intersection concept and a traditional eight-hase signalized intersection with a roundabout inter-
section on each side. Expected system delay, system travel times, system fuel consumption, average
vehicular delay, queues on the main street, and average travel time for left-turn movements will be
evaluated. The steps for the analysis are as follows:

Step 1: Set up SimTraffic Models for the Bowtie Intersection concept and a traditional eight-
phase signalized intersection with a roundabout intersection on each side.

Step 2: Simulate two volume scenarios: 1.0 and 0.85 Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratios will
be evaluated to simulate peak-hour and off-peak conditions.

Step 3: Compare the system delay, system travel times, system fuel consumption, average
vehicular delay, main street queues and average travel time for left-turning vehicles
for the two model runs.
Benjamin T. Waldman Page 3

MODEL DESCRIPTION

Screenshots of the SimTraffic models for the Bowtie intersection concept and the traditional inter-
section with two roundabouts adjacent to it are shown in Figures 1 and 2. As these figures show,
both models include single-lane roundabouts located approximately 660 feet east and west of the
major arterial intersection. Both models also include the following geometry at the arterial street
signalized intersection:

Two lanes in each direction on the arterial;


Right-turn deceleration lanes on the arterial;
Right-turn acceleration lanes on the arterial;
Right-turn deceleration lanes on the collector.

The geometric difference between the two models is as follows:

The conventional intersection option has dual left-turn lanes for all directions whereas the
Bowtie intersection option has no left-turn lanes;
The conventional intersection option has one through lane for the eastbound and westbound
directions whereas the Bowtie intersection option has two through lanes for the eastbound
and westbound directions.

The second through lane on the minor street was added for the Bowtie intersection option because
the left-turning traffic was converted to through traffic and more capacity was needed for the
through movement. However, even with the addition of the extra through movement, the Bowtie
intersection option has a three-lane approach (two through lanes and one right-turn lane) at the
signalized intersection and the conventional intersection has a four-lane approach (one through lane,
one right-turn lane and two left-turn lanes).

As Figures 1 and 2 illustrate, the conventional signalized intersection option requires significantly
more pavement and therefore would cost more than the Bowtie intersection option.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate turning volumes for the options modeled. V/C Ratios of 1.0 and 0.85 were
modeled for both options to simulate typical peak-hour and off-peak conditions. Traffic volumes for
the two options are the same except for the following changes for the Bowtie intersection option:

Left-turning traffic from the arterial was converted to right-turns at the signalized inter-
section, U-turns at the roundabout and then through traffic at the signalized intersection (see
Figure 5).

Left-turning traffic from the minor street was converted to through traffic at the signalized
intersection, U-turns at the roundabouts and then right-turn movements at the signalized
intersection (see Figure 6).
Benjamin T. Waldman Page 4
Benjamin T. Waldman Page 5
Benjamin T. Waldman Page 6
Benjamin T. Waldman Page 7
Benjamin T. Waldman Page 8

MODELING RESULTS

Table 1 summarizes the results from the simulations. The following is a summary of the results:

1. System delay, shows significant improvement with the Bowtie intersection option (48% for
V/C =1.0 and 20% for V/C = 0.85).

2. System travel time shows moderate improvements with the Bowtie intersection option (17%
for V/C =1.0 and 3% for V/C = 0.85).

3. Fuel consumption shows a minor improvement with the Bowtie intersection option (5% for
V/C = 1.0 and almost no difference for V/C = 0.85).

4. Average delay for the through traffic on the arterial street shows significant improvement
with the Bowtie intersection option (72% for V/C =1.0 and 38% for V/C = 0.85).

5. 95th Percentile Queue on the arterial street shows significant improvement with the Bowtie
intersection option (71% for V/C =1.0 and 33% for V/C = 0.85).

6. Average travel time for left-turning vehicles show a minor improvement with the Bowtie
intersection option for V/C = 1.0 but are increased when V/C = 0.85.
Benjamin T. Waldman Page 9
Benjamin T. Waldman Page 10

CONCLUSION

The following conclusions can be made based on the analysis presented in this report:

1. The conventional signalized intersection option requires significantly more pavement for the
left-turn lanes and therefore would cost more than the Bowtie intersection option.

2. The Bowtie intersection shows significant reductions in delay when compared to a


conventional signalized intersection. This is true for the system of intersections (Signal plus
two roundabouts) but is even more evident for the through traffic on the arterial street.

3. The Bowtie intersection shows significant reductions for queues on the arterial when
compared to a conventional signalized intersection. This is likely due to the fact that, by
eliminating left-turn at the arterial intersection, the signal timing that would have been
utilized by the left-turning traffic can be utilized by the through traffic.

4. Although left-turning vehicles are traveling farther for the Bowtie intersection, travel time
for the entire system of intersections is moderately improved for the bowtie intersection
when compared to the traditional signalized intersection option. This is likely due to the fact
that, as discussed in Conclusions 1 and 2, delay and queues are reduced for the Bowtie inter-
section option. In other words, vehicles spend less time in stopped condition or starting from
stop at the signalized intersection.

5. Although left-turning vehicles are traveling farther for the Bowtie intersection, fuel
consumption is generally not affected. This is likely due to the fact that, as previously
stated, the system delay and queues on the arterial are reduced for the Bowtie intersection
and therefore vehicles are spending less time stopped and/or starting from a stopped
condition at the signalized intersection.

6. The only negative of the Bowtie intersection option is travel time for the left-turning vehicles
is expected to be longer during the off-peak hours. However, during the peak-hour, when
V/C approaches 1.0, travel time for the left-turning vehicles will be equivalent or less than
that of a traditional intersection.

7. This paper does not discuss the difficulties of implementing the Bowtie intersection option.
It may be difficult to sign and enforce the prohibition of left-turns at the signalized inter-
section. In addition it may be difficult to provide adequate signage and driver education to
successfully implement the conversion of left-turn movements to the complicated move-
ments required for the Bowtie intersection option.

Potrebbero piacerti anche