See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285833065

Capacity of U-turn at median opening

Article  in  Ite Journal · June 1999

CITATIONS READS
29 647

1 author:

H. R Al-Masaeid
Jordan University of Science and Technology
74 PUBLICATIONS   575 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Currently, I am working on geometric consistency of interchange elements View project

All content following this page was uploaded by H. R Al-Masaeid on 09 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Capacity of U-Turn at Median Openings
EMPIRICAL AND INTERSECTIONS ARE PROVIDED
to facilitate traffic turning movements. As
GAP-ACCEPTANCE a part of traffic management to improve
intersection operation, some traffic move-
APPROACHES WERE ments are not permitted at some intersec-
tion locations, especially along divided
USED IN A STUDY IN arterials.1 In most cases, such minor
movements are accommodated at sepa-
JORDAN TO HELP rate U-turn median openings. Compared
with turning movements at intersections,
IDENTIFY SPECIFIC U-turn movement at median openings is
highly complex and risky. Normally, the
GUIDELINES FOR speed of conflicting traffic stream is rela-
tively high and the turning vehicle must
ESTIMATING CAPACITY wait and then turn under low speed level.
Therefore, the turning vehicle needs a
AND DELAY OF U-TURN large gap in the conflicting stream before
performing the U-turn.
MOVEMENT AT MEDIAN One of the most important tasks of a
traffic engineer is to evaluate traffic oper-
OPENINGS. ation of turning movements. In fact, the
1994 Highway Capacity Manual 2
(HCM), which contains procedures and
models for estimating capacity and delay
for different movements at unsignalized
intersections, does not provide specific
guidelines for estimating capacity and
delay of U-turn movement at median
openings. For this reason, an effort was
made to estimate capacity of U-turn
movement at median openings.
In this study, both empirical and gap-
acceptance approaches were used to esti-
mate capacity of U-turn movement at
median openings of divided arterials.
The empirical approach using regression
analysis was adopted to estimate capacity
of U-turn movement and investigate the
effect of different rel-
BY HASHEM R. AL-MASAEID evant factors that
might affect the esti-
mated capacity. Parameters of the gap-
acceptance approach, including critical
gap and move-up time, were estimated
and used to calculate capacity on the
basis of the 1994 HCM. The results of
both approaches were compared and
presented in this study.
28
BACKGROUND
As mentioned before, traffic operation
at U-turn median openings has not yet
been addressed. However, the operation
can be considered as an interaction of
drivers on the minor or stop-controlled
turn with drivers on the oncoming
approach of the major street. Although
the U-turn movement is more complex
than right- or left-turning movements at
unsignalized intersections, the general
concepts and procedures developed for
analyzing capacity at priority unsignalized
intersections are very crucial in this
respect. Using the empirical approach,
Kimber and Coombe3 concluded that the
capacities of the nonpriority streams at T-
intersections depend linearly on the flow
in the relevant priority streams. Further
empirical studies were conducted in the
United States4 and Poland5 to estimate
capacities of the nonpriority streams at
two-way stop-controlled intersections.
The developed regression models indi-
cated that the capacity of the nonpriority
stream depends linearly on the traffic flow
on the conflicting priority approach.
On the other hand, Chapter 10 of the
1994 HCM contains a procedure for the
capacity and level of service analysis of
unsignalized intersections. The procedure
relies on a gap-acceptance model devel-
oped and refined in Germany.6 According
to this procedure, the capacity of each
nonpriority stream is estimated using
Siegloch’s formula,7,8 which follows:
C = (3,600/tm) × e
–p[tc – (tm/2)]
(1)
where:
C = capacity of nonpriority stream [vehicles/hour
(veh/h)];
p = q/3,600;
q = traffic flow of major or conflicting stream;
tc = critical gap [seconds (s)];
tm = move-up time (s); and
e = base of the natural logarithm.
ITE JOURNAL / JUNE 1999
 Compared with the performance of
the empirical approach, several studies
reported that the theoretical approach
using the gap-acceptance concept overes-
timates the capacity of nonpriority
streams. For example, Kimber9 concluded
that the gap-acceptance models are poor
predictors of the capacity of nonpriority
streams in the United Kingdom. Also, Al-
Masaeid10 indicated that the gap-accep-
tance models would provide unrealistic
capacity values even if critical gaps and
move-up times were estimated for local
conditions in Jordan. However, these
studies did not consider the possible effect
of delay variable on the estimated capaci-
ties or the size of the critical gaps.
METHODOLOGY
To accomplish the objective of this
study, seven median openings located in
different cities in Jordan, including
Amman, Zarqa and Mafraq, were
selected. These median openings are
located along divided suburban arterials
and operated at capacity during peak
turning periods. At-capacity condition is
defined as the condition in which there
is a continuous queue of turning vehicles
in the approach of the turning lane. All
turning movements were performed
from a single left-turn lane.
In this study, both empirical and gap-
acceptance approaches were adopted to
estimate capacity of U-turn at median
openings. In the empirical approach, a
multiple regression analysis was performed
to develop an empirical relationship for
estimating capacity and identifying vari-
ables that affect the estimated capacity.
While in the gap-acceptance approach
(the 1994 HCM procedure), critical gap
and move-up time models were empiri-
cally established. The results of modeling
were incorporated into Siegloch’s formula
to calculate the capacity of U-turn. Finally,
performance of both approaches was com-
pared and presented in this study.
DATA COLLECTION
For the purpose of this study, two
independent data sets were collected dur-
ing the summer of 1996. The first set was
collected to develop an empirical rela-
tionship for estimating capacity of U-
turn at median openings. The second set
ITE JOURNAL / JUNE 1999
Table 1. Characteristics of the collected data.
Number of
Variable observations
First data set:
Conflicting traffic flow 210
Capacity of U-turn 210
Average total delay 210
Second data set:
Speed of conflicting traffic 68
Average total delay 68
Critical gap 68
Move-up time 68
was collected to establish critical gap and
move-up time models for turning drivers.
The first set included data on capacity
of turning stream, oncoming traffic flow
(conflicting traffic flow), traffic speed on
the approach of the conflicting traffic and
average total delay. These data were
observed at one-minute intervals. The
observations were taken with stable queu-
ing in the left-turning lane (at-capacity
operation). Instead of measuring the total
delay for individual turning vehicles, the
queue length was observed at 10-s inter-
vals, and the average queue length during
one-minute intervals was calculated.
Based on queuing theory, the average
total delay was computed as follows:
d = L/λ
where:
d = average total delay (s/veh);
L = average queue length (veh); and
λ = arrival rate of turning vehicles (veh/s).
To account for heavy vehicles, the
capacity and conflicting traffic flow were
converted into passenger car units
(PCU). For conversion into PCU, light
trucks and minibuses were rated as 1.5
PCU. This rate is considered satisfactory
in different studies. 10,11 In Jordan,
trucks are not allowed to enter cities. For
the selected sites, the percentage of light
trucks and minibuses was 2 to 5 percent.
For the second set, a manual technique
was used to collect gap measurements,
move-up time, speed of conflicting stream
and average total delay data using 15-
Standard
Mean deviation Minimum Maximum
1,127 575.0 150.0 2,340
450 187.2 90.0 900
19.1 10.3 4.0 43.0
50.1 6.9 38.0 62.0
21.2 10.96 6.0 47.0
6.72 0.87 4.55 7.9
2 0.52 1.70 3.4
minute intervals. The gap measurements
were used to estimate critical gap. Similar
to the HCM definition, the critical gap is
defined as the median gap size accepted by
turning drivers. The move-up time repre-
sents the minimum headway between
turning vehicles entering the same gap in
the conflicting stream. The average total
delay was computed as explained in the
first data set. However, the queue length
was observed at 30-s intervals. To achieve
wide variability in the average total delay,
the data were collected during peak and
off-peak periods. Furthermore, all selected
sites were at least 200 meters (m) from the
nearest signalized intersection. Thus, no
spillback problems or abnormal bunched
arrivals were observed during data collec-
(2) tion. Table 1 summarizes the characteris-
tics of the collected data.
The measurements also included the
geometric elements of each median open-
ing. The width of each arterial approach
varied from 8.3 to 9.4 m with median of
1.8 to 3.0 m. Each selected arterial has
four lanes—two through lanes/direction.
The width of the left-turn lane is about
3.0 m. All approaches had a good sight
distance with grades less than 2.0 percent.
DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS
U-Turn Capacity Model
The major purpose of capacity model-
ing is to develop a useful relationship
between capacity of U-turn median
opening and a set of traffic and geometric
characteristics. The developed model
should be easy for practical applications
and predictive under different traffic
conditions. A correlation analysis was
29
 undertaken to identify the factors that
1000 affect U-turn capacity. The analysis indi-
cated that U-turn capacity had strong
correlation with the conflicting traffic
flow and the average total delay. For illus-
800 tration, Figure 1 shows the scatter plot of
U-turn capacity and conflicting traffic
flow for all investigated median open-
ings. Also, the conflicting traffic flow had
600 high correlation with the average total
Capacity (pcu/h)

delay. The analysis also showed that the

approach speed and median and conflict-
ing approach widths did not have a
400 strong effect on the U-turn capacity.
Regression analysis was carried out to
determine the best form of the predictive
equation for the U-turn capacity. Since
200 conflicting traffic flow and average total
were found to be strongly correlated, the
average total delay was not included in the
modeling analysis. Based on the analysis,
0 two regression equations were obtained:

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 C = 799 – 0.31 qc (3)

Conflicting Traffic Flow (pcu/h) C = 1,545 – 790 eqc/3,600 (4)

Figure 1. Scatter plot of U-turn capacity conflicting traffic flow. where:

50 C = capacity of U-turn movement (PCU/h); and

qc = conflicting traffic flow (PCU/h).

Equations 3 and 4 were found to be

40 significant at a 95 percent confidence
level. Although exponential (N = 210, R 2
= 0.89, F = 1,761 and σ = 61) and linear
(N = 210, R 2 = 0.90, F = 1,981 and σ =
Average Total Delay (s/veh)

58) equations were found to provide a

30
reasonable fit to the empirical data, the
linear form was the best from a statistical
point. Clearly, the linear-regression equa-
tion developed in this study compares
20 favorably with capacity models developed
for nonpriority streams at two-way stop-
controlled intersections in the United
Kingdom,3 United States4 and Poland.5
10 The conflicting traffic flow, qc, in
Equations 3 and 4 represents the oppos-
ing flow. As mentioned before, each arte-
rial direction has two through lanes; and
0 vehicles using these lanes conflict with
the turning vehicle. Thus, it is more log-
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
ical to estimate the capacity of U-turn
Conflicting Traffic Flow (pcu/h) movement as a function of conflicting
flow irrespective of the number of the
Figure 2. Scatter plot of average total delay and conflicting traffic flow. through lanes. However, if conflicting

30 ITE JOURNAL / JUNE 1999

flow/lane is needed, the following devel-
oped regression equation can be used:
C = 799 – 0.62 qcp (5)
where q cp represents the conflicting
flow/lane. The intercept, the slope and
the regression model were significant at
95 percent confidence (N = 210, R 2 =
0.90, F = 1,981 and σ = 58).
Furthermore, the analysis conducted
in this study revealed that there is a rela-
tionship between the average total delay
and the conflicting traffic flow (see Fig-
ure 2). Analysis showed that linear and
exponential forms are suitable to
describe the relationship. However, the
exponential form was found to have the
best statistical characteristics. The devel-
oped regression equation was as follows:
TD = 6.6 × e qc/1,200
(6)
where TD represents the average total
delay for the turning vehicles (s/veh). The
relationship was found to be statistically
significant at the 95 percent confident
level (N = 210, R 2 = 0.84, F = 1,066.2 and
σ = 4.16). Al-Omari and Benekohal12
developed an exponential model to esti-
mate total delay at congested two-way
stop-controlled intersections. The model
has two input variables: the arrival rate and
the conflicting traffic volume. Also, Kyte et
al.4 indicated that both conflicting traffic
flow and arrival rate of subject approach
had linearly influenced the average total
delay; however, analysis conducted in this
study did not confirm the effect of arrival
rate of turning traffic on the average total
delay. A higher arrival rate would probably
be needed to explore the effect of arrival
rate on average total delay.
Critical Gap and Move-up Time Models
Multivariate analysis was used to assess
the effect of different traffic conditions on
the critical gap and move-up time. The
analysis showed that the critical gap is
strongly correlated with the average total
delay and conflicting traffic speed. Equa-
tion 6 indicates the best model resulting
from a regression analysis with critical gap
as the dependent variable and the average
total delay and conflicting traffic speed as
the determinate variables.
32
1000
800
Estimated Capacity (pcu/h)
600
400
200
0
0 400
Conflicting Traffic Flow (pcu/h)
Figure 3. Capacity estimates according to empirical and gap-acceptance approaches.
tc = 6.31 – 0.070 TD + 0.026 sp (7)
where sp represents the approach speed
of the conflicting traffic stream (km/h).
All regression parameters in Equation 7
were significant at a 95 percent confi-
dence level (N = 68, R 2 = 0.85, F =
195.1 and σ = 0.34). Clearly, Equation
6 indicates that the critical gap is not
constant but varies according to the
average total delay and the speed of
conflicting traffic flow. This result is
consistent with findings of recent stud-
ies, which indicated that the average
total delay does affect the critical gap of
nonpriority streams at unsignalized
intersections. 4,13,14 Moreover, Al-
Masaeid 10 and Harders15 concluded
that the size of the critical gap was
influenced by the speed of conflicting
traffic at unsignalized intersections.
Therefore, the results of this study are
compatible with the cited literature.
Further analyses were conducted to
develop move-up time models. Field
observations and analysis performed in
this study revealed that the move-up
time is related to delay level. Under
low delay levels, the move-up time was
800 1200 1600 2000
found to be about 3.5 s. However, real-
izing the complexity and the risk asso-
ciated with U-turn movement at
median openings, this value is not sur-
prising. The empirical data indicated
that the size of the move-up time
decreases with the increase in average
total delay. Based on regression analy-
sis, the following exponential equation
was obtained:
tm = 1.76 + 3.77 × e–TD/7.5 (8)
The regression parameter in Equa-
tion 8 was significant at a 95 percent
confidence level (N = 68, R 2 = 0.74, F =
191.3 and σ = 0.26).
Previous studies reported that the size
of the move-up time is related to the
type of turning movement and the speed
of the conflicting traffic at unsignalized
intersections.15 Other studies showed
that the move-up time is correlated
strongly with the relevant critical gap for
nonpriority streams at unsignalized
intersections.10 However, it is worth
mentioning that all previous studies did
not investigate the size of move-up time
for U-turn movement.
ITE JOURNAL / JUNE 1999
PERFORMANCE OF THE GAP-
ACCEPTANCE APPROACH
This study investigated the perfor-
mance of the gap-acceptance approach.
Capacity estimates using the empirical
approach were considered as the basis for
comparison. Figure 3 shows the relation-
ship between U-turn capacity and con-
flicting traffic flow using the empirical and
gap-acceptance approaches. In the empiri-
cal approach, Equation 3 was used to esti-
mate capacity values. Siegloch’s formula in
Equation 1 was used to estimate the
capacity according to the gap-acceptance
approach. For each conflicting traffic-flow
level, Equation 5 was used to obtain the
estimate of average total delay. The esti-
mated delay values were substituted in
Equations 7 and 8 to obtain values of crit-
ical gap and move-up time, respectively. In
Equation 7, the speed of conflicting traffic
stream was assumed to be 50 km/h.
The empirical approach, as shown in
Figure 3, indicates that the estimated
capacity is 489 PCU/h at conflicting traf-
fic flow of 1,000 PCU/h. On the con-
trary, the gap acceptance model indicates
that the estimated capacity is 355
PCU/h. This difference, 134 PCU/h, in
the estimated capacity is relatively large.
This difference is about 2.3 of the stan-
dard errors (58 PCU/h) for capacity esti-
mates according to Equation 3. However,
the difference is not significant at a 95
percent confidence level. On the other
hand, both empirical and gap-acceptance
approaches provide comparable capacity
values under low or heavy conflicting
traffic-flow levels, as shown in Figure 3.
Thus, the empirical and gap-accep-
tance approaches yield approximately sim-
ilar capacity estimates. This finding is not
consistent with conclusions of previous
capacity studies, which indicated that the
gap-acceptance approach provides unreal-
istic capacity values at both low- and high-
conflicting traffic-flow levels. 9,10,16
Previous studies did not consider the delay
effect on the gap-acceptance performance.
Furthermore, the HCM still treats the
gap-acceptance parameters as constant val-
ues. This issue is very important because
drivers may change their behavior as they
wait for a considerable period of time, and
ultimately they accept smaller gaps. Thus,
delay should be considered in comparing
34
View publication stats
the performance of different capacity-esti-
mation approaches.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of both empirical and
gap-acceptance approaches were com-
pared. Based on the results of this study,
the following points were concluded:
1. Capacity and average total delay
models for U-turn movements at
median openings were found to be sig-
nificantly influenced by the conflicting
traffic flow. The best predictive capacity
model had a linear form, while the delay
relationship had an exponential form.
2. Both the conflicting traffic speed
and average total delay were found to be
significant for estimating the critical gap
for U-turn movement. Also, the results
indicated that the increase in the average
total delay significantly influenced the
size of the move-up time.
3. Compared with results of the
empirical approach, the gap-acceptance
model provides reasonable results. ■
References
1. Hummer, J.E. “Unconventional Left-
Turn Alternatives for Urban and Suburban
Arterials—Part One.” ITE Journal (September
1998): 26–34.
2. Transportation Research Board. Highway
Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. Wash-
ington, D.C., USA: National Research Coun-
cil, 1994.
3. Kimber, R., and R. Coombe. The Traffic
Capacity of Major/Minor Priority Junctions.
TRRL Report SR582. Crowthorne, Berkshire,
England: Department of the Environment and
Transport, 1980.
4. Kyte, M., C. Clemon, N. Mahfood, B.
Lall and C. Khisty. “Capacity and Delay Char-
acteristics of Two-Way Stop-Controlled Inter-
sections.” Transportation Research Record 1320
(1991): 160–167.
5. Tracz, M. “Research on Traffic Perfor-
mance of Major/Minor Priority Intersections.”
Intersections without Traffic Signals. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1988.
6. Siegloch, W. Die Leistungsermittlung an
Kontenpunkten ohne Lichtsignalsteurung. Heft
154. Bonn, Germany: Schriftenreihe Strassen-
bau und Strassenverkehrstechnik, 1973.
7. Brilon, W., and M. Grossmann. “The New
German Guideline for Capacity of Unsignalized
Intersections.” Intersection without Traffic Signals
II. Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1991.
8. Brilon, W., N. Wu and K. Lemke.
“Capacity at Unsignalized Two-Stage Priority
Intersections.” Transportation Research Record
1555 (1996): 74–82.
9. Kimber, R. “Gap-Acceptance and Empiri-
cism in Capacity Prediction.” Transportation Sci-
ence, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1989): 100–111.
10. Al-Masaeid, H.R. “Capacity of One-
Way Yield-Controlled Intersections.” Trans-
portation Research Record 1484 (1995): 9–15.
11. Troutbeck, R.J. “Effect of Heavy Vehi-
cles at Australian Traffic Circles and Unsignal-
ized Intersections.” Transportation Research
Record 1398 (1993): 54–60.
12. Al-Omari, B., and R. Benekohal.
“Delay at Congested Unsignalized Intersec-
tions.” Proceedings of Traffic Congestion and
Traffic Safety in the 21st Century. Chicago, Ill.,
USA, June 8–11, 1997.
13. Madanat, S.M., M. Cassidy and M.
Wang. “Probabilistic Delay Model at Stop-Con-
trolled Intersection.” Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 1 (1994): 21–36.
14. Teply, S., M. Abou-Henaidy and J.D.
Hunt. “Gap Acceptance Behaviour—Aggregate
and Logit Perspectives: Part 1.” Traffic Engi-
neering and Control Journal, Vol. 38, No. 9
(1997): 474–482.
15. Harders, J. Grenz- und Folgezitlucken als
Grundlage fur die Leistungsfahigkeit von Land-
strassen. Heft 216. Bonn, Germany: Schriftenreihe
Strassenbau und Strassenverkehrstechnik, 1976.
16. Brilon, W., M. Grossmann and B. Stuwe.
“Towards a New German Guideline for Capacity
of Unsignalized Intersections.” Transportation
Research Record 1320 (1991): 168–174.
HASHEM R.
AL-MASAEID,
P.E., is Associate Profes-
sor of civil engineering
and Vice Dean of scien-
tific research at Jordan
University of Science
and Technology
(JUST), in Irbid, Jordan. He received a B.Sc. in
civil engineering from JUST and an M.Sc. in
civil engineering from Yarmouk University, Jor-
dan. He also has a Ph.D. in transportation engi-
neering from Purdue University. His research
interests are in the areas of traffic safety, traffic
engineering and highway engineering.
Al-Masaeid is a Member of ITE.
ITE JOURNAL / JUNE 1999