INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DELHI

HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI – 110016

CVL 742
Traffic Engineering
Topic- Intersection Design Elements and Layout

Submitted to:
Prof.Kalaga Ramchandra Rao , Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
Hauz Khas, New Delhi.

Submitted by: Group-10

Vivek kumar-2022CEP2362
Shivam Yadav-2022CEP2366
Kunal Malohtra -2022CEP2692
Intersection Design Elements and Layout
The overall location where two or more roadways unite or cross is referred to as a
junction. Vehicles going in different directions wish to occupy the same place at the
same time, thus this area is provided for them to turn in different directions to get
to their intended destinations.
Roadway intersections are distinctive features where opposing vehicle flows (and
occasionally non-motorized users) share the same space. All forms of
transportation are included in this domain, such as:
• pedestrian
• bicycle
• passenger vehicle
• truck
• transit
Intersection design, like all other parts of traffic engineering, has two main goals:
to assure the safety of all users, including cars, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists,
and others; and to encourage the efficient movement of all users through the
intersection.
Because safety and efficiency are sometimes conflicting goals rather than mutually
reinforcing objectives, achieving both is not an easy undertaking.
The following factors should be considered while creating an intersection design,
according AASHTO.
Human elements, traffic considerations, physical components, economic variables,
and a useful intersection area.
An intersection that has been well-designed is one that is obvious to drivers, has
design dimensions that support operational requirements, traffic control devices
that are performing as intended, and nonmotorized vehicle users who can cross
the intersection safely.

Intersection Size:
Determining the amount of lanes required
on each approach is one of the most
important components of intersection
design. Because the type of control at the
intersection, parking requirements and
conditions, the availability of right-of-
way, and a number of other elements that
are not always directly within the control
of the traffic engineer, make this an
Intersection View (Source: Internet) imperfect science. Further, the ideal
number of lanes is influenced by factors including capacity, safety, and efficiency.
There is no one right solution, as is the case with the majority of design exercises,
and a number of solutions may be available that offer acceptable safety and
functioning.
Principles for good design of intersection:
a) Keep the number of intersections to a minimal.
b) The design should let the driver to easily identify the path he should take and
the acts of merging and diverging from either the geometric layout or from traffic
signs.
c) The layout should also follow the natural course of the vehicle. To avoid sudden
and sharp curves, it must be smooth.
d) By separating some of the numerous cuttings, merging, or diverging movement,
the number of conflicts points should be reduced.
e) At the intersection, vehicles that must wait in order to cross a busy street should
have enough room.
Basic Types of Intersections: (At Grade)
1.Three-leg (T): Normal paving widths and paved corner radii are present in the
usual three-leg intersection configuration to accommodate design vehicles.
Usually, the intersection angle is between 60 and 120 degrees.
It is possible to employ auxiliary lanes (left or right-turn
lanes) to expand the capacity of the road and improve
operational conditions. Increasing corner radii can
channelize a roadway by separating it from the main
paths taken by an island.
2. Four-leg: Numerous design factors for three-legged
crossroads—such as islands, auxiliary lanes,
channelization, etc.—can also be used at four-legged
intersections.
3. Multi-leg:
If there is a suitable alternative, multi-leg
intersection designs with five or more legs
should not be employed. If many legs must be
used, a shared paved area at the intersection of
all legs may be preferable for stop control and
light traffic volumes.

ALIGNMENT AND PROFILE OF INTERSECTION:

The shape of the road affects how safe it is. Research demonstrating that roadway
characteristics are the second most important contributing factor to traffic crashes
supports this. In the US, horizontal curves have an average crash rate that is almost
three times higher than other highway sections.
Road conflicts are more likely to happen when characters suddenly shift (i.e., sharp
curves at the end of long tangent roadway sections). When comparing neighboring
road segments, the idea of design consistency looks for places where changes could
seem abrupt or unexpected. Analysis of design consistency can be used to
demonstrate a curve's decreasing operating speed.
The most important design components for every road are its horizontal and
vertical geometry. Despite the fact that most designers create the horizontal
alignment first and then the vertical alignment, these two should be coordinated
to improve vehicle operation, uniform speed, and facility appearance without
incurring additional costs (e.g., checking for additional sight distance before making
significant changes to the horizontal alignment, revising design elements to
eliminate potential drainage issues, etc.). CAD, or computer-aided design, is the
most common method for coordinating the horizontal and vertical alignments and
facilitating iterative three-dimensional design.
Traffic, topography, geotechnical issues, culture, planned development, and
project constraints may all affect where a road is built. Many design values, such as
curves and sight distance, are constrained by design speed, while others, such as
width, clearance, and maximum gradient are affected.
In order to save money and prevent accidents, intersecting roadways should be
positioned roughly at right angles. Acute angle intersections need wider turning
spaces, reduce visibility, and prolong vehicle exposure time. Minor road crossings
with main roads should ideally be as close to 90 degrees as is practicable, but some
variation is acceptable. Right angle intersections are most advantageous at angles
of 60 degrees or less (reduced right-of-way and construction costs).
At crossroads, vertical gradients that affect vehicle control should be avoided.
Calculated stopping and accelerating distances for passenger cars on 3 percent
maximum gradients are not significantly different from those on the level. To match
equivalent activities on level roadways, other design features may need to be
modified for grades steeper than 3 percent. Avoid grades for intersecting roads
above 3 percent in intersection zones unless they are cost-prohibitive; in that case,
a maximum of 6 percent may be allowed.
INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE:
It is possible to prevent collisions between vehicles at crossroads by implementing
proper sight distances and traffic restrictions. Accident avoidance and the
effectiveness of traffic operations still rely on the discretion, aptitude, and reaction
of the individual driver. The sight distance deemed safe is inversely proportional to
the speed of the vehicle and the distances that must be covered for perception,
reaction time, and braking.
Each vehicle approaching an intersection must have a clear line of sight across all
of the intersection's included corners and along all of the crossroads' legs for a
sufficient distance to allow the drivers to see one another in time to avoid a
collision.
To improve traffic management, intersection sight lengths should be greater than
stopping sight distances on important roadways. Many of the same concepts that
govern stopping sight distance are also used in methods for calculating intersection
sight distances.
Areas along intersection approach legs
known as sight triangles should be free of
anything that could obscure a driver's view.
The dimensions depend on how people drive,
how fast roads are designed, and what kind of
traffic management is used. Based on a
vehicle height of 4.35 feet, the object height
is 3.50 feet above the surface of the
intersecting roadway (representing the 15th
Height Pertaining to Sight Triangle
percentile of current passenger car vehicle
heights). Typically, 3.50 feet above the road's surface is regarded to be the height
of the driver's eye.

Approach Sight Triangle Departure Sight Triangle

 When possible, intersections of
crossing roads should be 90 degrees or
greater, but no less than 75 degrees.
Given their propensity for operational
or safety issues, intersections with
significant skew angles (60 degrees or
less) may need adjusting the criteria
used to determine intersection sight distance.
TURNING ROADWAYS & CHANNELIZATION:
Turning roadways are integral parts of roadway intersection design. Their widths
are dependent on the types of vehicles and the turning volumes (typically right-
turning traffic).
Types of Right-Turning Roadways at Intersections:
• Minimum edge-of-traveled-way design
• Design with corner triangular island
• Free-flow design with simple or compound radii
Sites with low turn speeds, low turn volumes, and high property values are more
suitable for minimum designs. The turning routes for passenger cars, single-unit
rucks, and semitrailer combination designs of vehicles may serve as the basis for
minimum edge-of-traveled-way designs for turns.
Vehicles with the passenger car (P) design are employed at parkway intersections,
local/major road crossroads with sporadic turns, and intersections of two low-
traffic secondary roads. If conditions allow, a single-unit truck (SU-30) is preferred.
Since it better suits the design vehicle path, minimum edge designs are frequently
employed.
For rural highways, single-unit trucks (SU-30 and SU-40) are advised for the
minimum edge-of-traveled-way design. Important turning motions may call for
speed-change lanes and/or greater radii (main highway, heavy truck traffic, etc.).
City transit buses can fit in minimum travel-way configurations intended for single-
unit trucks.
In areas where truck combination turns occur often, semitrailer combination (WB
series) design vehicles are deployed. For areas with substantial volumes of traffic,
asymmetrical arrangements of three-centered compound curves are more
appropriate combinations. Due to their substantial paved areas, semitrailer combo
designs may require greater radii and corner triangular islands.
Driver needs, available right-of-way, angle of turn, pedestrians using the crossing,
number/width of traffic lanes, and posted speeds should all be satisfied by corner
radii for urban arterial crossroads.
CHANNELIZATION
By using traffic islands or pavement markings, channelization is the separation or
control of conflicting traffic movements into distinct travel lanes (regulation of
traffic).
Intersections may be Classified into two:
1.Unchannelized intersections
2. Channelized intersection
UNCHANNNELIZED INTERSECTION:
There are no restrictions on the use of any part of the paved intersection area by
vehicles. Since there is no additional pavement width for turning movements,
unchanneled intersections are the lowest class of intersections, easiest to design,
and most complicated in terms of traffic operation. They also result in the most
conflict areas. When a junction's pavement is enlarged, it is referred to as a flared
intersection.
CHANNELIZED INTERSECTIONS:
Achieved by: Adding islands to the intersectional space; Reducing the total conflict
area present in the unchanneled intersection; Appropriately designing the radius
of the entrance and exit curves and area to accommodate the channelizing islands;
Islands aid channelized turning traffic by allowing them to control their speed and
angle of approach to reduce conflict area.
The divisional and directional islands and medians at these intersections, which
may be fully or partially constructed, allow for better control of traffic entering and
departing.
Advantages of channelized intersection:
Vehicles can be kept on designated paths; cause the least amount of disruption;
maintain a favorable angle between intersecting traffic streams; create speed
limits; separate conflict points; and provide a suitable location for the installation
of signs and traffic control equipment.
Advantages of channelized intersection:
Vehicles can be restricted to certain lanes; merging streams can be constrained to
have a flat angle. Cause the least amount of disruption; maintain a favorable angle
between intersecting traffic streams; establish speed control; separate conflict
points; provide a suitable location for the installation of signs and traffic control
devices; and significantly reduce both major and minor conflict areas within the
intersection.
Principles of Channelization:
Reduce areas of vehicle conflict as much as possible.
Avoid turns greater than 90 degrees or sharp, sudden curves.
Traffic streams that intersect without merging or weaving should do so at about
90 degrees (60° to 120° acceptable).
Turning roadways should be controlled with a minimum intersection angle of 60
degrees where distances to downstream intersections are less than desirable.
Bicycle lanes shouldn't be blocked by channelization islands, which should also
block prohibited turns, and traffic control devices should be included as part of the
channelized intersection design.
ISLANDS
An island is a designated space used to regulate the flow of vehicles between lanes
of traffic. A median or an outside separation is regarded as an island within a
junction. It is clear from this definition that an island is not one physical type. It
could be anything from a curb-delineated area to a painted-on section of
pavement.
Islands generally are included in intersection design (channelization) for one or
more of the following purposes:
• Separation of conflicts
• Control of angle of conflict
• Reduction in excessive pavement areas
• Regulation of traffic and indication of proper use of intersection
• Arrangements to favor a predominant turning movement
• Protection of pedestrians (ADA requirements should be considered.)
• Protection and storage of turning and crossing vehicles
• Location of traffic control devices
• Access control
Islands typically have an extended or triangular shape and are located in places
where there aren't many roads. Their dimensions and shapes significantly differ
from one intersection to the next.
At crossings with many and acute angles, more variations appear. The dimensions
vary according to the specific intersection design. Islands should be placed and
constructed so that they provide little risk to moving cars, are reasonably cheap to
construct and maintain, take up the least amount of space on the road, and yet
command enough attention to prevent drivers from running them over.
Island Size and Designation: Islands should be large enough to draw attention. A
curbed island with an area of around 50 square feet for urban and 75 square feet
for rural crossroads should often be considered. However, for both, 100 square feet
is optimum.
As a result, after rounding the corners, triangular islands should measure at least
12 feet, preferably 15 feet, on each side. The minimum dimensions for elongated
or divided islands should be 4 feet broad by 20 to 25 feet long.
In general, it is not a good idea to introduce curbed divisional islands at isolated
crossroads on high-speed motorways unless great care is taken to ensure that the
islands have high visibility.
Curbed divisional islands should be implemented at remote crossroads on high-
speed motorways, preferably at a distance of at least 100 feet.
Delineation:
Depending on their size, location, and purpose, islands should be defined or
sketched using a variety of techniques. The design is also influenced by the sort of
location where the intersection is situated, such as rural versus urban.
Curbs serve as a primary means of delineating small islands with curbs. The contrast
in color and texture of vegetation cover, mounded ground, shrubs, guard posts,
signage, or any combination of these can serve as a suitable delineator for large,
curbed islands. In rural settings, island curbs should almost always be sloping in
nature, with the exception of places where a vertical curb is absolutely necessary,
such as at structures or pedestrian crossings. In exceptional circumstances, vertical
curbs that are typically no taller than 6 inches are suitable. Depending on the
situation, a vertical or sloping curb may be appropriate in metropolitan areas.
When high-speed traffic is approaching islands or route forks, high-visibility curbs
are useful.
Approach Treatment:
The boundary of turning lanes and through traffic lanes, along with lateral
clearance to the curbed island sides, define the outline of a curbed island. For
visibility and ease of construction, the points at the intersections of the curbed
island are rounded or bevelled. The type of edge treatment, as well as other
elements including island contrast, the length of the taper or auxiliary pavement
before the curbed island, and traffic speed, all affect how much a curbed island is
offset from the through traffic lane. Even if they are sloping, island curbs should be
offset from the edge of through traffic lanes because they are introduced very
abruptly. No offset from the edge of a turning roadway is required for a sloping
curb at an island, with the exception of reducing vulnerability.
Right-Angle Turns with Corner Islands:
The turning roadway pavement should be wide enough to allow a chosen vehicle's
outer and inner tyre tracks to remain within the pavement's margins by around 2
feet on each side.
Generally speaking, the pavement width of the turning roadway should not be less
than 14 feet. For designs of 90-degree turning roadways with the fewest possible
corner islands.
Oblique-Angle Turns with Corner Islands:
Oblique-angle turn minimum design dimensions are established using a
methodology similar to that used for right-angle turns. For the three selected
design classifications shown at the bottom of the table, an indication of the inner
edge of pavement curve design, turning roadway pavement width, and the
estimated size of the island is provided. According to the size of the vehicles, the
estimated volume of traffic, and the physical controls at the site, the designer may
select from the designs displayed for a certain intersection.

Unsignalized Intersection:
The basic rules of the road (no control devices other than warning and directional
signs) or STOP or YIELD control may be used at unsignalized intersections.

There is rarely a defined "main" street with considerable volumes involved, and
intersection traffic levels are typically low when completely uncontrolled. In these
situations, intersection sites frequently don't need more lanes than the
approaching roadway. Rarely are additional turning lanes offered. Channelization
may be utilised in conjunction with warning signs when there are high speeds
and/or visibility issues to increase safety.
The last lesson covered the situations in which a two-way (or one-way at a T-
intersection or intersection of one-way streets) STOP or YIELD control is suitable.
However, the presence of STOP- or YIELD-controlled techniques introduces certain
new design-related factors:
Should the main street have left-turn lanes installed?
Should the main street have right-turn lanes installed?
Should modest approaches have a right-turn lane available?
How many basic lanes are needed for each minor approach?
The majority of these problems entail thinking about capacity. However, some
generic recommendations are provided here for your convenience.
There is a chance that left turns from a mixed lane on the major street will cause
passing vehicles to wait unnecessarily as left-turners find a gap in the opposing
major-street traffic. When left turns reach 150 veh/h, their effect on the delay to
all major-street approach traffic is apparent. Although a value as low as 100 veh/h
could be allowed, using this as a general guideline indicating the likely need for a
major street left-turn lane is permissible.
Right-turning traffic from the main street doesn't significantly affect how STOP or
YIELD-controlled intersections function. Although they don't strictly interfere with
minor-street movements when they're made from shared lanes, they can obstruct
some of them if drivers don't signal their turns clearly or hurry up to the
intersection. Minor-street drivers can more easily tell when a major-street right
turn is being made since it uses an exclusive lane. Where on-street parking is
allowed, right-turn lanes for important streets can readily be added. In certain
circumstances, parking restrictions may be placed 100 to 200 feet from the STOP
line, resulting in the creation of a limited right-turn lane.
The majority of STOP-controlled approaches have a single shared lane.
The Highway Capacity Manual's unsignalized intersection analysis methodology
can be used to create approximate guidelines for the necessary number of lanes.
Table.1 provides recommendations for whether one or two lanes would be
required based on various combinations of minor-approach demand and total
crossing traffic on the major roadway.
They are predicated on the notions

All traffic on main streets is through traffic, all traffic on lesser approaches is
through traffic, and a lane's capacity is reduced to around 80% of its original value
due to various impedances and other undesirable qualities.
The provision of a right-turning lane is the other matter to be thought about on
modest STOP controlled approaches. Better operation can typically be achieved by
providing a right-turn lane since the right-turn movement at a STOP-controlled
approach is significantly more efficient than crossing and let-turn motions. This can
typically be accomplished by prohibiting parking 200 feet or less from the STOP line,
which keeps right-turning traffic from being forced to wait in line when they could
be making their turns.
A right-turning lane should always be taken into consideration where a sizable
fraction of the minor approach traffic is turning right (>20%).
Please take note that Table 1's lane criteria are approximations. Any completed
design should go through a thorough analysis utilising the necessary.
Think about the following instance: 800 vehicles per hour go on a two-lane major
route, of which 10% turn left and 5% turn right at a local street. With 50 vehicles
turning left and 50 vehicles turning right, the two approaches to the local street are
STOP-controlled and carry 150 vehicles per hour. Offer an appropriate
intersectional design.
No left- or right-turn lanes would be necessary due to the major street's low volume
of left turns (80/h) and right turns (40/h), however they might be added if there is
room. According to Table 1, each minor-street approach would require no more
than one lane.

However, the comparatively high number of right turns (33%), recommends that
there should be a right-turn lane on every minor approach.
 Signalized Intersection
Consider the following example: A two-lane major route has 800 vehicles per hour,
10% of which turn left and 5% of which turn right at a local street. The two
approaches to the local street are STOP-controlled and can accommodate 150
vehicles per hour with 50 vehicles turning left and 50 vehicles turning right. Give a
suitable intersectional layout.
Due to the major street's low volume of left turns (80/h) and right turns (40/h), no
left- or right-turn lanes would be required; however, if there is space, they might
be created. Each minor-street entrance would only need one lane.

However, the relatively high percentage of right turns (33%) suggests that each
minor approach should have a right-turn lane.

Where:
Vc = maximum sum of critical-lane volumes, veh/h
h = average headway for prevailing conditions on the lane group or approach, s/veh
N = number of phases in the cycle
tL = lost time per phase, s/phase
C = cycle length, s

We employ a typical loss time per phase of 4.0 s and an average headway of 2.6
s/veh (ti). The maximum sums for various combinations of and C are tabulated.
Think about a situation where two big arterials cross. The highest directional
volumes of Arterials 1 and 2 are 900 and 1,100 veh/hr, respectively. Light turning
volumes and a two-phase signal are expected. What is the minimum required
number of lanes to handle these quantities, and what range of cycle lengths would
be suitable?
According to Table 2, the maximum sums of critical lane volumes range from 1,015
veh/h for a cycle length of 30 seconds to 1,292 veh/h for a cycle length of 120
seconds.
The maximum values for reasonable cycle lengths are far exceeded by 900 + 1,100
= 2,000 veh/h. In Table 3, various plausible hypotheses for the number of lanes on
each key approach and the corresponding total of critical-lane volumes are
presented.
The total critical-lane volumes with one lane on Arterial 1 and three lanes on
Arterial 2 is 1,267 veh/h. This would be a feasible option from Table 2 with a cycle
length of more than 100 seconds. The total critical-lane volumes for arterials with
two lanes are 1,000 veh/h. Any cycle length between 30 and 120 seconds would be
suitable for this case. Any cycle length between 30 and 120 seconds could be
accommodated by all other possibly viable scenarios.
Because it is only an estimate, this kind of analysis does not produce a definitive
design or cycle length. However, it does provide the traffic engineer with a general
sense of where to begin. In this situation, it would seem fair to provide two lanes
on each arterial in the peak direction. Due to the fact that peaks are frequently
reciprocal (i.e., what goes one way in the morning comes back the other way in the
evening), each artery would also include two lanes for off-peak traffic.

Offset Intersections
The safe operation of high-volume offset crossings is one of the most challenging
problems faced by traffic engineers. A similar intersection with a slight right offset
is shown in Figure 14. In the scenario shown, the motorist requires a wider field of
vision to see incoming right-turning vehicles than they would at a perfectly aligned
90° intersection. This makes the obstruction brought on by the structure a more
significant issue. In addition to causing issues with sight distance, the offset
intersection alters the regular course of all movements, increasing the likelihood of
accidents in a way that is not present at crossroads that are aligned.
Rarely are offset intersections purposefully created. They are required by a number
of circumstances, most of which involve long-standing historical growth patterns.
Figure 15 is an instance of an offset intersection that is very typical. Zoning and
other laws weren't always strict in older urban or suburban areas, and in some
situations, they still aren't. As it increased the community's property tax base,
additional development was seen as having a positive impact on the economy.
Therefore, zoning boards and authorities do not often exert strict supervision over
the exact design of subdivision developments.
When Developer A purchases the land to the south of a major artery and designs a
circulation system that will maximise the number of building lots that can be
accommodated on the parcel, the scenario shown in Figure 15 will take place. In
the future. Land north of the same arterial is obtained by Developer B. Once more,
an internal layout that offers the most development parcels is chosen. There is no
assurance that opposing local roadways will "align up" if there isn't a strong
planning board or other control body requiring it. Offsets are possible in certain
situations and happen regularly.
Other methods for controlling and operating such intersections must be taken into
consideration because it is infrequently possible to obtain enough right-of-way in
urban and suburban settings. A right-offset crossing poses two significant
operational issues, as seen in Figure 16. The left-turn trajectories from the offset
legs in Figure 16 (a) involve a high amount of risk. A car turning left from either
offset leg is in conflict with the opposing through vehicle nearly soon after crossing
the STOP line, in contrast to the situation at an intersection that is aligned. Left-
turning vehicles must bear right as if they were going through to the other leg to
prevent this clash, starting their left turns only when they are roughly halfway
through the leg. This, of course, is not a natural movement, and a high incidence of
left-turn accidents often result at such intersections.
The highlighted risk to pedestrians crossing the linked roadway. There are two
viable routes, both of which are very simple for pedestrians: either they can cross
perpendicularly or at an angle from corner to corner. The latter positions their
crossing with one end distant from the street corner. However, perpendicular
crossings reduce both the length and speed of the crossing. However, after almost
finishing their right turn, right-turning automobiles run into the pedestrian conflict
in an unexpected place. Pedestrian exposure is increased at diagonal crossings,
although conflicts with right-turning traffic are more likely to occur close to where
they normally would.
The increased likelihood of sideswipe collisions as vehicles cross between the offset
legs is yet another unique danger at offset crossings that Figure 16 does not
adequately convey. More cars will leave their lane during the crossing since the
necessary angle path is not always clear.
However, there are solutions that will reduce these extra risks. In situations when
the intersection is signalised, the left-tum conflict can be resolved by using a fully
protected left-tum phase in the offset direction.
In this instance, the opposing through vehicles and the left-turning vehicles won't
both be entering the intersection area at the same moment. However, for this to
work, one of the current lanes must be set aside as an exclusive turning lane or a
left-turn lane must be built to each offset leg. If this is not practicable, a more
drastic solution would be to give each of the offset legs its own signal phase.
Although this separates the opposing flows from the left-turning traffic, it is an
ineffective signal layout that may require four-phase signalization if the aligned
arterial requires left-tum phases.
Figure : Special Problems at Offset Intersections

The traffic engineer must expressly mark the desired path that pedestrians are to
walk in order to ensure their safety. This is accomplished by using pedestrian
signals, signs, and markings appropriately.
Location of crosswalks affects ST0Plines and the placement of pedestrian signals,
which must be situated in walkers' lines of sight (i.e., their walking path). The
installed crossing routes have an impact on the timing of vehicular signals as well.
When using perpendicular crossings, STOP-lines on the associated street may be
much farther apart than when using diagonal crossings.

Figure: Signing, Markings, and Pedestrian Signals for a Right-Offset Intersection

This lengthens the Signed Street's all-red interval and adds wasted time to the
signal cycle.
Barriers can be installed at regular street comer positions to stop people from
crossing the street inadvertently or unintentionally in extreme situations where it
is difficult to enforce perpendicular crossings.
Dashed lane and centerline markings through the intersection may be placed to aid
traffic in taking the proper routes through the offset intersection.
The lane lines would be white, and the expanded centerline marking would be
yellow. Some of the issues that right-offset crossings have also apply to left-offset
intersections. However, it is not as crucial how a left turn interacts with the
opposing through flow. Although distinct from a right turn, the pedestrian-right
turn interaction could be equally dangerous. Figure 19 shows how the left-turn
trajectory through the offset intersection is still very different from one that is
aligned, but the left-turn action does not instantly send the vehicle into the path of
the approaching through traffic. a right-offset junction is an example of movement.
Extended lane markings would be utilised to reduce the danger of sideswipe
incidents, which are still a possibility.
ROUNDABOUT DESIGN

The British invented the "modern roundabout" to address the issues with circular
intersections. As a result, there is a central island in the middle of a one-way,
circular intersection. The United Kingdom implemented a necessary "give-way"
requirement for entering traffic must stop and let circulating traffic pass at all
circular crossroads. The number and severity of car crashes were significantly
decreased by this rule.
Basic Rules for Contemporary Roundabouts:
1) Yield control at all entry locations - Before entering the circle, all incoming traffic
must yield to vehicles on the roundabout's circulation roadway. The main purpose
of yield signs is entry control. The act of weaving is not regarded as a design or
capacity factor.
2) Traffic deflection - In the US, channelization or splitter islands guide approaching
traffic into the roundabout's circulating lane so as to avoid the central island. No
entering traffic is allowed to pass through the roundabout in a straight line.
Geometric curvature: The radius of the roundabout's circulating lane and entry
design both have the potential to reduce entry and exit speeds.

Geometric designs for roundabouts combine operational and capacity

performance with safety improvements. The optimal roundabout performance
occurs when approaching traffic enters and circulates at a slow pace. The capacity
of the roundabout could be harmed by the use of low-speed design elements
(horizontal curvature and narrow pavement widths for slower speeds). The
provision for large vehicles anticipated to pass through the intersection also affects
many of the geometric criteria used in roundabout design.

Geometric elements in a Roundabout:

Central Island: A raised space in the middle of a roundabout that is not always
round and is surrounded by moving traffic.
Raised or painted approach area known as Splitter Island is used to mark, divert,
and slow down vehicles. Additionally, it allows pedestrian crossings.
Circulatory Roadway: A curved road that round the main island in the opposite
direction.
Apron: A central island component that is optionally mountable and used to
accommodate greater vehicle wheel tracking.
Pavement marking for the entrance to the circulatory route known as the yield line.
Before crossing the yield line onto the circulation path, entry vehicles must yield to
oncoming traffic.
Accessible Pedestrian Crossings: Non-motorist access cut through the splitter island
and setback from the entrance line.

Landscape Strip: Discrete regions that can be used to distinguish between

motorised and non-motorized traffic, mark crossing points, and enhance the
aesthetics.
The process of designing a roundabout is unique to each intersection and involves
creativity.
There isn't a "cookie-cutter" template or approach that applies to all locales.
Geometric designs can be simple (like single-lane roundabouts) or complicated (like
mini-roundabouts) (multi-lane roundabouts). The effectiveness of the intersection
as a single traffic control unit is more crucial than the precise values of the many
design elements. To be successful, it is essential that these many geometric
components interact with one another within allowable bounds.
Speed Control
The design speed of vehicles is an important consideration when designing
roundabouts. The management of speeds at the roundabout and the advancing
legs are frequently combined. To achieve optimal safety performance, it is essential
to predict these vehicle speeds as they pass through a proposed roundabout.
For single-lane roundabouts, maximum entering design speeds of 20 to 25 mph are
advised. These maximum entrance design speeds rise to 25 to 30 mph for multi-
lane roundabouts (based on the theoretical fastest path). The recommended
design speeds for various roundabout types are displayed in Exhibit 6-4.
Producing uniform speeds for all circular movements, together with a general
slowdown, can help to reduce the number of collisions between opposing lanes of
traffic. The relative speeds between adjacent geometric components and
competing traffic streams should be kept to a minimum in any design.
Lane configurations
In a roundabout, the entry movements allotted to each lane are essential to the
overall design. The necessary number of entry lanes for each approach can be
determined with the use of an operational study. Pavement marking can also be
employed early on to maintain lane continuity during many design iterations.
Typically, roundabouts are made to handle traffic loads from the design year
(normally projected 20 years in the future). This layout might result in more
entering, departing, and circulating lanes than are required when operations first
begin. A phased design that initially employs fewer entering and circulation lanes
while maximising potential safety may be required. An ideal roundabout
configuration (both horizontal and vertical design) needs to be taken into account
as early as feasible in the initial design in order to allow for lane expansion at a later
stage. The ideal roundabout design may then have lanes eliminated to achieve the
required initial capacity. This staged approach guarantees enough right-of-way
acquisition and limits any modifications to the original roundabout.
Suitable Path Alignment
A fundamental idea in the geometric design of roundabouts is the fastest speed
path. For a single car to pass through the entrance, circle the central island, and
exit the roundabout, this is the quickest and smoothest route feasible. By diverting
the routes of approaching and moving vehicles, it seeks to limit operational speed.
The key fastest path will usually be the through movement. However, occasionally
it might include turning to the right.

An suitable lane alignment is made possible by a good entry and exit design
throughout the roundabout. Analyzing the traffic path alignments can help
engineers build roundabouts that are safer and operate more efficiently. Lane
markings will direct approaching traffic to the roundabout's entrance, where it
will then proceed into the circulation route.
The roundabout's efficiency and safety are decreased by natural path interference
or overlap.
Exit shape also has an impact on the natural travel route and potential for car
collisions.
Treatments Specific to Heavy Left Turns
Heavy left-turn traffic on major thoroughfares is a factor in some of the
intersection problems that are the most challenging to manage. Protected left-
turn phasing must typically be included to accommodate such turns, which
frequently lowers the effective capacity to handle through movements. Given the
resulting reductions in through capacity, implementing an exclusive left turn
phase or phases is not always possible.
To preserve two phase signalization at the crossing, alternative remedies must be
developed to address such left-tum motions. There are numerous design and
control options, such as:
No left turns allowed
Availability of jug handles
provision of diamond ramps and at-grade loops
a continuous-flow junction is provided
Treatments with U-Turn are provided
Rarely is it feasible to ban left turns in situations when there is a high demand for
them. To meet the demand for this movement, alternate routes would be
required, and diverting a large flow onto a "around-the-block" or comparable
route frequently causes issues elsewhere.
Jug-handles are shown in Figure 20 being used to control left turns. In practise,
left-turners make a left turn onto the cross street by entering a surface ramp on
the right.
Right-turn movements may also be controlled via the jug-handle. Two new
junctions are produced by the design.
These might need to be signalised or they might be controlled by STOP signs,
depending on the loudness.
Queuing between the main intersection and the two new intersections is a major
problem in either scenario. No line should obstruct exit from either jug-handle.

Figure 21 shows how to handle high left-turning traffic at an arterial crossing by

using surface loop ramps.
In order to handle right turns from the cross street and prevent conflicts with loop
ramp movements on the arterial, these are typically paired with surface diamond
ramps. Again, if left-turning vehicles back up far enough along the loop ramp to
hinder the flow of vehicles that can enter the loop ramp, queuing may become an
issue. Additionally, this solution uses a lot of right-of-way and could be
challenging to use in areas with high population

Figure 21: Surface Loop Ramp Design for Left Turns

A continuous-flow intersection is depicted in Figure 22, a relatively unique design
strategy created in the late 1980s and early 1990s. A single intersection with
intricate multiphase signalizations is divided into two intersections by the
continuous-flow intersection [6] so that they can each be operated with a two-
phase signal and coordinated. Left-turning traffic is effectively relocated to a
different route on the left side of the arterial at the new intersection, which is
situated upstream of the left-turn point. Regardless of demand level, left turns
can then be done at the major intersection without a protected phase. The design
calls for a median that is wide enough to accommodate one or two left-turning
lanes and enough right-of-way on one side of the arterial to build the new leftturn
roadway.

As a last option, left turns may be performed as U-turn motions in a variety of

methods. Four possible ideas for doing this are shown in Figure 23. Figure 23 (a)
depicts the path that left-turning cars take

the crossroads and turn downstream through a big median. The distance between
the U-tum position and the primary intersection must be large enough to prevent
backed-up traffic and to allow drivers to make the necessary number of lane
changes to move from the median lane to the right lane make a right turn at the
main intersection before making a U-turn on the side street. Similar rules for
queuing and switching lanes apply to Figure 23. (a). where the medians are and
(b) are unavailable. To accommodate left-tuning movements, Figures 23 (c) and
(d) employ U-shaped highways that are created on the right and left sides of the
arterial, respectively. These choices demand further right-of-way.
Creative strategies that integrate design and control components are frequently
needed for the safe and effective accommodation of significant left-tum
movements on arterials. The examples provided here are meant to serve as
samples, not as an exhaustive list of all feasible options.
Street Hardware for Signalized intersections
We went into great length about the fundamental requirements for the
presentation of signal faces at a signalised intersection. The main requirements
are as follows:
Each principal movement at the junction should be able to see a minimum of two
signal faces.
All signal faces, including exclusive lanes for left- and/or right-turns, shall be
positioned at a horizontal 20° angle from the centerline of the intersection
approach.
All signal faces must be positioned in accordance with MUTCD requirements at
mounting heights.
The optimal observance of traffic signals depends on the location of signal heads,
which is a crucial component of intersection design. Postmounting, mast-arm
mounting, and span-wire mounting are the three main categories of signal-head
mountings that can be utilised separately or in combination to place signal heads
in the proper locations.
Post-mounting is demonstrated in Figure 24. Both a vertical and a horizontal
orientation for the signal head are shown. There are signals attached to posts at
each corner of the street. A post-mounted signal head typically has two faces that
are positioned such that a driver may see both faces.
Signal heads mounted on mast-arms are seen in Figure 25. The mast arm is
typically parallel to the intersection approach. Drivers are directed to one or more
signal faces by their placement.the side closest to the intersection. Mast arms can
be long enough to support two signal heads, however more than two signal heads
are rarely utilised on them.
Figure 26 shows two typical mast-arm signal installations. The first (a) shows
mast-arm signals at a four-leg intersection, with the mast-arm oriented
perpendicular to the direction of traffic. Note a post-mounted signal is added to
the mast-arm signal heads in the four-legged intersection's gore. The second (b) is
a very effective plan for mounting signal heads at a straightforward intersection
of two streets with two lanes each. Each of the two mast arms spans the
intersection diagonally. There are only two complete signal heads, each with four
faces. In this method, all movements have two signal faces displaying the same
signal interval utilising only two signal heads.
Power lines are carried to the signal head within the post's or mast arm's hollow
structure in the case of signal heads that are mounted on posts or mast arms,

respectively.
The principal span wire is secured on opposing medians in the "lazy Z pattern" in
Figure 27's final illustration. Only in situations where opposite medians occur is
the latter approach feasible. At complicated intersections where a signal face for
each entering lane is wanted, span wire is frequently employed because it enables
the traffic engineer to arrange signal faces in practically any desirable position.
References
1. Intersection Geometric Design(Gregory J. Taylor, P.E.)
2. Traffic Engineering lectures Zainab Alkaissi