U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information |
|
Publication Number: FHWA-RD-02-089
Date: July 2002 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Safety Effectiveness of Intersection Left- and Right-Turn LanesPDF Version (1.48 MB)
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader® 3. SELECTION OF EVALUATION SITESThis section of the report describes the process of selecting evaluation sites for the evaluation of left- and right-turn lane projects and summarizes the characteristics of the sites that were used. The first portion of this section documents the types of projects that were evaluated. The next subsection describes the overall process of identifying candidate intersections, including three types of sites: improved or treatment sites, comparison sites, and reference sites. These three types of sites are defined later in this section. The identification and screening of each site type is described and the number and characteristics of sites of each type are summarized. Evaluation Priorities for Intersection Improvement TypesBased on the results of the literature review and, most especially, on the assessments of the participating state highway agencies, a decision was reached to focus the safety evaluation on projects involving intersection left- and right-turn lanes. In particular, a decision was made to focus the evaluation on the following four project types for which it appeared that sufficient improved sites for an evaluation were likely to be available:
The following types of improvement projects were not evaluated:
Identification of Candidate IntersectionsCandidate intersections were identified and reviewed as potential evaluation sites in cooperation with the participating state highway agencies. Three types of sites were considered:
The general characteristics that all study sites were expected to meet were as follows:
The selection process and characteristics for each type of intersection are discussed below in more detail. Selection of Improved or Treatment SitesImproved or treatment sites are sites at which an improvement project was constructed at an intersection. The project types considered were adding left-turn lanes, adding right-turn lanes, adding both left- and right-turn lanes, or extending an existing left- or right-turn lane. This following discussion addresses the identification and screening of candidate projects and summarizes the number and characteristics of the selected sites. Identification and Screening of Candidate ProjectsCandidate projects were identified with the assistance of eight of the participating state highway agencies. The participating states were: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, and Virginia. Each state identified candidate intersection improvement projects that were constructed from 1994 to 1997. A few projects that were constructed in earlier years (1989-93) or in a later year (1998) were also identified. The participating states initially suggested nearly 800 candidate intersection improvement projects. These projects were subjected to a screening review that involved reviewing construction plans and project memoranda, reviewing photologs, and, in some cases, visiting the site in the field. From these 800 candidates, a total of 280 improved intersections were selected that met all of the criteria for the study. The reasons for eliminating sites were as follows:
These screening criteria were applied during the site-selection phase of the study, which reduced the number of candidate sites from approximately 800 to 388. An additional 108 improved sites were eliminated during the data collection process because unexpected features of the intersection or the project were discovered or because needed data were unavailable. Number and Characteristics of Improved SitesAs stated above, a total of 280 improved or treatment sites were available for evaluation. The distribution of these sites by state, area type (rural/urban), project type, and project year are described below. Table 6 presents the distribution of improved sites by state and area type. The tables shows that there are nearly equal numbers of projects at rural and urban sites. Approximately 45 percent of the improved sites (126 out of 280) are located in Illinois; the study was very fortunate that the Illinois Department of Transportation had conducted a substantial number of improvement projects that were suitable for the evaluation. No other state contributed more than 12.5 percent of the sites. An evaluation of sites at which left- or right-turn lanes were added found no major differences in site characteristics between the intersections of specific types in Illinois and those of the same type in other states. Thus, it does not appear to be a source of bias that 45 percent of the improved sites were located in a single state. Sites were classified as rural or urban based on posted and operating speed, character of adjacent development, and location with respect to population centers, with speed being the single most important factor. Sites with posted speed limits and operating speeds of 88 km/h (55 mi/h) or more were generally classified as rural unless there was good reason based on development or location to do otherwise. Sites with posted speed limits and operating speeds less than 88 km/h (55 mi/h) were generally classified as urban unless there was good reason based on development or location to do otherwise. The urban classification included sites in both urban and suburban areas. Table 7 presents the distribution of the improved sites at rural intersections by traffic control type and project type. The table shows that, in rural areas, the project types with the largest sample sizes are:
Table 8 presents comparable data for improved sites at urban intersections. The table shows that, in urban areas, the project types with the largest sample sizes are:
The other project types in Tables 7 and 8, not listed above, may not be present in sufficient numbers to permit a reliable evaluation. LTL = Left-turn lane RTL = Right-turn lane LTL = Left-turn lane RTL = Right-turn lane Table 9 presents not only the number of intersections by area type, traffic control type, and project type, but also the number of added or extended left- and right-turn lanes. The added or extended turn lanes include only major-road turn lanes at unsignalized intersections, but may include both major- and minor-road turn lanes at signalized intersections. The table shows that the 280 improved sites include 411 added or extended left-turn lanes and 185 added or extended right-turn lanes. Table 10 presents the distribution of improved sites by the year in which the project was constructed. The table shows that 268 of the 280 projects (94 percent) were constructed during the years from 1994 to 1997, inclusive. The earliest project was constructed in 1989 and the latest project was constructed in 1998. Virtually all of the projects were simple enough that their construction was begun and completed during a single calendar year. Selection of Comparison SitesEvaluation of the safety effectiveness of the projects implemented at the improved sites requires a method for estimating the changes in safety that would have occurred at the improved sites had the improvements not been made. This is normally accomplished with data from sites that are not improved during the study period. Later sections of this report present three alternative evaluation approaches that were used during the project. One of the alternative approaches considered relies on one-to-one matching between improved and similar unimproved sites, while two others rely on predictive models developed from groups of unimproved sites. The sites selected as similar to the improved sites through a one-to-one matching process are referred to in this report as comparison sites. The identification and selection of these comparison sites and the number and characteristics of such sites are described below. This is followed by a description of other unimproved sites that were included in the development of predictive models, but were not matched to any particular improved site; such sites are referred to in this report as reference sites, and their selection and characteristics are discussed later in this section of the report. Identification and Screening of Candidate Comparison Sites Candidate comparison sites were identified by the research team, with assistance from the participating highway agencies. Screening of candidate comparison sites was conducted both from office and photolog data and in field visits. The criteria for a comparison site to match a particular treatment site were as follows:
Table 9. Number of Improved Intersections and Number of Turn-Lanes Added or Extended in Intersection Improvement Projects.
LTL = Left-turn lane
It was the original intention that the geometrics of the matched comparison site should resemble the geometrics of the improved site in the period before the improvement was made; in other words, the comparison sites would be intersections without major-road turn lanes. This criterion proved impractical because, especially for urban signalized intersections, candidate comparison sites with no turn lanes were very hard to find. Therefore, a decision was made that the geometrics of the matched comparison site should resemble the geometrics of the improved site in either its condition before improvement or after improvement, with matching to the condition before improvement being preferred. In all cases, the matched comparison site must have undergone no major geometric or traffic control improvement during the study period. In other words, if the matched comparison site had major-road left-turn lanes, it must have had those lanes in place during the periods both before and after the project at the improved site. For improved sites at which both signalization and turn lanes were installed, the matched comparison site was a similar unsignalized intersection that remained unsignalized throughout the study period. Number and Characteristics of Matching Improved and Comparison SitesMatched comparison sites were identified for 260 of the 280 improved sites (93 percent). The other 20 sites were sufficiently unique that a satisfactory matching comparison site could not be found. The characteristics of the 260 pairs of matching improved and comparison sites are summarized in tables 11 through 15, which are analogous to tables 5 through 10 presented above for the improved sites. Tables 11 through 15 represent the characteristics of the 260 improved sites (a subset of the 280 improved sites presented earlier). Section 4 of this report presents further data on the characteristics of the matched improved and comparison sites. Selection of Reference SitesAs described earlier, a portion of the improved sites' evaluation uses predictive models developed with data from unimproved sites. An advantage of this approach is that one-on-one matching of improved and unimproved sites is not required. In fact, the larger the data set of unimproved sites on which predictive models are based the better, so it is desirable to have data for more unimproved sites than improved sites. To increase the sample of unimproved sites, additional reference sites were selected. The selection of the additional reference sites and the number and characteristics of the combined data set of comparison and reference sites is described below. LTL = Left-turn lane RTL = Right-turn lane
LTL = Left-turn lane RTL = Right-turn lane
LTL = Left-turn lane RTL = Right-turn lane
Identification and Screening of Candidate Reference SitesReference sites were intersections similar to the sites that were improved, but not matched to any particular improved site. Reference sites were of the same area types and traffic control types as the improved sites, but must have been free of unusual features and undergone no major geometric or traffic control improvements during the study period. The research team identified candidate reference sites with assistance from participating State highway agencies. Many of the reference sites were candidate comparison sites that did not match any particular improved site. The candidate reference sites were screened both from office and photolog data and in field visits. Reference sites were retained only if traffic volume and traffic accident data for the site were available. Number and Characteristics of Comparison and Reference SitesA total of 40 additional reference sites were selected and included in the data collection effort described in Section 4 of this report. Thus, there were a combined total of 300 unimproved sites available for use in comparison groups and for development of predictive models, 260 matched comparison sites and 40 additional reference sites. Table 16 presents the distribution of the 300 comparison and reference sites by area type, traffic control type, and state. The comparison and reference sites include only 6 rural signalized intersections, but at least 50 rural unsignalized, urban unsignalized, and urban signalized intersections. Approximately 53 percent of the comparison and reference sites are in rural areas, and 47 percent in urban areas. Approximately 69 percent of the comparison and reference sites are at unsignalized intersections, and 31 percent are at signalized intersections. Approximately 33 percent of the comparison and reference sites are at three-leg intersections, and 67 percent are at four-leg intersections. Section 4 of this report presents data on the traffic volumes and accident experience at the comparison and reference sites.
|