Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home
Research Home
Report
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 Lanes

PDF Version (1.48 MB)

PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®

4. DATA COLLECTION

This section of the report documents the data collection performed for the intersection sites selected for the safety evaluation of left- and right-turn lanes. The types of data collection addressed includes geometric design and traffic control data, traffic volume data, and traffic accident data. Each type of data is addressed below.

Geometric Design and Traffic Control Data

Data were collected on the geometric design and traffic control features of each improved, comparison, and reference site. Nearly all of the study sites were visited in the field by a research team member to obtain geometric design and traffic control data. In addition, geometric design and traffic control data were obtained from the following sources, whenever available:

  • Construction or as-built plans.
  • Intersection drawings or sketches.
  • Project reports.
  • Highway agency project memoranda.

These sources were also useful in documenting what specific geometric changes were made as part of a project.

Field Visits

The field visits provided a key opportunity to observe the characteristics of each site and record data of interest. Some intersections were visited twice, once during the selection of improved sites and once during the data collection activities. Time spent in the field in each state was also used to identify or review candidate comparison and reference sites.

The field activities involved visits to both highway agency offices and field sites, and had multiple purposes including:

  • Reviewing each intersection in the field.
  • Taking photographs and/or making a videotape of site conditions for later reference during the evaluation.
  • Obtaining documentation of the geometrics and traffic control of each intersection both before and after the project.
  • Obtaining documentation on the reasons why the project was implemented.
  • Obtaining documentation on the starting and completion dates for each project.
  • Interviewing the engineers most familiar with development of each project and its operational and safety effects.

The vast majority of field visits to improved sites were made after completion of project construction. This provided an opportunity to verify in the field that the project had, in fact, been constructed and that its geometrics in the period after construction matched the data provided in the office. The geometrics before construction were often evident in the field, due to differences in pavement surfaces, but were also documented from office records. Relying on both office and field data, a record was made of the geometric design and traffic control changes made as part of the improvement project (see appendix D).

Geometric Design and Traffic Control Variables

Geometric design and traffic control data were collected for each study intersection. For each individual intersection approach, the geometric design and traffic control variables obtained were:

  • Number of through lanes.
  • Number of left-turn lanes.
  • Number of right-turn lanes.
  • Type of left-turn channelization.
  • Type of right-turn channelization.
  • Horizontal alignment.
  • Approach grades.
  • Presence of crest/sag vertical curves.
  • Total through lane width.
  • Right shoulder type.
  • Right shoulder width.
  • Total left-turn lane width.
  • Total left-turn lane length.
  • Total right-turn lane width.
  • Total right-turn lane length.
  • Presence of median (divided/undivided).
  • Median width.
  • Median type.
  • One-way vs. two-way operation.
  • Left-turn prohibition.
  • Number of driveways within 76 m (250 ft).
  • Type of driveways.
  • Curb parking within 76 m (250 ft).
  • Type of traffic control.
  • Type of left-turn phasing (if signalized).
  • Presence of pedestrian signals (if signalized).
  • Presence of advance warning signs.
  • Posted speed limit.

For the intersection as a whole, variables obtained were:

  • Number of intersection legs.
  • Angle of intersection.
  • Area type (rural/urban).
  • Character of development.
  • Lighting.
  • Level of pedestrian activity.

The set of geometric design and traffic control variables obtained was purposely broader than needed for the planned analyses so that issues beyond those planned could be addressed, as needed. It was never envisioned that all of these variables could, or should, be related to traffic accidents, but they were obtained to assure that the documentation of each study intersection was very complete. Appendix D provides definitions of the measurement methods and codes used for each of these geometric design and traffic control variables.

Traffic Volume Data

Traffic volume data were obtained for each study intersection. The desirable traffic volume data set for any study intersection included:

  • Major- and minor-road ADTs for each year of the study period.
  • Intersection turning movement counts for morning and evening peak periods.

It was found, as a practical matter, that the participating states nearly always had ADT data on file for the major-road in the vicinity of each intersection. Minor-road ADT data were often, but not always, available for the improved sites; ADT data were likely to be available for the improved sites because there had often been a traffic count made at the intersection as part of the design of the project. Minor-road ADT data for comparison and reference sites were available for virtually every intersection of potential interest in some states and only for a very limited number of intersections in other states.

Intersection turning movement counts were of direct interest to the study. In evaluating the safety effectiveness of intersection left- and right-turn lanes, it would be valuable to know the volume of vehicles turning left or right and using the turn lanes of interest. However, turning movement volumes were not available for most of the intersections. In particular, turning movement volumes were only available for less than 10 percent of the improved sites, and an even smaller percentage of the comparison and reference sites. Therefore, as a practical matter, it was not feasible to use intersection turning volumes in the safety evaluation because the sample size for any given type of project would have been substantially reduced.

It was decided that, for a intersection to be used in the evaluation, ADT data should be available for both the major- and minor-road legs of the intersection for at least one year during the study period. If this minimal traffic volume data set was not available, any improved, comparison, or reference site was dropped from the study. For most intersections, major-road ADT data for several years and minor-road ADT data for at least one year were available. These ADT data came from many sources in the participating highway agencies, including state ADT maps and logbooks, county and city ADT maps, traffic volume data bases and manual files, and, in some cases, traffic counts made specifically for this evaluation. However, as stated above, no intersection was used unless major- and minor-road ADT data were available for at least one year.

Some of the analyses performed required separate estimates of intersection ADTs for each year of the study period. These estimates for each individual year were obtained by interpolation and extrapolation from the ADT data obtained from the participating states. All extrapolations were checked very carefully to assure that the rates of ADT growth or decline were reasonable for the site conditions and consistent with ADT growth or decline patterns at nearby sites. Where ADT data were available for only one year, extrapolations to earlier and later years were made using the following data sources for guidance:

  • Minor-road ADTs at a given intersection were extrapolated, where possible, using the growth or decline rate for the major road at the same intersection.
  • Major- and minor-road ADTs at one intersection were extrapolated based on ADT growth or decline patterns for a nearby intersection, such as the matched comparison site, or a nearby set of intersections.
  • Major- and minor-road ADTs at one intersection were extrapolated based on ADT growth or decline rates from a nearby continuous count station, if available.

Table 17 presents the distribution of ADTs for the improved and comparison/reference sites, including mean, minimum, and maximum values of the ADT for the year 1999, and annualized percentage growth rates in ADT over the period from 1988 to 1999, for major-road ADT, minor-road ADT, and total ADT entering the intersection. Where the ADTs at an intersection differ between the two major-road approaches or the two minor-road approaches, Table 17 is based on the larger of the two major- or minor-road ADT values; for this reason, the mean total entering ADT is not necessarily equal to the sum of the mean major- and minor-road ADTs. Table 18 presents comparable data for the matched improved and comparison sites. The 260 matched improved sites shown in Table 18 are a subset of the 280 total improved sites shown in table 17.

Table 17. ADT Volumes for All Improved and Comparison/Reference Sites.
Area type Traffic control type Site type Number of inter- sections Major-road ADT (veh/day) Minor-road ADT (veh/day) Total entering ADT (veh/day)
Mean 1999 Minimum 1999 Maximum 1999 Growth rate 1988-1999 Mean 1999 Minimum 1999 Maximum 1999 Growth rate 1988-1999 Mean 1999 Minimum 1999 Maximum 1999 Growth rate 1988-1999
Rural Unsignalized Improved 131 9,100 1,600 32,400 2.6 1,400 50 11,800 2.4 9,700 2,000 32,000 2.6
Comparison/ Reference 154 8,100 1,100 26,800 2.5 900 25 6,400 2.4 8,500 1,100 26,700 2.5
Rural Signalized Improved 8 15,100 10,700 20,000 1.8 5,600 2,500 8,400 2.5 17,800 14,800 22,900 2.3
Comparison/ Reference 6 20,300 14,500 26,000 3.1 5,900 1,300 11,400 3.7 22,600 19,000 31,700 2.8
Rural Newly signalized Improved 4 11,900 4,200 17,700 3.2 5,200 9,200 6,400 3.3 16,400 11,400 21,900 3.1
Comparison/ Reference
Urban Unsignalized Improved 25 14,500 1,520 40,600 2.1 1,800 200 8,0001 2.2 15,500 1,800 41,200 2.1
Comparison/ Reference 54 14,400 2,000 25,600 2.2 2,400 80 6,300 2.2 15,500 2,60 26,500 2.2
Urban Signalized Improved 80 21,300 7,200 55,100 1.1 7,900 550 26,000 1.8 26,800 7,500 61,000 1.2
Comparison/ Reference 86 21,500 5,800 55,100 2.0 7,400 100 25,700 1.9 26,600 6,800 62,300 1.9
Urban Newly signalized Improved 32 16,700 4,600 40,300 2.2 4,300 100 13,700 2.2 19,600 5,400 43,800 2.2
Comparison/ Reference

Traffic Accident Data

Traffic accident data for the study intersections were obtained from the computerized accidents records of the participating state highway agencies. In some cases, the computerized data were supplemented with collision diagrams prepared by manual or computer means.

Accident data were obtained for all study intersections in each state for a period of 9 to 13 years. Table 19 shows the specific time periods for which data were available in each state. In most states, the study period began with the calendar year 1988. However, because of limitations on data availability and changes in data formats, data for Minnesota and Virginia were obtained for a period beginning in 1990 and data for North Carolina for a period beginning in 1991. The final year of the study period was 1999 for all states except one; in Oregon, the study was extended to include data for the year 2000 because both accident and ADT data for that period were available.

Data were requested from each state for all accidents during the study period that occurred on any intersection leg within 300 meters (1,000 feet) of each intersection. The 300-meter (1,000-foot) distance was not selected because accidents that far from the intersection are necessarily related to the intersection, but simply to assure that all accidents of potential interest were available and that no request for supplementary data would need to be available.

After evaluation of the available data, a criterion for identifying intersection-related accidents of interest to the evaluation was established. Intersection-related accidents were selected from the available data including accidents assigned mileposts within 75 meters (250 feet) of the study intersection, and had were designated by the investigating officer or accident data coder that they were related to the operation of the intersection. Where closely spaced intersections were present, the 75-meter (250 foot) boundary was decreased to a point half the distance to the adjacent intersection. Accidents indicated as being non-intersection-related or driveway-related were excluded from the evaluation. Table 19 includes data only for accidents that meet this definition of being related to the intersection.

The one exception to this procedure described above was in accident data from Illinois. Illinois codes all intersection-related accidents to the milepost of the intersection. Therefore, the milepost cannot be used to distinguish the distance of a collision from the intersection in question. In Illinois data, all accidents assigned to the intersection milepost are presumed to be related to the operation of the intersection and were included in the analyses.

Table 18. ADT Volumes for Matched Improved and Comparison Sites.
Area type Traffic control type Site type Number of intersections Major-road ADT (veh/day) Minor-road ADT (veh/day) Total entering ADT (veh/day)
Mean 1999 Minimum 1999 Maximum 1999 Growth rate 1988-1999 Mean 1999 Minimum 1999 Maximum 1999 Growth rate 1988-1999 Mean 1999 Minimum 1999 Maximum 1999 Growth rate 1988-1999
Rural Unsignalized Matched Improved 125 9,100 1,600 32,400 2.6 1,300 50 6,800 2.3 9,700 2,000 32,000 2.5
Matched Comparison 125 7,700 1,100 26,800 2.6 900 25 6,400 2.3 8,100 1,100 26,300 2.6
Rural Signalized Matched Improved 7 15,000 10,700 20,000 1.7 5,600 2,500 8,400 2.4 17,700 14,800 22,900 2.3
Marked Comparison 7 20,300 14,500 26,000 3.1 5,900 1,300 11,400 3.7 22,600 19,000 31,700 2.8
Rural Newly signalized Matched Improved 4 11,900 9,200 17,700 3.2 5,200 4,200 6,400 3.3 16,400 11,400 21,900 3.2
Matched Comparison 4 10,800 7,500 18,000 3.0 1,900 700 2,900 3.1 12,600 8,000 19,600 3.2
Urban Unsignalized Matched Improved 20 14,900 1,600 40,600 2.4 1,900 200 8,000 2.3 15,900 1,900 41,200 2.4
Matched Comparison 20 13,900 2,000 25,600 2.3 1,400 100 4,400 2.0 14,500 2,600 26,500 2.3
Urban Signalized Matched Improved 74 21,100 7,200 55,100 1.1 7,800 550 26,000 1.8 26,600 7,500 61,100 1.2
Matched Comparison 74 21,300 5,800 55,100 1.9 7,200 100 25,700 2.0 26,100 6,800 62,300 1.9
Urban Newly signalized Matched Improved 30 15,800 4,600 38,200 2.5 4,200 100 13,700 2.3 18,600 5,400 40,300 2.5
Matched Comparison 30 14,200 4,000 36,500 2.1 2,800 80 10,200 2.3 15,760 4,800 38,000 2.1

Table 19. Summary of Accident Database.
State Accident data period Number of inter- sections Total No. of accidents Accidents by severity level Percentage of accidents by severity level
First year Last year Total No. of years Fatal Injury PDO Fatal Injury PDO
Iowa (IA) 1988 1999 12 66 3,611 15 1,522 2,074 0.4 42.1 57.5
Illinois (IL) 1988 1999 12 265 12,875 57 4,537 8,281 0.4 35.5 64.1
Louisiana (LA) 1988 1998 11 23 2,668 8 994 1,666 0.3 37.3 62.4
Minnesota (MN) 1990 1999 10 22 890 5 334 551 0.6 37.5 61.9
North Carolina (NC) 1991 1999 9 46 1,055 5 508 542 0.5 48.2 51.3
Nebraska (NE) 1988 1999 12 31 1,681 6 726 949 0.4 43.2 56.4
Oregon (OR) 1988 2000 13 69 1,860 14 946 900 0.8 50.9 48.3
Virginia (VA) 1990 1999 10 58 1,416 13 636 767 0.9 44.9 54.2
Total       580 26,056 123 10,203 15,730 0.5 39.2 60.3

In some states, the accident location milepost or reference point assigned to an intersection may change from year to year. These changes were accounted for so that a consistent set of accident data from year to year were extracted from the available accident data.

The accident data elements obtained from each state varied; in most cases, the accident data provided by the state included more accident descriptors than were needed for the study. Both accident-level and vehicle-level accident descriptors were obtained. The variables that were actually used in preliminary investigations and in the safety evaluation itself were:

  • Date of accident (month/day/year).
  • Accident location (typically by county, route, and milepost or reference point).
  • Accident severity (fatal/injury/property damage only).
  • Number of vehicles involved.
  • Accident type/manner of collision.
  • Direction of travel of involved vehicles.
  • Actual or intended movement of involved vehicles (through/left turn/right turn/U turn).
  • Relationship to intersection (at intersection/not at intersection but intersection related/not intersection related).
  • Vehicle and party types involved (passenger car/truck/bus/pedestrian/bicycle).

The dates for which accident data were obtained are shown in Table 19. The table shows that the periods for which accident data were available varied among the states. In each state, the accident data period extends back to 1988, whenever possible; where a later date is shown for the beginning of the accident data period, data before that date were unavailable. Study periods before and after improvement of each treated site were determined based on criteria described in Section 5 of this report.

Table 19 documents the magnitude of the available accident data base. The table shows that there were a total of 26,056 intersection-related accidents during the study period for all 580 intersections combined. Approximately 49 percent of the accidents occurred in Illinois which, as documented above, included approximately 45 percent of the study intersections. The table also shows the distribution of accident severity, by state and overall; accidents involving fatalities ranged from 0.3 to 0.9 percent of all accidents, and accidents involving non-fatal injuries ranged from 35.5 to 50.9 percent of all accidents.

Table 20 compares the total intersection accident experience, exposure, and accident rate per million entering vehicles, for periods before and after the improvement projects, for the 260 matched improved and comparison sites at rural intersections. Table 21 presents comparable data for urban intersections.

Table 20. Safety Performance of Matched Improved and Comparison Sites at Rural Intersections
Area type Traffic control type Project type Site type Before period After period
No. of accidents Average ADT (veh/day) Exposure (MEV) Accident rate (acc/ MEV) No. of accidents Average ADT (veh/day) Exposure (MEV) Accident rate (acc/MEV)
Rural Unsignalized Added LTLs Improved 648 10,000 1288.4 0.50 271 11,400 963.1 0.28
Comparison 321 7,300 915.6 0.35 346 8,600 730.3 0.47
Rural Unsignalized Added RTLs Improved 240 4,700 445.2 0.54 142 4,750 335.1 0.42
Comparison 178 5,800 440.2 0.40 108 5,900 354.2 0.30
Rural Unsignalized Added both LTLs and RTLs Improved 234 8,500 568.3 0.41 150 10,400 427.3 0.35
Comparison 152 7,200 478.2 0.32 94 8,400 344.1 0.27
Rural Unsignalized Extended LTLs Improved 28 12,600 64.3 0.44 14 14,200 20.7 0.68
Comparison 6 9,400 48.1 0.13 1 11,900 17.4 0.06
Rural Unsignalized Extended both LTLs and RTLs Improved
Comparison
Rural Signalized Added LTLs Improved
Comparison
Rural Signalized Added RTLs Improved
Comparison
Rural Signalized Added both LTLs and RTLs Improved
Comparison
Rural Signalized Extended LTLs Improved 89 14,600 213.2 0.42 28 17,500 88.2 0.32
Comparison 139 18,700 267.7 0.52 69 21,700 114.5 0.60
Rural Signalized Extended both LTLs and RTLs Improved 31 13,800 35.2 0.88 8 17,000 12.4 0.65
Comparison 20 17,200 44.1 0.45 9 20,700 15.1 0.60
Rural Newly signalized Added LTLs Improved 40 15,800 39.6 1.01 62 18,400 61.2 1.01
Comparison 7 13,000 32.0 0.22 31 15,000 50.4 0.62
Rural Newly signalized Added RTLs Improved 27 12,600 18.4 1.47 44 14,900 21.7 2.03
Comparison 11 9,100 13.3 0.83 20 10,800 15.7 1.27
Rural Newly signalized Added both LTLs and RTLs Improved 23 7,500 22.1 1.04 6 10,700 11.7 0.51
Comparison 4 5,100 14.8 0.27 1 7,500 8.2 0.12

MEV = million entering vehicles

Table 21. Safety Performance of Matched Improved and Comparison Sites at Urban Intersections
Area type Traffic control type Project type Site type Before period After period
No. of accidents Average ADT (veh/day) Exposure (MEV) Accident rate (acc/ MEV) No. of accidents Average ADT (veh/day) Exposure (MEV) Accident rate (acc/ MEV)
Urban Unsignalized Added LTLs Improved 352 13,500 595.5 0.59 152 16,100 451.5 0.34
Comparison 216 12,700 567.0 0.38 221 14,900 411.5 0.54
Urban Unsignalized Added RTLs Improved 3 1,700 5.4 0.56 0 2,000 1.5 0.00
Comparison 8 2,400 7.9 1.03 1 2,700 2.0 0.50
Urban Unsignalized Added both LTLs and RTLs Improved 12 18,400 46.9 0.26 4 18,900 27.6 0.14
Comparison 17 24,500 62.6 0.27 6 26,500 38.6 0.16
Urban Unsignalized Extended LTLs Improved
Comparison
Urban Unsignalized Extended both LTLs and RTLs Improved
Comparison
Urban Signalized Added LTLs Improved 2,707 23,700 2,306.7 1.17 1,108 24,800 1,467.0 0.76
Comparison 2,246 20,500 1,958.1 1.15 1,404 22,900 1,371.9 1.02
Urban Signalized Added RTLs Improved 1,551 24,400 1,298.7 1.19 666 26,400 568.3 1.17
Comparison 1,502 24,600 1,315.4 1.14 538 27,900 585.8 0.92
Urban Signalized Added both LTLs and RTLs Improved 867 23,700 716.8 1.21 320 28,800 380.7 0.84
Comparison 796 21,800 662.5 1.20 314 26,700 348.4 0.90
Urban Signalized Extended LTLs Improved 162 32,800 277.7 0.58 133 35,000 159.8 0.83
Comparison 141 30,600 265.3 0.53 111 36,300 161.7 0.69
Urban Signalized Extended both LTLs and RTLs Improved
Comparison
Urban Newly signalized Added LTLs Improved 1,008 15,100 1,155.0 0.87 416 18,100 735.3 0.57
Comparison 564 13,500 1,029.7 0.55 354 15,500 632.5 0.56
Urban Newly signalized Added RTLs Improved
Comparison
Urban Newly signalized Added both LTLs and RTLs Improved
Comparison

MEV = million entering vehicles

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

ResearchFHWA
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration