Citation

Holzem AM, Hummer JE, Cunningham CM, O'Brien SW, Schroeder BJ, Salamati K. Transp. Res. Rec. 2015; 2486: 37-44.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences USA, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.3141/2486-05

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This research considered the unique challenges for pedestrians and bicyclists at superstreet intersections and recommends crossing alternatives for both users. For pedestrians, the options included the diagonal cross, median cross, two-stage Barnes Dance, and midblock cross. For bicyclists, the options included the bicycle U-turn, bicycle use of the vehicle U-turn, bicycle direct cross, and midblock cross. These options were analyzed through microsimulation on the basis of average stopped delay, average number of stops, and average travel time per route. Various parameters were analyzed for each crossing configuration, including two signal cycle lengths (90 and 180 s), two signal splits (60/40 and 75/25), two signal offset designs (vehicle platoons arrive simultaneously and at various offset times), and two midblock distances (600 and 800 ft). The recommended pedestrian crossing was a combination of the diagonal cross with the midblock cross. The parameters that decreased travel time for pedestrians were a 90-s cycle length, a 60/40 signal split, and an offset signal design in which the vehicle platoons arrived at different times. For bicyclists, the bicycle direct cross resulted in the lowest average number of stops and the lowest average travel time, whereas the vehicle U-turn showed the lowest stopped delay. The parameters that decreased travel time for bicyclists included a 90-s cycle length and the vehicle platoons arriving at different times. The recommended options for bicyclists at a superstreet were a combination of the bicycle direct cross and the midblock cross.