Citation

Polus A, Cohen R. Transp. Res. Rec. 1997; 1579: 73-78.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1997, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences USA, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.3141/1579-09

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

High volumes at urban and suburban intersections may cause considerable delay to vehicles during the peak periods, particularly when the left-turning volume is combined with high through volumes in both directions. The operational impact resulting from converting a major conventional cross intersection into two smaller signalized intersections is analyzed and evaluated. The two intersections are constructed along the minor road, allowing the left-turn movement from the major road to operate simultaneously with the through movement and to be stored in more lanes on the minor road. The general advantages and disadvantages of a split intersection are discussed. It is shown that the split increases capacity because of better efficiency resulting from (a) the smaller geometry of each intersection, which reduces "lost time," compared to the geometry of a single larger intersection, (b) a reduction in the number of signal phases from four to three and an increase in the effective green time for all movements, and (c) an increase in the number of lanes available for storage of the left-turn movement. It is also shown that delay is reduced, particularly when the flow is close to saturation. The impact of the cycle length and the left-turn volume is evaluated. Further analysis ascertains the minimum distance between the two smaller intersections under two scenarios: (a) a minimum distance for storage of the left-turn movement and (b) a longer distance to reduce delays and to allow for the simultaneous start of the green time for the through movements in the two intersections. It is concluded that the longer distance is feasible mainly for new intersections in suburban areas where the right of way is available.

Language: en