Document Type
Dissertation
Date of Award
5-31-2022
Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy in Transportation - (Ph.D.)
Department
Civil and Environmental Engineering
First Advisor
Janice Rhoda Daniel
Second Advisor
I-Jy Steven Chien
Third Advisor
Lazar Spasovic
Fourth Advisor
Branislav Dimitrijevic
Fifth Advisor
Athanassios K. Bladikas
Abstract
The recent publication of the 6th Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual included a chapter on Ramp Terminals and Alternative Intersections that introduces various alternative intersection designs and assesses the performance of Median U-turn, Restricted crossing U-turn and Displaced left-turn intersections. Missing from the literature is an alternative intersection selection tool for identifying whether an alternative intersection would be successful under local conditions. With limited information of organized alternative intersection research, most planners must rely heavily on their personal judgement while selecting the most suitable intersection designs. As appealing as alternative intersections are, there is no comprehensive methodology for planners to evaluate all possible designs and locate the best option.
Several studies have been performed on identifying the selection of the most appropriate alternative intersection. As straightforward as they are, they failed to accommodate the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and are highly dependent on the professional judgment of the planners. This dissertation aims to design a selection methodology that is easy to use and HCM compatible and independent of personal judgments.
The selection procedure is composed of three stages. The goal of the first stage is to clarify the objectives and concerns of planners in the selection of candidate intersections. This stage should identify the treatment objectives (for existing intersections) and stakeholders’ concerns (for new intersections). If more than one objective were identified, the planners should assign a weight for each objective. A questionnaire should be used in collecting this information. The second stage is to filter out some candidate designs before the detailed analysis. This stage tries to generalize the range of application for each Unconventional Alternative Intersection Design (UAID). Any design that cannot satisfy the capacity and Right-of-Way (ROW) requirement is deleted from future analysis. In stage three of the selection process, the alternative intersection designs selected for consideration are ranked and assessed based on the treatment purposes/stakeholders’ interests, which may likely include increasing mobility or safety.
By identifying a primary parameter used to score or rank all the considered intersections, the alternative intersection selection tool would assist planners to compare different intersection designs and to describe the intersection performance comprehensively. The primary parameter should account for both mobility and safety at each of the intersections evaluated. For intersection mobility, the evaluation process relies on methodologies provided in the Highway Capacity Manual 2016. For the safety assessment, a safety evaluation procedure is also developed to provide an overall assessment of the safety performance at the evaluated intersection. A selection algorithm is then designed to rank all intersections based the intersection performance.
Recommended Citation
Chen, Liran, "Planning methodology for alternative intersection design and selection" (2022). Dissertations. 1596.
https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/dissertations/1596
