Interchange Planning, OperationalAnalysis andGeometric Design C JA roe. Leisch, pek 2 L @ kittelson. com She: “och Oke Uelson- comOONTENTS INTERCHANGE PLANNING, OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS AND GEQVETRIC DESIGN Section Topic 1 Freeway and Interchange Design - Historical Perspective a 2 Interchange Selection — A Design Study Procedure 3 Service Interchange Forms - Design and Operational Characteristics 4 Design and Operational Considerations for Systems of Interchanges and Related Signing 5 Interchange Facilities — Geanetric Design 6 Lane Detemination Techniques for Freeways and Ranps 7 Lane Detemination Techniques for Intersections8 Ramp and Interchange Spacing, Resolving Closely Spaced Interchanges 9 Linear Freeway Systems (Frontage Roads and C-D Roads) 10 System Interchanges — Design and Operational Characteristics 11 Projects / Problems 12 Project SolutionsCOURSE SCHEDULE INTERCHANGE PLANNING, OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS 9:00 a.m. —9:30 a.m. 9:30 a.m. — 10:15 a.m, 10:15 a.m. — 10:30 a.m, 10:30 a.m. ~11:45 a.m. 11:45 a.m. ~ 12:00 p.m. 42:00 p.m. ~ 12:30 p.m. 42:30 p.m. ~ 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. — 2:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m. ~ 2:45 p.m. 2:45 p.m. — 3:45 p.m. 3:45 p.m. ~ 4:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. ~ 5:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.— 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:15 p.m, 10:15 a.m. 12:30 p.m. 12:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. 4:30 p.m. ~ 2:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m. ~ 2:45 p.m. 2:45 p.m. ~ 4:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. ~ 4:1 p.m. 4:45 p.m. ~ 5:00 p.m. & GEOMETRIC DESIGN DAY 1 Course Introduction Interchange Design — Historical Perspective and Lessons Learned Break Interchange Selection and Functional Design Procedure Break Introduction to Project #1 — Interchange Selection LUNCH Diamond Interchange Forms — Adaptability, Design, and ‘Operational Characteristics Break Diamond Interchange Forms - Adaptability, Design, and Operational Characteristics - Continued Break Innovative Diamond Interchange Forms with DCD Video DAY 2 Partial Cloverleaf Forms ~ Adaptability, Design, and Operational Characteristics Break Project #1 — Alternatives Screening, with Break LUNCH Project #1 - Solution Presentations and Discussion Break Application of Human Factors in the Development of OperationaliDesign Guidelines for Systems of Interchanges and Related Signing Break Interchange Design Elements and Design Criteria9:00 a.m. ~ 10:15 a.m. 10:15 a.m. — 10:30 a.m. 10:30 a.m. — 11:30 a.m. 11:30 a.m. — 14:45 a.m. 11:45 a.m. — 12:30 p.m. 42:30 p.m.— 1:30 pm. 4:30 p.m. — 4:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. ~ 4:15 p.m. 4:16 p.m. ~ 5:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. — 10:00 a.m. 1 10 a.m, - 10:15 a.m. 10:15 a.m. — 11:30 a.m. 14:30 a.m. ~ 11:45 a.m. 14:45 a.m. — 12:30 p.m. 12:30 p.m. — :30 p.m. 4:30 p.m. — 2:45 p.m. ~2:48 pm. — 3:00 p.m. 3:00 pum. ~ 4:00 p.m. 4:00 pm. —4:15 pm. 4:18 pum. ~ 5:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.—4 0 am. 10:00 a.m. ~ 10:15 a.m. 10:15 a.m. ~ 11:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. — 14:18 am. 44:18 a.m.— 12:16 am. 12:45 p.m, — 12:30 p.m. DAY 3 Interchange Design Elements and Criteria — Application to Concept Design in 3 Dimensions Break Guidelines for Freeway, Interchange, and Crossroad Lane Determination Break Freeway, Interchange, and Crossroad Lane Determination — ‘Application to Project #7 Lunch Project #1 — Alternatives Sketch Planning with Break Break Project #1 - Review and Summary Discussion DAY 4 RampiCrossroad Signalized Intersection Lane Determination Break Project #1 (Continued) ~ RampiCrossroad Interse% Determination ion Lane Break Project #1 (Continued) — Discussion, Simulation of Alternatives Lunch Project #1 (Continyod) Exaluation of Ateratives, ‘and Project Summary Break Interchange Spacing and Resolving Closely Spaced interchanges Broak Project #2- Existing Interchange Redesign (Peer Revue) DAY 5 Project #2 Existing Interchange Redesign (Peer Revue) Break 3-Leg and System Interchanges Break Project #3— System Interchange Concept Course Summary & Closing'TERCHANGE PLANNING, OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS. AND GEOMETRIC DESIGN COURSE. The Interchange Planning, Operational Analysis and Geometric Design Course is a 5-day professional development course for transportation planners, traffic engineers and highway designers. It is an advanced level course for those with at least two years of experience and an appropriate educational background. ‘The course contains lectures, demonstrations, and problems (projects) for maximum involvement and understanding by the participants. The topics include: ~ History of freeway and interchange development in USA/Canada and lessons learned ~ Geometric design of freeways and interchanges, ~ Interchange design study procedures with examples, ~ Traditional interchange forms — design and operational characteris ~ New and Innovative interchange forms and their application ~ Interchange geometric design concept development ~ Interchange operational analysis/lane determination procedures ~ Application of human factors to operational considerations for systems of interchanges ~ Interchange spacing and resolving closely spaced interchanges based on the recent NCHRP Research Project — “Interchange and Ramp Spacing” ~ Linear freeway systems (service roads/frontage roads and C-D roads) The problems/projects demonstrate the interchange selection/design study process, concept application of operational and design guidelines in the latest AASHTO Poliey and the ITE Freeway and Interchange Geometrie Design Handbook, and operational analysis/lane determination techniques for design of interchanges based on procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual. The material is based on many years of practical experience presented in power point and overhead transparencies by Joel Leisch. ‘Through the lectures and projects/problems participants will understand the relationship between design, traffic operations, and safety. They will learn that designing an interchange requires knowledge of planning, geometric design and traffic operational analysis. Participants will learn that every interchange has individual issues and opportunities which require sensitive application of the design criteria to respond to these issues and opportunities — interchange design is not “cookbook.” ‘The course material is based on experiences and publications in the United States, Canada and other countries that began the development of their freeway and interchange systems more than 70 years ago. This is to expose the course participants to the latest design criteria, operational analysis procedures and methodologies. ‘The workshop is structured for 20-25 participants (students) for maximum. participant/instructor interaction. The course materials, lectures and projects/problems are in either US Customary Units or Metric. Each participant in the course will receive a set of reference materials in a 3-ring binder for use during the course and after. The reference materials are approximately 350 pages of text, figures, tables, and photographs. Participants are required to supply pencils, note paper, pocket calculator, pair of triangles, radius/circle template and a scale to accomplish course projects (problems).Course Instructor —C-] Joel P. Leiseh; PE, BSCE, MSCE, LMITE, FASCE Mr. Leisch has been engaged in transportation and traffic engineering with an emphasis on conceptual planning, functional design, geometric design, and traffic operational studies for urban freeway corridors and other high type urban facilities for more than 45 years. He has been responsible for the planning and design studies of more than 2,000 miles (3,000km) of freeways, toll facilities, and arterials including more than 900 interchanges and 2,000 intersections in major metropolitan areas in 28 states and four foreign countries. During the past 10 years a number of the freeway projects have incorporated high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities, managed (HOT) lanes, surveillance and control, integration with public transportation (BRT or rail) and application of innovative interchange concepts as the Double Crossover Diamond (Diverging Diamond) and the Displaced Left Turn Interchange in environmentally and socially sensitive areas. Recent arterial Intersection projects have included application of the Crossover Displaced Left Tum Intersection and innovative two-level intersections. Mr, Leisch has conducted professional education training seminars, workshops, and programs in highway and traffic planning and design, freeway and interchange planning and design, and intersection and andabout planning, design and operational analysis for State DOT’s and consultants throughout the USA, and in Canada, Denmark, Japan, Greece, Russia and Israel. He was a visiting lecturer at the Northwestern University Traffic Institute, Purdue University, Penn State University, Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, University of Texas, University of Idaho and the University of California. Mr. Leisch has published numerous papers with and made presentations to the Transportation Research Board, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Association of State Highway and ‘Transportation Officials, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Topics concemed techniques and procedures in highway planning and geometric design, traffic operations, freeway and interchange concept design, and freeway and arterial corridor capacity optimization. He contributed to the development and teaching of the ITE Dynamic Design for Safety workshop series, He is the primary author and editor of the ITE publication, “The Freeway and Interchange Geometric Design Handbook (December 2005). He provided guidance to the research team for NCHRP 3-88, “Guidelines for Ramp and Interchange Spacing” — the recommendations will be incorporated into the future AASHTO Policy. Presently he is involved in the FHWA research project, “Field Evaluation of the Double Crossover Diamond” (Diverging Diamond). He has been involved in the development of highway design criteria and analysis procedures contributing to several of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ design policies and the 1985, 1994, 1997, 2000, and 2010 Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual. Mr. Leisch is a Fellow Life Member of ITE, Emeritus Member of the TRB Geometric Design Committee, ‘was a 20 year member and continuing subcommittee member on freeways and interchanges of the TRB Highway Capacity and Quality of Service Committee, and former chairman of the ASCE Highway Division. Education: BSCE, Purdue University, 1964 MSCE, Northwestern University, 1968 Registration/Licenses: Registered Professional Engineer: Wisconsin; Province of Ontario, Canada Registered Professional Traflic Engineer: California 3905 NW Kidd Place, Bend, Oregon 97701, USA A: (541) 633-7128 E-mail: [email protected]SECTION 1 Freeway and Interchange Design — Historical PerspectiveFREEWAY AND INTERCHANGE DESIGN Historical Perspective Joel P. Leisch, P.E.First US Interchange CLOVERLEAF INTERCHANGE Woodbridge, NJ 1928 We 20TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUMES (1952) MOVEMENTS Nor SIMULTANEOUSEarly Controlled Access Highways MERRITT PARKWAY in Connecticut € 26 Seeded Slope Afft ‘2 la" Circular crown Construction jaint 13° 13 —4 5-2" CS Uniform b thickness Nore:- Gravel sub-base under pavement where required. TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONHENRY HUDSON PARKWAY New York City — 1930’sLAKESHORE DRIVE (Chicago) First Intelligent Transportation System Project 40 1° Crown = ieee Crown: High points __ onstruction join Note: Top of curb level with high Slope f'/ tt. point on pavement Figure 1-3 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONFirst Trumpet InterchangeQueen Elizabeth Way (QEW), Canada - 1940 - 1950 _Davison Limited Freeway — Detroit, 1941 First with Frontage/Service Roads ) ) )First Freeway 5ystem — Northern, Virginia (1941-1944) 10 miles (14 Km) 12 Bridges 11 Interchanges PENTAGON ROAD NETWORKFirst Freeway West of Mississippi River Flood Control ProjectFIRST DIAMOND INTERCHANGE (Los Angeles — Pasadena Freeway)AONVHOUAINI S.0S6r (BASIC INTERCHANGE FORMS - 1954 a- = T AND Y INTERCHANGES DIAMOND PARCLO : CLOVERLEAF DIRECTIONAL INTERCHANGESNEW MILLENIUM INTERCHANGE — Roundabout DiamondNEW MILLENIUM INTERCHANGE — Single-Point Urban Diamond - SPUI nyAmerican Associataion of Highway Officials (AASHO) Design Policy 1954 Diagram of System (Freeway to Freeway) Interchanges VIRECTIONAL INTERCHANGES wink LooPs ~ NO WEAV Figure 16.Double Crossover Diamond Interchange — Springfield, MO) DIRECTIONAL INTERCHANGE — 1950’s (Baltimore, Maryland) Note: Transposed Roadways6i-f eanBiy ONIAV3M ON SBONVHOUSLNI TWNOILOZYIG-T1V LS6T/ VS6T - ANNOd OHSVVDIRECTIONAL INTERCHANGE — 1960’s and Beyond (Los Angeles)A “TRUE” (??) ALL DIRECTIONAL (Right to go Right, Left to go Left, Two Exits, Transposed Roadways) “A DISASTER”FREEWAY DESIGN CRITERIA EVOLUTION DESIGN SPEED 50-60 mph 70 mph Width Right - 6-10" 3 Left- 0-2" 3 awe Er Ee 4" Object : Decision None | +SideSiopes [2-30ALL DIRECTIONAL INTERCHANGE (2 Left- Turning Renipe at Lowest SeeFREEWAYS & HUMAN ELEMENT INTERCHANGES IN DESIGN Designing , ~_——1 for the Driver - DESIGNER DRIVER AND SKILL FACTORS Understanding & Applying PHILOSOPHY | HUMAN Human Factors OUTPUT PROPER, EFFICIENT, AND SAFE DESIGNLESSONS LEARNED * Normal driver behavior should set the pattern for the design of highway facilities. * An appropriate and fully effective design for a highway facility can be achieved only if both: the concept of the overall plan is correct and the details of design are properly executed. * Standards relating to the basic geometry of highways are intended to serve as a guide to design, and to provide uniformity. Such standards should not stipulate rigid dimensions and inflexible arrangements. © The direct application of established design criteria or standards is no assurance that a certain quality of design will be achieved — indicating that such criteria are not sufficient in themselves. This means engineering judgment and context sensitive design are possible. ) ) )‘Alternatives’ Development — What Does the Designer Need to Know — Tools ? * Driver Characteristics and Expectations ¢ Geometric Design Criteria (Guidelines) * Interchange Forms — Design, Operations, ROW, etc. * Operational Uniformity, Basic Lanes, Lane Balance, Route Continuity, Decision Sight Distance, Ramp Spacing ¢ Signing * Safety/Crash Characteristics of Interchanges and Interchange Spacing * Resolving Closely Spaced Interchanges * Capacity/Operational Analysis Visualizing in 3-Dimensions“The Art of Geometric Design” Human Factors) Relevant Publications TAC Design Policy Provincial Design Guides and Standards AASHTO Design Policy ITE, “Freeway and Interchange Geometric Design Handbook” Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices FHWA, “Design Standards — Interstate System” Highway Capacity Manual NCHRP 672, “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide” NCHRP 3-88, “Interchange and Ramp Spacing”TOOLS - TECHNIQUE - TALENT The Application of the Tools is Technique How the Tools are Knowledgably Applied is Talent) Lessons Learned NEW MILLENNIUM 2011 AND BEYOND “CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN” Sensitive Application of Design Criteria for Safety and Operations Within the Facility’s Cultural EnvironmentTAC, Canada — Design Domain (Engineering judgment in application of design criteria reflective of costs, safety, operations, environmental, social impacts, etc.) L practical upper limit \_ absolute upper limit practical lower limit absolute | range of values tower limit design domain guideline Notes: 1. The value limits for a particular criterion define the absolute range of values that it may be assigned. 2. The design domain for a particular criterion is the range of values, within these limits, that may practically be assigned to that criterion.SECTION 2 Interchange Selection — A Design Study ProcedureINTERCHANGE DESIGN STUDY PROCESSInterchange Design Study Procedure PROJECT GOAL PROJECT OBJECTIVES EXISTING FUTURE CONDITIONS REQUIREMENTS v EVALUATION & DECISION CRITERION PROJECT DEFINITION ALTERNATIVES SOLUTION GENERATION t EVALUATION PROJECT SOLUTION & SELECTION DESIGN CONCEPTU.S. Department of Transporiation / FHWA Required Area of Study for Single Interchange — Interchange Justification Report (JR) or Interchange Modification Report (IMR) ae? “dl as ~ = 8 ~~ x Area of Influence fon Crossroad Area of Influence On InterstateProject Definition ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONSEXISTING INTERCHANGE Discuss Geometrics, Traffic Operations, SafetyPROPOSED INTERCHANGEEXISTING INTERCHANGE Discuss Geometrics, Traffic Operations, Safetyrae Level-of-Service EEXISTING CONDITIONS CONSIDERED & ASSESSED * Physical Conditions * Geometric Criteria ¢ Operational Criteria ¢ Performance MeasuresPHYSICAL CONDITIONS Pavement Structures Safety Appurtenances Lighting Traffic Control DevicesGEOMETRIC CRITERIA * Horizontal Alignment * Vertical Alignment * Cross Section * Stopping Sight Distance * Entrance and Exit Design * Decision Sight DistanceOPERATIONAL CRITERIA ¢ Route and Lane Continuity « Lane Balance * Ramp Sequence * SigningPERFORMANCE MEASURES * Level of Service * Speed Profile ¢ Accident Experience: Example Graphic Presentation: Existing Traffic and Level of Traffic Service (LOS) Ting 19 Peak Mt Trai wd Opes Aa WRIGHTSBORO ROAD PewExample Graphic Presentation: Existing Traffic and Level of Traffic Service (LOS) Georgia Department of Transparation [ing (9% Fak Hr Tess Operon Ain 1-520 CORRIDOR STUDY WHEELER ROAD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLANNING RICHMOND AND COLUMBIA COUNTIESEVALUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (Freeway Corridor or System)Project Definition DEVELOP THE FUTURE PLANNING AND DESIGN FRAMEWORKee PO n” L TAT 0|0|0UD! EVALUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ; (Freeway Corridor or System)FUTURE PLANNING - DESIGN FRAMEWORK Land Use and Development Environmental Considerations High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), Toll Lanes, and Public Transport Pedestrians and Bicycles Future Highway Network & Improvements ITS Strategies Traffic Forecast Design and Operational CriteriaExample #1 — Traffic Forecast TRAFFIC FORECAST PROCEDURE EXISTING INTERCHANGE IN A DEVELOPED URBAN AREA Establish Link ADT Volumes Using Areawide Transportation Planning Model L Determining % Growth of ADT Present/Future Existing Link ADT Traffic Counts |! Apply % Growth to Existing AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes Existing AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes (Link, Ramp, and Intersection Turning Movements) Balance All ‘AM & PM Study Area Traffic Volumes ‘AM & PM Design Hour Volumes (Rounded to Nearest 50 Preferable) —Example #2 — Traffic Forecast TRAFFIC FORECAST PROCEDURE PROPOSED (NEW) INTERCHANGE IN A DEVELOPING SUBURBAN AREA Future Design Year Regional Transportation Planning Model Develop AM & PM v Vehicle Trip Table Refine “Zones” _ ‘and Land Use Within and Adjacent To Study Area v Modify Land Use RUMADT Tip Assign AM & PM in Retined Study jeneration an Voriate Tries to 7 ‘Area "Zones"to | | Distribution for | [—] Refined Roadway Y Reflect Differences Refined Land Use Nene Compare Model and “Zone” System To Existing and i Planned Land Use and Development Refine Transportation Y Planning Model 4 Roadway Network AM & PM and “Zone” Access Design Hour Volumes~ p> Round by Hand to within and jound by Adjacent to Study Area Nearest 10 and Balance Existing and Planned iohicle Ploneed Land Use and Transportation Impmts. Development In and Adjacent to Study Arearey YMorD sulWeIeG Lay 424 uB}s9q x LAV 1094 quasoig oF ‘e1ey WuMouy jenuuy (eiqesejerg 0S av 3Se1B8N 0) punoy)) 429, uB|seq 0} ‘SOWUNIOA ANOH UBiseq SIOWEF CF 1 1EOA Wd? NY uBiseg Ajddy peysiiqeisa Aiddy t (anoy 488d Wd? WY ‘Ldv) Suuny, pue peoissoig sdwey ‘Kemaas4 404 $189) +1 AsoysiH NOD OyJedL A 480, uBtseq 404 8101984 08 > ‘oujuueyeg ‘syUNod Syed 4noH 488d Wd ? WY ‘Lay JB, qua99u ISOW VAYV TVYNY V NI JONVHOYSLNI ONILSIXS 3HNGIIOU"d LSVOAHOS DisdVYL yseoas04 SIJJeI] — E# ajduuexy‘Operational Criteria Considerations for Freeways and Interchanges (AASHTO) (AINTAIN 7 NOES ALANDesign Year Level of Traffic Service (LOS) ?<— (000) 0024 EXZTEESEI (oor) 00 (000) YNOH MV3d Nd (21ygeaL yseda104) JONVHOYILNI GaSOdOwd ‘aidwex3(000) mo}poed Wd 000 -mozawed WY S2WNNIOA ANOH NDISIA LSVIZACL Sos, 2 eke (21ype4L ysed9104) JONVHOYALNI ONILSIXA ‘A1dwexzsyuswiosmn bay auey Wajshs syuawasinbay BUET g Iyyesl ySeIBI04 WiaysAs :ajdwexgProject Solution DEVELOP anp EVALUATE ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVE ELEMENTS CONSIDERED | FOR DEVELOPMENT ¢ Basic Lane Requirements (Design Year) ¢ Auxiliary Lane Requirements ¢ Interchange Forms ¢ Interchange/Ramp Improvements ¢ System Requirements (HOV, ITS) ¢ Geometric ImprovementsTier #1 — Alternatives’ Concept Screening FUTURE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS: CONDITIONS SOLUTION ANALYSIS & GENERATION EVALUATION CONSIDER, FATAL FLAW INTERCHANGE ASSESSMENT AND ‘SCREENING DEVELOP REMAINING ‘QUALITATIVE ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT/ INTERCHANGE FORMS COMPARISON AS ENGINEERING OF ALTERNATIVES CONCEPTS WITH TRAFFIC OPER. ANALYSIS, FINAL ENGR. DETAIL QUANTITIVE FUNCTIONAL PLANS COMPARISON OF AND ‘ALTERNATIVES OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED ALTERNATINGS Zz z e12 Bz <\b 6/2 a\o &/s 3/2 2|o 3 Z12 Z\2 g\2 Sle a|s a\2 § a a PRODUCE FUNCTIONAL DESIGN OF SELECTED PLAN’ Tier #2 —Sc.eened Alternatives’ (2-5) Concept Design and Evaluation/Ranking FUTURE EXISTING CONDITIONS REQUIREMENTS, — SOLUTI ANALYSIS & GENERATION EVALUATION CONSIDER FATAL FLAW INTERCHANGE ASSESSMENT AND FORMS, ‘SCREENING ) ) . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - “Additional Interchanges to the Interstate System” - Criteria Discussion and Recommendation INTRODUCTION - Background - Study Area Description EXISTING CONDITIONS - Roadway Description - Operational Analysis Procedures - Existing Traffic Counts - Existing Level of Service FUTURE TRAFFIC AND DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES - Proposed Roadway Improvements - Alternates Considered - Traffic Assignments - Development of Network Operating Characteristics . INTERSTATE ACCESS EVALUATION - Design Criteria - Design Concept - Operational Characteristics - Right-of-Way - Estimated Costs - Procedures Used in Estimating Road User Costs - Operating Characteristics Analysis Comparison |. SUMMARY - Traffic Operations - Benefit-Cost Ratioi SOF IV SEUSECTION 3 Service Interchange Forms — Design and Operational Characteristics‘ad “Ypsie’T ‘d [oor Gd SdTJSLID}IVIVYD [eUOe.IIdC pue sainjeay usisog ‘Aiqeuidepy SNYOA AONVHOUALINI AIANHS (BASIC INTERCHANGE FORMS {—- = T AND Y INTERCHANGES DIAMOND IPARCLO : CLOVERLEAF tr DIRECTIONAL INTERCHANGES,Service interchanges (Interchange Between a Freeway and Street/Highway) PARTIAL CLOVERLEAFS DIAMONDSpeoy ssojz UO JUBWUOIIAUY sauiciada JOAUQ BWINJOA IJeIL « suolyediisse[g Aempeoy 3uljaesia}u| « jeany JO ueqiA) — UO!}e907 « :0} payejay SINYO4 JDNVHOYISLNI JISV4 AHL JO ALNIAVLidVaVADA\TABILITY OF THE E.ASIC INTERCHANGE FORMS InTeRSE CTING FACILITY LOCAL ROAD OR MINOR STREET PRIMARY HIGHWAY OF MAJOR STREETDiamond InterchangesFirst DIAMOND INTERCHANGE (Los Angeles - 1941)yedy woge / ,00ZT suoi9assazu| Aemaaij JaA0 peoy je907 peoy [2907 yim Aemaaij — puowelg jeunyRural Diamond - Freeway Interchanges with a Local Road - Freeway Interchanges with a Primary Highway (when traveler services on primary highway) - Intersections spread 1,000’ (300m)+ for stopping sight distance , stop control on exit ramps - Low Capacity - up to 20,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) “RURAL” DIAMONDrural Diamonu — Freeway with Primary Highway and Traveler Services Primary Highway Under Freeway Intersections 700’ / 210m Apart - i. a OYCompressed Diamond - Suburban Area — old design (1950’s-60’s) - Intersections typically 500’-800’ (150-250m) apart - Signalized (3-phase), difficult to coordinate - Medium Capacity - up to 50,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Recently being converted to TUDI, SPUI, or DDI Ya COMPRESSED DIAMOND ~~COMPRESSED DIAMONDTight-Urban Diamond (TUDI) - Suburban or Urban area, - Medium/High Capacity - up to 70,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) - Intersections 250’- 350’ (75-110m) apart - Coordinated 4-phase overlap signalization TIGHT URBAN DIAMOND) Pan TIGHT-URBAN DIAMONDhon ae DIAMOND (TUDI)TUDI - Left Turn Lanes Developed on Arterial Approach to First Intersection | BYTIGHT URBAN DIAMONDTUvI 4- Phase Overlap vase ca SignalizationTUDI with Frontage Roads — Same 4-Phase Overlap SignalizationSingle-Point Diamond (SPUI) - Suburban or Urban area - Medium/High Capacity - up to 70,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) - Single intersection / 3-phase signal control - Inappropriate with skew angle 75 degrees or more between Freeway and Crossroad ‘A SINGLE-POINT DIAMOND aSINGLE-POINT DIAMOND SHEDSPUI — FREEWAY OVER (Potential problem with viewing signal heads and lane designation signing)SPUI Intersection (320’ between stop bars — 8-9 seconds clearance time) Bridge — curved girder design # Potential Wrong a Way Movement Median Island } for Guidance & Signal) ) SPUI Intersection - Better Design (less Property/Right Of Way, 250’ between stop bars) 8 i L Li Crane ee | F ‘ \ i5: SPUI —- FREEWAY UNDER (Bridge Design — Flared Girders) , ASPUI —- FREEWAY UNDER (rail line and station in medion of freeway)SPUI —- FREEWAY UNDER (Bridge Design — girders perpendicular to center line of freeway)SPUI with Frontage/Service Roads — Requires 4-Phase Signalization Not as Efficient as TUDI with Frontage RoadsDiationds Compared TUDI Ja4\)PUI/TUDI C Considerations SPUI TUDI me is el/TU ConsiderationsSplit Diamond Interchanges SPLIT DIAMOND (One-We SPLIT DIAMOND. (Two-Way)Split Diamond Interchange (One-Way) _ - Often in Urban CBD with one-way streets - One-way interconnecting roadways - 2-phase signal control all intersections, coordinated - Optimum intersection spacing, 300’-400’ (90-120m) - High Capacity (up to 50,000 ADT on each cross road) SPLIT DIAMOND (One-Way) 4SPLIT DIAMOND INTERCHANGE ce ey Operation)Two-Way Street Separated to One-Way Split Diamond (More Efficient Operation - Coordinated 2-Phase Signals) Ci { :/ . on ae rm» ri Light Rail L —_ Station i] F a =a and Ior (Aem-om,) 4 GNOWVIG LINds yede (\uQZT-06) 00 -,00€ Sulseds UoIDasiaqU! WuNWIdO SUOI}D9SI9IU! ||€ |O4JUOD |eUsIs aseyd-¢ sAempeos 8ul}2aUUOJIa}U! AeM-3aUQ (peos ssous yoea UO LGV 00009 02 dn) Ayoede5 Yy3iIH s}aa4}3s AeM-OML Pauly UeqJN JO Uequnqns (AeM-om1) a8ueyria}u] puoweig yds 1Split Diamond Interchange # (Two-Way Arterial Be Street Operation f& with One-Way Connecting Service Roads)Split Diamond with Roundabouts era) United Kingdom3 — Point Diamond Inte;changes - Suburban or Urban Area - Medium/High Capacity (up to 60,000 ADT) - Significant skew between roadways - 3, two-phase signalized intersections - Optimum intersections spacing, 300’ (90m)3 — Point Diamond, Canada (During Reconstruction) 4-phase signal oeProposed 3-Point Diamond Near Nashville, Tennessee ALTERNATIVE 'C' 3-POINT DIAMOND ‘Scale 1" = 200" N ‘SINGLE FAMILY HOMESTHREE-LEVEL DIAMONDS - Urban or Suburban Area - High Capacity, up to 100,000 ADT on Arterial, a THREE-LEVEL DIAMOND} THREE-LEVEL CROSS ROAD “STACKED DIAMOND” a TWO-LEVELSMost Common 3-LEVEL DIAMOND - Suburban or Urban area - Four, 2-phase coordinated signalized intersections - Intersections spaced 250’-300’ (75-90m) apart THREE-LEVEL DIAMONDMost Common 3-LEVEL DIAMOND (Glebe Rd./I-395, Northern Virginia) aeXO, UOIIES/0}U| i GQNOWVIG 15A51-€ NOWAIOD a“(e1UIS41\ WaYON ‘G6E-I/peoy aqa|y) puoweig jane] -¢AONWHINSLNI SDIOHD- OY3Z SHL3-LEVEL STACKED DIAMOND (3-Level Single-Point Diamond — SPUD - Suburban or Urban Area - Single, 2-phase signalized intersection THREE-LEVEL “STACKED DIAMOND”Geometric Plan — Stacked 3-Level Diamond PLAN VIEW STACKED DIAMOND INTERCHANGEOULNOS IVNOIS SSVHd-2 73A31 CONNOYD) 3LVIGSWH3LNI LV NOILOASYSLNI 30VHS-LV dGNOWVIG GaxMOVIS THAGT€'3-LEVEL DIAMOND (2-Level Cross Road) - Two, 2-phase signalized intersections - With channelization cross road thru traffic does not stop - Very high capacity CROSS ROAD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION TWO-LEVELS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION -C-3-Level Diamond, Fort Lauderdale, FL | en WB LAN ABEAG AAD MLO R aL) Po ood ue = i FaArterial Street View — Levels 2 and 3 emsUOT}OOSIOJU | pazipeusig A | AJUO SUN, 27 — $UO1}99S19}U] PazI|eUsisNorthbound Exit Ramp — Lower Level SR 84Southbound Exit Ramp — Lower Level State Road 843-LEVEL DIAMOND ISSUES - Profiles (Cross Road and Ramps) - Intersections/Access on Cross RoadRoundabout Diamonds - Rural or Suburban Area - Low to Medium Capacity (45,000 ADT) - 3-Level, High Capacity (up to 80,000 on cross road) -A- n Vr 3-LEVEL ROUNDABOUT 4 ‘Tl x “C- » (oy "SINGLE" ROUNDABOUT 1 -B- 1FIRST ROUNDABOUT JIAMOND (Vail, Colorado)“DOUBLE” ROUNDABOUT DEAMONDTerminal Shape: Raindrop/Teardrop ¢ Restricts U-turns ¢ Wrong-way turns into the off-ramps difficult ° te capacity, no queuing between terminalsPartial Cloverleaf — Roundabouts British Columbia, Canada“Single-Point” Roundabout Diamond, England aoGoogle) y 3-Level Roundabout Diamond (New Orleans, LA USA)’ Diverging Diamond Intercnange (DDI) Displaced Crossover Diamond Interchange (DCD) Double Crossover Diamond Interchange (DCD) \ N \ 4 ~<. - >_>» —_—=< * ae CROSS ROAD Soe > o< ” >—_«—_—<* ——— MF YT A | FREEWAYYdGNN AVMAATAA — 1NdStl 0% 92 [e301 ZT 8 OL — SulssorD 9 9 8 SuIsi0 9 9 8g BUIBI0AIG dod Inds ‘weg addy, (é 4afeS) GDd / INds / PuOWweI UOSLIEdWOD 491]JUOD UOID9S19}uU|SPUI —- FREEWAY UNDER (rail line and station in medion of freeway)DCD SIGNAL PHASING PHASE A 4 wB Ayr PHASE B IM Aye SESPUI with Frontage/Service Roads — Requires 4-Phase Signalization Not as Efficient as TUDI with Frontage RoadsDouble Crossover Diamond Interchange Springfield, MO Za r > aL.ed ae. a A vf "| a 7d 3) Pedestrians— Inside Treatment== (Keny-2u0) GNOWVIC LIIdS sasueyoio}u| puoweig ydsU01}99S19}U| JO MAI/ UBLIISapad (SPLIT DIAMOND INTERCHANGE (One - pay Spsiguen)Center Walkway LightedSplit Diamond Interchange (Two-Way) - Suburban or Urban Area - Two-way streets - High Capacity (up to 60,000 ADT on each cross road) - One-way interconnecting roadways - 3-phase signal control all intersections - Optimum intersection Spacing 300’- 400’ (90-120m) apart SPLITDIAMOND Ya (Two-Way) zaPedestrians — Outside Crossing with additional ramp crossings (no North-South crossing shown, however possible)010d, umory Aumeg :0) DCD Design Criteria Des. Speed / Cross Road — 25-35mph / 40-55kph approaching and through intersections Curve Radii on Cross Road — 200’-300’ / 60-90m Lane widths approaching/through intersections — 13’-16’ / 3.9-5.0m dependent on design vehicle Intersection crossing angle — 40-50 degrees Tangent between reverse curves to prevent vehicle path overlap Provide Stopping and Intersection Sight Distance3 — Point Diamond, Canada (During Reconstruction) DONA ee Soe | WTA} fo 2-phase signal |\, “ Fe ms _pansy as 3 q | | F 4apun peoy soup ueIpeW ul spad (paads ua\seq yduige) ‘SYIAOSSOUD NIIMLIG JONVLSIG WNWINIA eeO° ousaevaun ‘Gaz TwHOS STAASTOML wousmewaure vow Ssoud Cane -QNOWYIO Gayovis. BASTSSUHL ‘[VLIa.1V UO LAV 000‘00T 0} dn ‘Aj1oede_D YysrH - vary UvqgANqns 10 uBqiy - SGNOWVIG THAN T-AAaHLsurm03suQ, enjoy auger, ebees SUIUI0UD pe paysedxy Dyes] BUIWXA Aduey JO} Soul] 13S SUISNJUOD [e1}U9}0d(BIUISITA U19YIION ‘S6E-1/'PU 2491D) GNOWVIG THAAAT-€ WOUrUIOD ysoTADCD Lane Determination — Traffic Operations Use simple Critical Movement Analysis method for each intersection to determine number and arrangement of lanes Cycle lengths — 60-90 sec. dependent on traffic volumes and patterns Vissim recommended for operational analysis and simulation Difficult to coordinate signalsCOMMON 3-LEVEL DIAMOND 4 Intersection “Box”9 ; Double Crossover Diamond Issues Approach/Through Geometry at Crossover Channelization to Preclude Wrong-Way Movements Potential Driver and Pedestrian Confusion Distance Between Intersections Signal Coordination ? Development of Left- and Right-Turn Lanes on Cross Road for Frwy. Entrance Ramps Pedestrian and Bike Accommodation Stop, Yield or Signal Control for Frwy. Exit Ramps?3-LEVEL STACKED DIAMOND (3-Level Single-Point Diamond — SPUI) - Suburban or Urban Area - Single, 2-phase signalized intersection THREE-LEVEL “STACKED DIAMOND”FHWA Research Project on DCD (began January 3, 2011, completed 2013) * Geometry ¢ Operations * Traffic control ° Safety ° Signing ° Pedestrians * Sight lines / intersection sight distanceTOYLNOOD IVNDIS ASVHd-2 3A31 (GNNOYD) SLVIGAWYSLNI LV NOILOASYSLNI SGVYD-LV Mh GNOWVId QYSOVIS THAAT €Michigan Diamond — Yield Control Poor Design - Crash waiting to happen74 ‘ayepuapney] Woy ‘puoweig |aAe7-¢Michigan Diamond issues Perhaps appropriate where the arterial left-turning traffic is very low. Used in Michigan with frontage roads. Travel time and delay increased for arterial left turning traffic. Need for sufficient vehicle storage length at each intersection approach. Coordination of the 4, 2-phase signalized intersections. Sufficient deceleration length on the exit ramps to the back of the queue at the exit ramp signalized intersections. Right-of-way and construction cost similar to the Tight-Urban Diamond. No data on crash experience.Signalized Intersections — Left Turns OnlyDisplaced Left Turn Diamond Issues Perhaps appropriate where the arterial to entrance ramp left-turning traffic is low to moderate. Higher capacity than TUDI or Compressed Diamond Need for sufficient vehicle storage length at each intersection approach. Coordination of the 4, 2-phase signalized intersections necessary to achieve desired efficiency. Right-of-way and construction cost similar or slightly less than the Tight-Urban Diamond. Potential confusion on part of pedestrians. None constructed No data on crash experienceSouthbound Exit Ramp — Lower Level State Road 84~ Basic Partial Cloverleats (ParClos)Roundabout Diamonds - Rural or Suburban Area - Low to Medium Capacity (45,000 ADT) - 3-Level, High Capacity (up to 80,000 on cross road) va -A- " 3-LEVEL ROUNDABOUT “TT XQ “C-CLOVERLEAF / C-D ROADS Service Interchange only where Freeway Interchanges with Primary Hwy. in Rural Area — C-D Roads along Freeway Medium Capacity (50,000 ADT) — High Crash Rate >GNOWVIG LNO@VaNnod «A THO,Partial Cloverleaf, ParClo—A - Suburban Area - Two, 2-Phase Signalized Intersections - High Capacity (up to 80,000 ADT) - Left turn storage on exit ramps PAR CLOAsJeuILUJa} UdaMmjeq Suinanb ou ‘Ay9eded WaUsIH « YNYWIP Sdwes-JyO BY} OU! SUIN] AEM-3BUOI\\ « SUINI-f) SJOLISOY « doupsea|/doupuley :adeys jeuruayee ed’ : pol ‘OpueyO “y - O|D4ed“Single-Point” Roundabout Diamond, England Bx @rererei(aPa. Clo - A, Orlando, FL Oe of Intersections to Increase Capacity Exit to Loop Ramp and Right-Turning Ramp in Advance of Mecoa8ueyoieju| WNL Ya] pase|dsiq « puowelg uesiysi|\| « puoweig JaAossosD pase|dsiq » SJDNVHIYILNI GNOWVIG JAILVAONNIrarClo - B Two exit design- second exit to loop in advance of cross road (single exit preferred)DCD Application - Suburban Area - High Capacity Potential (Up to 80,000 ADT) - Traffic transposed through intersections - Possible reduced lanes under or over bridge - Optimum intersection spacing dependent upon traffic volume and signal coordination (600’-900’ / 180-270m?) - Fewer vehicle-vehicle conflicts than other diamond formsParClo-B with’ Semi-Bireaianal auamipsDCD GEOMETRY (Channelization/raised islands is important for left turns from exit ramps and arterial crossing roadways)dé 4a1sesiq epliol4 ‘elosesuad 6Z SN / OT -IDCD — Springfield, MO (First DCD in the US)cee < = 0 m S On Be Ge a -f— of — n o a o & Ss ~ om Dn o Ss = -Left Turn Blocked By Queue at Crossover IntersectionParClo - A (2 Quadrant) Streets Intersecting with RampsPedestrians — Inside TreatmentIAIN) [BIAIA JSIAD 19AQ UOpplFy WX é USISEd ..PIO,,— (Pend 7) A - O1D4AedPedestrians on WalkwayPBO.I SS0.19 19A0 80.19 JO sUBAPE UI 9.105) JIXY :930N apis ou0 uo yusudojaacqg (juespend Z) AV — O[D1edCrossover Intersection — Crossroad Under FreewaySingle-Loop ParCio Suburban Area - Loop usually for heavy left turn One, 2-phase & One, 3-phase signalized intersection Medium/High Capacity (up to 60,000 ADT) SINGLE LOOP (4 VARIATIONS)Pedestrian Walkway Outside and Under BridgeSingle Loop ParClo (Intersection Capacity z Increase) Freeway Traffic from Through TrafficDCD Intersection Crossing Angle (40-50 degrees) i LO StOSSIINT8 ANGLEM@aIA punos5 qPreferred Tangents Through Intersection to Avoid Path Overlapoyyea ysnoryy, wor aysery Avmoa.y (aseasouy Aqede uolasJaqu]) oj1ed doo} ajsuis@ U0Ne907 10} aSUeYrIaIU] SUISECTION 4 Design and Operational Considerations for Systems of interchanges and Related Signing“Hd “ypsie'T ‘d [or C7 sosuvyr10}U] JO SUI9}SAS IO] SUOTIJV.AIPISUO,) USISIg / [eUOHe.1IdO | UI $:10}d8 UvUIN Jo uoHeoddy ( ( (Jack E. Leisch Developed the Foundation, Philosophy, and most of the Criteria that appears in the AASHTO Design Policy reflective of Freeway and Interchange Driver Human Factors| o> FREEWAYS & INTERCHANGES Designing for the Driver - Understanding & Applying Human Factors HUMAN ELEMENT IN DESIGN ar DESIGNER DRIVER PHILOSOPHY HUMAN AND SKILL FACTORS ourpur PROPER, EFFICIENT, AND SAFE DESIGNsAe|dsiq snonsidsuoau| Jo ‘ajqisaj|| ‘Jews “8 BUIUBIS paindsqo¢ JO pade|dsi| *7Z 8UIUBIS BUISSI|\] JO 8UISNJUOD ‘snonsiquiy ‘jualdyaq °9 puewag BUISSed0Jq BAISSEOXJ *S suoijeadxq JaAUG JO UOILIOIA *y adueysiq IBIS JUa!NSU] *E ssaAnaueyw jensnun ‘Zz spueWag SEL SAISS8OXJ ‘T (49Alg a4 JO Sulpue}ssapuN JaUusisaq) sasueyoia}u| 3e SOIINOS JOM AVALGDRIVER EXPECTATIONS - FREEWAYS AND INTERCHANGES (Based on Human Factors Research) Driver Expectancy: Relates to meeting driver’s anticipation in response to situations along the course of the highway * Toremain ona signed route, stay in the left lanes * That a basic lane on a freeway is continuous and will not be dropped at an exit * When leaving a signed route, move to the right and exit to the right ¢ When transferring to another route on a ramp, there will be a reduction in speed * That exits and entrances are on the right * There to be one exit per interchange * Ata Major Fork go right to go right and left to go leftOperational Considerations ¢ System Criteria ¢ Interchange Considerations * Operational Uniformity Criteria ¢ Communicative and Spatial Criteriasauey Aselixny « aduejeg aue] SOUP] JISEg « AyinuljUuoZ 23Noy ella} wia}sAs (NOIGEO YIsOUsWI | | | SAWIAYS 40 | HIBON basa | ALD 303v7 GAdiAOUd ALINNILNOD BLNOY NOIGIG wadowd) ) D Route Continuity — Toronto, Canad a ra All Exits/Entrances on RightE eGnuyuoy ss-1 iy) — duny Suminy-1y ene»3WNIOA DIsddVUL NI SADNVHO 4O SAILOSdS3SYUI ” HLON3T LNVOISINDIS"*"" YO 3LNOY AVMHDIH V 4O FIOHM SHL Y3AO0 G3ANIVLNIVN’*’ “SANV1 4O Y3SSWNN WOWINIWG JWNIOA Dlsdasaval (Aemaa.j ay} JO UBUd] dU} JOAO SUO!JELIEA I1JJe1} 0} SPUOdSAaY) OLHSVV - SANV1 JISVdS,OL6T — Yyosie7 "3 x9eF L-3N+2N = ON YO IN+4N =92N L-3N+2N =°N 3N SEIN EE pare eae pal FJONVYLNS sulsueyy aue] sonpay OLHSVY - JONVIVS ANVILANE BALANCE - EXITSOL6T — Y9S!9] °F Sef JONVYILN sulsueys aue] aonpay OLHSVY - JONV1IVS ANV1Auxiliary Lane Application With Lane BalanceaSUCYIII}U] BUI UIYUM SUIAeS/M\ ON « UO!}L907 BY} }e SUO!IPUOD SY} 10} W404 asueYyra}uU| aJelUdoiddy . SNOILVYAGISNOD JDNVHIYILNIS,O96T — Y9S!a] “9 Ie 13341S YOrVA YO AVMHDIH AUVININd 133418 YONIN HO Qvo¥u 1v907 AYM33u4 NO ALINOWS ONILOSSUSINI 3O BdAL OLHSVV - SUO!IJIPUOD Jo} adA| asUeY DAU aJeLUdOuddyINTERCHANGE TYPE (Urban/Rural, Roadway Class, Traffic, ROW, Environmental/Social Impacts, etc.)Seto] Nh Ae rer= Pan] WALSAS STON his Ole P aN) SSIAYSS (Jea]4AO[D JO SUOISJAAUOD 9]dWex3) JONVHOt'ALNI NIHLIM ON'AVAM ONa N 3 = =. (vary [eany “AMP, ATVUILIg YIM osueyd.10}0T) AVMAAdA ONOTV Sdvouw GD HLIM AVATAHAOTDDIRECTIONAL - 2 LOOPS WITH C-D ROAD (Interchange with Freeway, Urban Area)Cloverleaf Conversion to ParClo—A (Rural to Suburban)) ) OPERATIONAL UNIFORMITY CRITERIA ¢ Right Exits and Entrances * Single Exit per Interchange * Exit in advance of the Cross Road ¢ Simplified SigningOperational Uniformity - AASHTO | UNIFORM EXIT PATTERN Jack E. Leisch, 1958 )Presentation to the DriverPresentation to the Driver(posodsuvay, sjix7y OMT) usIsag a[qessopun — TVNOLLOANIGCOMMUNICATIVE & SPATIAL CRITERIA ¢ SIGNING ¢ DECISION SIGHT DISTANCE e FREEWAY / RAMP SPEED RELATIONSHIP ¢ RAMP SPACINGCOMPLEX SIGNING — Right and Left Exits7 Pr eit | KO ae i ECs) an WAOAAA - ONINDIS XA TdINOODAnother “Complex” Signiiig Example (Too Many Decisions at One Location) Photo — Mark Doctor / FHWAuotbuiusvoy asowlsjog UxXJ 1YsIY a/3UlS — ONINDIS AsIIdWISSIMPLIFIED SIGNING - AFTERSigning Guidelines NUMBER OF SIGN PANELS: - IN SERIES AT ONE LOCATION NUMBER OF MEESHBEUNTES MAX. PER SIGN ~ MAX, TOTAL ASSEMBLY API iT Lae PUCATION | pesiRABLE ABSOLUTE | DESIRABLE ABSOLUTE FREQUENTLY 6 OCCASIONALLY 5 SPECIAL CASE * Examplas of message units {each represents one unit): Arrow + Shield and route number + Carginal direction, as "south", "west", etc. Single destination or name of facility, as "Broad St." = Informational message as “keep right, exit 1/2 mi." ete. Figure 6-27, Signing Guidelines. Source: Jack E. LerschOTVT - ydw oz OSL - ydw og (é¢ W909/,,¥2 ‘WOST/,9 ‘W90/,,0 — 14819 192/90) JINVISIC LHOIS NCISID4AG ‘DECISION SIGHT DISTANCE - AASHTO Metric US Customary Dezision Sight Distance (m) Decision Sight Distance (ft) ‘Avoidance Maneuver ‘Avoidance Maneuver B 155 195 235 280 cD Bc oD 145 490 450 535 170-205 590 525 600 200 235 800 675 230 750 100 110 120 130 305 325 370 420 470 525 865 990 ‘Avoidance Maneuver A: ‘Avoidance Maneuver B: ‘Avoidance Maneuver C: ‘Avoidance Maneuver D: ‘Avoidance Maneuver E: ‘Stop on rural road—t=3.0 5 ‘Stop on urban road—t=9.15 ‘Speed/pathidirection change on rural road— t varies between 10.2 and 11.2.5 ‘Speed/pathidirection change on suburban road— t varies between 12.1 and 12.9 5 ‘Speed/pathidirection change on urban road— t varies between 14.0 and 14.5 5 SOURCE: 2004 AASHTO Policy“Kempeol uegin uo eHueys uonoeuip/yyed/paeds + :F auAnaouR| aoUepPIOAY ‘Aempeol ueqingns uo ebueyo uonoesp/yedspaads += :q auANaouery soUepIoAY ‘Aempeod |eins uo oBueyo uonoap/yjyed/paeds —_:¢ alANaoURYy BOUepIOAY “Aempeos uegin uo doys ~—:g BIANBOURW BOUEP|OAY ‘Aempeol jesni uo doys = yauAnaouey souep|OAY = :S8}ON soe +071 99% OL OOL 06 08 OL 09 os Qa 3 a (uw) a1anaouew aoueploay 405 souejsiq YBIS U (OLHSVV se awes) a0uUej\siq 1YsIS uolsi9aq — (epeued) WLINSUFFICIENT DECISION SIGHT DISTANCE (View of Exit Blocked by Bridge Abutment)HONVISIG LHSIS NOISIOaG ALVAOACVCOMPLIMENTARY SIGNING - PAVEMENT MARKING ??INADEQUATE VIEW OF RAMP (Cross Road Under Freeway)INADEQUATE VIEW OF RAMP (Cross Road Under Freeway) i POSITION (1): A RAMP GORE VISIBLE RAMP POSITION (2): LITTLE OF RAMP = VISIBLE ===— we [| () = ~ PROFILE - | | ° A—POOR DESIGNNSOISAG GSAOudWI-—4 - B1HOud - BTaiSIA de 40 SHOW (2) NOILISOd STEISIA 3HOD dW (c3.¥eNo73) WN AvMaaud ve (1) NOLLISOd (dwey ajyesuojq) NOISAG GsAOUdWII / dd LlsdNOISSG Gauussdadd—9 - 311d0Ud - STAISIA de JO TV GNV SHO9 de avOu SSOYO *SNOILISOd TV — (Aemaas4 JAAQ peoy ssolD) NOISSG 1S3dRAMP TRANSITION LENGTH (Based on Comfortable Deceleration Rate) > . CONTROLLING OPAINTEDO | FN J GORE Ramp Design Speed (mph/km/h) (Controlling Curve) FREEWAY DESIGN SPEED (mph/km/h) 60/100 200'/60m 275'/80m 350'/110m | 450'/135m 70/110 225'/70m 325100m | 425'/130m | 550'/160ma0UB}SIG IYSIC UOISIIOG UIA UOISUB.L], dwuevy yxy aenbopy (pend Z) dV — D418S,OL6T — yasiey "3 x9eF (sev) ost) WOWINIW 008 oor 00s 008 pe (ose) (ooe) (ost) (sz) (o0e) sgnoaay oosz 0001 00g 008 0001 (006) (ose) (set) (szz) (ose) oo0e oozt 009 ose oozt post, || #1S¥Hisag ne 7 750 a sonevauaum|sowvncusi| 14 PO tl mana IAW3S | 3ONVHOYSLNI 39IAE3S: ‘SaAN3S waISAs ‘avoy 0-9 i aunts >> 40 JONVE SNOISNIWIC WAWINIW (ONIAV3M) X3-N3 SAVMGVOY ONINUNL X@-X3 HO Na-N3 ONIOVdS TWNUNYAL diNVUhos p— ts] TAC (Canada) TNS cS S ; succes axon atenway _sueoesve eon ramp cet towed by eneace Ramp Spacing (Approximately the pau a sameas AASHTO) ~ ~ a Ld sien a ae sxconsive eit mcet on sscomaive ezances spacing ' main line design speed (kmh) (m) 80 20 100 410 120 130 uy 300 325 ly 200 205 Ly 150 150 by Based on weaving requirements Subsection 2.1.7.3 Ls ‘Sufficient to allow for acceleration and merging length before second entrance le 60% of Ls Note: 1. Minimum lengths ftom butinase to butnose‘eauaquanuon/uojueo s9AUQ vorsoapuyuosnyuoo anu ‘souesip yyBis uorsigep ayenbepeu Sve] fe-SejryeA UesMyed fenueieyip peeds Seve) fe s80u0e BuBueyo our) BujBueyo eve] onjsseoxg uononpas Ayoeded Uo! Bulneom papis-om no9s BUABOM HOUS suoyoes Buwbom eyenbepeu} ‘om pojonesy wrew oqo Gunong \yue| duzes yxe eyenbepeu) requeseyip poeds-euyurewi uo mojs sejoryen Bug sajayon Butewve 104 peods syenbepeu| Sapjunyoddo e6:eniprefuew ayenbepeu e108 eouequene ye spe: ewig rejresedvedey uous Uisep eoue,quapixe eyenbepeu| ‘souequenuogquojW0D 0A ‘Ayuaysyn yxo eonpoyy Uvorsnjuoo JenUp fenue}og ‘svewieunbes Buubis peseeiou) ‘squeweyinbai BuluBis peseesou} (soup) ye ssouoe) Buineam papys-oMmy, BuiBueyo oue| paseerou ‘SuBueye our) posee.ou) ‘oganped Axed) soup) Aze\rene Jo uoneoydde eyenbapeuj BujBueyp eve] peseezou) (seounnue ye) eouRyeq @us] ON BujGueyo ouel enisseox3 (Sue 2989) Aynuyuoo aue} On swuowasinba: Bunis pesea1ou) ‘suo }26dx0 JOAUP eIBOIA BujBueyo our ensseaxg ‘Aynuqueo @yneu yo x87, ALIAVS 8 SNOILWY3dO ONILIVdINI SANN Wd DINLINOID JONVHOYALNI /AWM3344