News   Sep 27, 2024
 698     0 
News   Sep 27, 2024
 1.2K     1 
News   Sep 27, 2024
 472     0 

A new kind of intersection eliminates dangerous, time-wasting left turns

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
A new kind of intersection eliminates dangerous, time-wasting left turns


Aug. 1, 2011

By Tom Vanderbilt

sl-logo.gif


Read More: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2011/07/dont_turn_left.single.html


.....

Left turns are the bane of traffic engineers. Their idea of utopia runs clockwise. (UPS' routing software famously has drivers turn right whenever possible, to save money and time.) The left-turning vehicle presents not only the aforementioned safety hazard, but a coagulation in the smooth flow of traffic. It's either a car stopped in an active traffic lane, waiting to turn; or, even worse, it's cars in a dedicated left-turn lane that, when traffic is heavy enough, requires its own "dedicated signal phase," lengthening the delay for through traffic as well as cross traffic. And when traffic volumes really increase, as in the junction of two suburban arterials, multiple left-turn lanes are required, costing even more in space and money.

- What can you do when you've tinkered all you can with the traffic signals, added as many left-turn lanes as you can, rerouted as much traffic as you can, in areas that have already been built to a sprawling standard? Welcome to the world of the "unconventional intersection," where left turns are engineered out of existence. This is not necessarily a new idea: The "Jersey Jughandle" and "Michigan Left" were early iterations of this concept; rolled out widely in the 1960s, both essentially require drivers to first make a right turn, then either looping back or U-turning their way onto the road onto which they had wanted to turn left.

- "Grade separation" is the most extreme way to eliminate traffic conflicts. But it's not only aesthetically unappealing in many environments, it's expensive. There is, however, a cheaper, less disruptive approach, one that promises its own safety and efficiency gains, that has become recently popular in the United States: the diverging diamond interchange. There's just one catch: You briefly have to drive the wrong way.

- As the eastbound driver approaches the highway interchange (whose lanes run north-south), traffic lanes "criss cross" at a traffic signal. The driver will now find himself on the "left" side of the road, where he can either make an unimpeded left turn onto the highway ramp, or cross over again to the right once he has gone under the highway overpass. Perhaps counter-intuitively, this complicated approach is actually safer—and more efficient. What makes the DDI work is that it reduces the number of "conflict points" where traffic streams cross each other. There would usually be 26 such points in an intersection like this, but the DDI has only 14 (because, for example, drivers turning onto ramps no longer have to turn across oncoming traffic).

- But, as Chlewicki explained to me, not having those left-turn movements adds another advantage. In a standard "diamond" interchange, where traffic entering the highway has to turn across traffic, the two sets of traffic signals, because they have to account for the left-turn phase, are difficult to synchronize—which means cars wait in longer queues. But with the DDI, Chlewicki told me, "each signal in the interchange is only two phases, not three. And each of these two phases have some unique characteristics. The left turn from either ramp gets the same green phase as the arterial thru movement that does not conflict with that turn. It's as if the design doesn't need a separate ramp phase since it is built into the design."

.....



1_123125_2216585_2279964_2299380_110729_transport_  missouriroad_tn.jpg
1_123125_2216585_2279964_2299380_110729_transport_  diamond_tn.jpg




[video=youtube;WF9Cx0pMsbI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF9Cx0pMsbI[/video]
 
Eh. Not a huge fan of this concept for several reasons:

1. It's designed for suburban interchanges, so has little use in an urban context.
2. The SPUI is an alternative for space-constrained, busy diamond interchanges. Ontario has two (406 and Fourth in St. Catharines and Airport Parkway and Hunt Club in Ottawa), these are very common in places like Phoenix. There's one place in Ontario that I think a new SPUI is warranted: 400 and Mapleview in Barrie.
3. The MTO-pioneered parclo interchange, while taking more room than a SPUI or diverging diamond (and as such only adept for new or rural highways), more or less takes care of the left turn issue safely, and eliminate the left turn across a busy surface road.
 
This type of intersection is terribly pedestrian unfriendly. (As is the "parclo" interchange).
 
Last edited:
There's no easy way to make a freeway interchange pedestrian friendly.

The best, ironically, are the neighbourhood-killing Interstate trenches like those in Detroit, where slip ramps connect with frontage roads, in tern connecting with the cross street at standard-type intersections. The Decarie Autoroute in Montreal (NDG) is similar. And there's expensive tunneled freeways like the Big Dig and Ville-Marie.

Failing that, the simple diamond interchange is the least unfriendly.
 
I don't see how this is better than what we have unless for some reason the traffic coming off the highway greatly outweighs the local traffic since it looks like the local street would still end up with a red light close to 50% of the time. There is still an intersection and the driver confusion is increased. I think the no left turn on ramps and T intersection off-ramps design used most commonly in Ontario now work great.
 
M A R K and Everyone: I found this intersection quite interesting in how it eliminates left turns by crossing over the directions...

But the problem that it creates is more busy traffic lights and intersections-I believe that by building an overpass that allows
one direction of traffic to pass over the other direction in effect creating a three-level interchange that would eliminate the
trouble of traffic lights and provide a "split" allowing traffic to go left without turning or stopping at traffic lights...

This type of interchange would be quite expensive and would only be used at places where traffic volume would warrant it and
a jug handle or other type of left turn lanes would be impractical...

LI MIKE
 
Charles Marohn of Strong Towns narrates a "response" to an engineer's tour of the pedestrian features of a Diverging Diamond Interchange.


[video=youtube;zWG49xlZ_eQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWG49xlZ_eQ[/video]
 

Back
Top