Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
NCHRP Web-Only Document 368 Right-Turn-on-Red Operation at Signalized Intersections with Single and Dual Right-Turn Lanes Evaluating Performance Christopher M. Day Pat Hawley John Shaw R.A. Smith, Inc. Arya Haghighat Brookfield, WI Anuj Sharma Institute for Transportation Mark Shields Iowa State University Quality Counts Ames, IA Herndon, VA A.M. Tahsin Emtenan Center for Advanced Transportation Technology Laboratory University of Maryland College Park, MD Conduct of Research Report for NCHRP Project 03-136 Submitted October 2022 © 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniquesâthe National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agreement No. 693JJ31950003. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications. The Transportation Research Board, the National Academies, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
COOPERATI VE RESEAR CH PROGRAMS CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 368 Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Arefeh Nasri, Senior Program Officer Stephanie Campbell, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications Jennifer Correro, Assistant Editor NCHRP PROJECT 03-136 PANEL Field of TrafficâArea of Operations and Control Vicki Sue Haskell, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, WI (Chair) Julius A. Codjoe, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, LA Eric Alan Hathaway, City of Ithaca, Ithaca, NY Marcus H. Januario, Shive-Hattery, Cedar Rapids, IA Donald Raymond Sweezy, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, NY Xianfeng Yang, University of Maryland, College Park, MD Hong Zhang, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, LA James P. Sturrock, FHWA Liaison Douglas E. Noble, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research team wishes to thank the members of the technical advisory panel for suggestions during the execution of this NCHRP project. They also wish to thank several individuals for their consideration, time, and effort in assisting with video data collection: Mark Taylor and colleagues with the Utah Department of Transportation; Shawn Gotfredson with the City of Overland Park, Kansas; Gang Xie with the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada; Tony Geara with the City of Detroit, Michigan; Brian Guy with the City of Omaha, Nebraska; and April Wire with the Maricopa County DOT in Arizona.
TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii 1. Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Findings............................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 List of Project Deliverables .............................................................................................. 13 2. Literature Review...................................................................................................................... 14 2.1 Motivation for Right-Turn-on-Red Methodology Evaluation .......................................... 14 2.2 History of Right-Turn-on-Red .......................................................................................... 14 2.3 Right-Turn-on-Red in the Highway Capacity Manual ..................................................... 15 2.4 Studies on Right-Turn-on-Red Safety and Operational Guidelines ................................. 15 2.5 Gap Acceptance and Probabilistic Approaches to Right-Turn-on-Red ............................ 16 2.6 Empirical Studies of Right-Turn-on-Red.......................................................................... 26 2.7 Right-Turn-on-Red Studies using Queuing Theory .......................................................... 29 2.8 Right-Turn-on-Red in Commercial Software Packages ................................................... 30 2.9 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 33 3. Findings from Practitioner Survey ............................................................................................ 36 4. Exploration of Right-Turn-On-Red Models ............................................................................. 43 4.1 Previously Described Models for Right-Turn-on Red Analysis ....................................... 43 4.2 Model Inputs and Feasibility of Implementation .............................................................. 58 4.3 A Framework for Modeling Right-Turn-on-Red Volume and Capacity .......................... 60 4.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 63 5. Data Collection and Analysis .................................................................................................... 65 5.1 Data Collection Methods .................................................................................................. 65 5.2 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 66 5.3 Characteristics of the Included Intersections .................................................................... 68 5.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 76 6. Model Development, Calibration, and Validation .................................................................... 77 6.1 Modeling of Right-Turn-on-Red Volume......................................................................... 77 6.2 Modeling of Right-Turn-on-Red Capacity ....................................................................... 92 6.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 109 7. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 110 7.1 Overview of the Research ............................................................................................... 110 7.2 Development of Practitioner Guide ................................................................................ 110 7.3 Implementation of Research Products ............................................................................ 111 7.4 Prioritized Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................ 112 iv
References ................................................................................................................................... 115 Appendix A. Copy of Practitioner Survey .................................................................................. 118 NCHRP Web-Only Document 368 contains the conduct of research report for NCHRP Project 03- 136 and accompanies NCHRP Research Report 1068: Right-Turn-on-Red Site Considerations and Capacity Analysis: Practitionerâs Guide. Readers can read or purchase NCHRP Research Report 1068 on the National Academies Press website (nap.nationalacademies.org). v
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Layout of a typical intersection showing movements relevant to RTOR operation. ....... 3 Figure 2. Influence of conflicting through movement volume V1 on right-turn v/c ratio for an exclusive right-turn lane....................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Respondent policies regarding RTOR estimation procedures. ........................................ 5 Figure 4. Distribution of data collection sites for this study. .......................................................... 6 Figure 5. Total RTOR flow rate versus conflicting opposing left-turn flow rate. ........................... 7 Figure 7. Respondents by organization type. ................................................................................ 36 Figure 8. Types of growth experienced in the areas managed by the respondents. ...................... 37 Figure 9. Best description of job duties selected by respondents. ................................................ 37 Figure 10. Numbers of signals managed by respondents. ............................................................ 38 Figure 11. Frequency of retiming: cumulative frequency of the percentages of signals being retimed annually, as reported by respondents. ........................................................................ 38 Figure 12. How often LOS analyses are done under different use cases. ..................................... 39 Figure 13. Respondent policies regarding RTOR estimation procedures. .................................... 40 Figure 14. Respondent practices for RTOR estimation. ............................................................... 41 Figure 15. Volume and lane configuration used for modeling exclusive right-turn lanes. ........... 45 Figure 16. Influence of conflicting through movement volume V1 on right-turn v/c ratio.......... 48 Figure 17. Influence of opposing left-turn volume V2 on right-turn v/c ratio. ............................ 49 Figure 18. Relationship between shadowed left-turn volume and right-turn v/c ratio under the HCM 2010 model, for different total right-turn volumes. ................................................ 50 Figure 19. Volume and lane configuration used for modeling dual right-turn lanes. ................... 51 Figure 20. Influence of conflicting through movement volume on right-turn v/c ratio for different models of dual-lane right turns................................................................................. 52 Figure 21. Volume and lane configuration used for modeling shared through and right-turn lanes. ....................................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 22. Influence of right-turn movement volume on right-turn v/c ratio from shared through and right-turn lanes. ................................................................................................... 56 Figure 23. Volume and lane configuration used for modeling shared through and right-turn lanes with short right-turn bays............................................................................................... 57 Figure 24. Influence of right-turn movement volume on right-turn v/c ratio from shared through and right-turn lanes with short turn bays (k = storage length of the bay in number of passenger cars). ..................................................................................................... 58 Figure 25. Analysis of typical eight-phase control scheme showing an example subject right-turn movement and when other conflicting movements are scheduled. ........................ 61 vi
Figure 26. Breakdown of a typical cycle with phases in ordinary sequence into intervals where RTOR is possible.......................................................................................................... 62 Figure 27. Heatmap showing distribution of data collection locations. ....................................... 66 Figure 28. Example video views. .................................................................................................. 67 Figure 29. Summary of site characteristics. .................................................................................. 70 Figure 30. Distributions of RTOR count for different lane configurations. ................................. 72 Figure 31. RTOR flow rate versus total right-turn flow rate for different lane configurations. ........................................................................................................................ 73 Figure 32. Total RTOR flow rate versus conflicting through flow rate. ....................................... 74 Figure 33. Total RTOR flow rate versus conflicting opposing left-turn flow rate. ....................... 74 Figure 34. Total RTOR flow rate versus shadowed left-turn flow rate. ........................................ 75 Figure 35. Total RTOR flow rate versus total conflicting pedestrian flow rate. ........................... 76 Figure 36. Regression models considered for analysis ................................................................. 79 Figure 37. Correlation matrix ....................................................................................................... 81 Figure 38. Distribution of RTOR flow rate ................................................................................... 82 Figure 39. Model 1 random effects ............................................................................................... 83 Figure 40. Final model validation results. *Dual Model 1A/1B show data from both single and dual right-turn lane validation datasets. ........................................................................... 91 Figure 41. RTOR capacity during the unsaturated green period of the conflicting traffic for exclusive right-turn lane ......................................................................................................... 99 Figure 42. RTOR capacity during the unsaturated green period of the conflicting traffic for dual right-turn lanes: (a) left-side right-turn lane and (b) curb lane. .................................... 101 Figure 43. RTOR capacity during the unsaturated green period of the conflicting traffic for shared through and right-turn lane ........................................................................................ 103 Figure 44. Predicted versus observed RTOR capacity for different lane configurations: (a) Model 1 and (b) Model 2 ...................................................................................................... 106 Figure 45. Queue accumulation polygons: (a) no RTOR, (b) adjustment of RTOR volume, (c) adjustment of RTOR capacity, (d) with RTOR where right-turn arrival flow rate is greater than RTOR flow rate, (e) with RTOR where right-turn arrival flow rate is less than RTOR flow rate. ............................................................................................................ 108 Figure 46. Place for entry of RTOR volume in the HCM Computational Engine ....................... 111 vii
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Models of RTOR volume developed during this research. ............................................... 9 Table 2. Explanation of terms used in Table 1. ............................................................................. 10 Table 3. RTOR capacity Model 1 by scenario and interval. ......................................................... 11 Table 4. RTOR capacity Model 2 by scenario and interval. ......................................................... 12 Table 5. Explanation of terms used in Table 3 and Table 4. ......................................................... 12 Table 6. Summary of literature review. ......................................................................................... 33 Table 7. List of studies included for comparison of model outputs and implementation feasibility. ................................................................................................................................ 44 Table 8. Comparison of models for analysis of RTOR from exclusive right-turn lanes............... 46 Table 9. Explanation of terms used in Table 8. ............................................................................. 47 Table 10. Comparison of models for analysis of RTOR from shared through and right-turn lanes. ....................................................................................................................................... 54 Table 11. Explanation of terms used in Table 10. ......................................................................... 55 Table 12. Observable items needed in each model. ...................................................................... 60 Table 13. Sample data from Gaines School Road and Cedar Shoals Drive, Athens, Georgia...... 68 Table 14. Descriptive statistics ..................................................................................................... 80 Table 15. Statistical tests for overdispersion................................................................................. 82 Table 16. RMSE of models for exclusive right-turn lane scenario ............................................... 84 Table 17. RMSE of models for shared right-turn lane scenario ................................................... 84 Table 18. RMSE of models for dual right-turn lane scenario ....................................................... 85 Table 19. RMSE of models for single exclusive right-turn lane scenario .................................... 85 Table 20. RMSE of models for shared right-turn lane scenario ................................................... 86 Table 21. RMSE of models for dual right-turn lane scenario ....................................................... 86 Table 22. Recommended models for single exclusive right-turn lane scenario............................ 88 Table 23. Recommended models for shared through and right-turn lane scenario....................... 89 Table 24. Recommended models for dual right-turn lane scenario .............................................. 90 Table 25. Equations comprising RTOR capacity Model 1............................................................ 96 Table 26. Equations comprising RTOR capacity Model 2.......................................................... 103 Table 27. Site characteristics and descriptive statistics of validation sites ................................. 105 Table 28. RMSE of RTOR capacity models ............................................................................... 107 viii
