Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Chapter 2 - RTOR and No Turn on Red Site Selection
Pages 3-15

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 3...
... The 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act required all states to adopt RTOR operations. This requirement was accompanied by a change to the Uniform Vehicle Code that generalized the rule of allowing RTORs whenever a No Turn on Red (NTOR)
From page 4...
... To help improve RTOR safety performance, Chadda and Schonfeld recommend removal of unwarranted traffic signals and the use of RTOR prohibition signs and angled stop bars. Non-engineering recom mendations from Chadda and Schonfeld include incorporating RTOR regulations in driver education curriculum and driver licensing tests and implementing school safety education programs.
From page 5...
... 1976, and Schonfeld 1985 Exclusive pedestrian phase MUTCD (FHWA) 2009, Minneapolis 2005 Bicycle box NACTO 2011 School crossing route passing through the intersection Minneapolis 2005 Michigan Department of Transportation Railroad crossing and pre-signal in close proximity (MDOT)
From page 6...
... With some exceptions, most of the guidance that appears in literature is offered as a series of considerations for prohibiting RTOR, rather than absolute criteria for exclusion of a site. Thus, the decision of whether to allow or prohibit RTOR involves a degree of engineering judgment.
From page 7...
... 2.3.1  Sight Distance Sight distance is one of the primary factors that needs to be considered in determining whether RTOR should be allowed at a signalized intersection. According to AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (the "Green Book")
From page 8...
... For example, Figure 3 shows a skewed intersection where the southwest corner has a building separated from the edge of the road alignment by approximately 4 ft, making it difficult for Vehicle A to see approaching vehicles such as Vehicle B Table 3.   PennDOT minimum sight distance requirements for RTOR.
From page 9...
... 2014) recommends prohibiting RTOR on a given approach when the intersection skew angle is less than 75 degrees.
From page 10...
... Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2011) recommends prohibiting RTOR at locations where bicycle boxes are used.
From page 11...
... The Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NACTO 2011) recommends prohibiting RTOR at locations where turn queue boxes are used.
From page 12...
... The MUTCD recommends prohibiting RTOR movements at an approach when more than three RTOR-related crashes are reported in a 12-month period at that approach (FHWA 2009)
From page 13...
... Prohibition of RTOR may be necessary when a high number of pedestrian conflicts occur at an intersection involving children, elderly people, or people with disabilities. PennDOT's Official Traffic Control Devices recommends restricting RTOR at such locations only during the time periods when significant conflicts occur between pedestrians and RTOR vehicles (PennDOT 2006)
From page 14...
... Each item lists an aspect of intersection operation that would tend to favor allowing or prohibiting RTOR. Most of these criteria require application of engineering judgment, and each criterion is a candidate for further study to develop more precise recommendations.
From page 15...
... Bicycle boxes (Figure 4) and turn queue boxes for Bicycle boxes and Consider prohibiting RTOR if the bicyclists (Figure 5)


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.