Fhwasa 14070

Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational
Guide
Publication No. FHWA-SA-14-070 August 2014
U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590
FOREWORD
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative is designed to
identify and deploy innovation aimed at reducing project delivery time, enhancing safety and
protecting the environment. In 2012, FHWA chose Intersection & Interchange Geometrics (IIG)
to feature as one of the innovative technologies in EDC-2. Specifically, IIG consists of a family
of alternative intersection designs that improve intersection safety while also reducing delay, and
at lower cost and with fewer impacts than comparable traditional solutions.
As part of the effort to mainstream these intersections, FHWA has produced a series of guides to
help transportation professionals routinely consider and implement these designs. Concurrent
with this Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT) Informational Guide, FHWA developed and
published guides for three other designs: Median U-turn (MUT), Displaced Left Turn (DLT),
and Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI). These guides represent summaries of the current
state of knowledge and practice, and are intended to inform project planning, scoping, design and
implementation decisions.
An electronic version of this document is available on the Office of Safety website at

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/. Additionally, limited quantities of hard copies are available from the
Report Center; inquiries may be directed to report.center@dot.gov or 814-239-1160.
Michael S. Griffith
Director
Office of Safety Technologies
Notice
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation
in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of
the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the
objective of the document.
Quality Assurance Statement
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards
and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its
information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to
ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA-SA-14-070
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational Guide August 2014
6. Performing Organization Code

7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Joe Hummer, Wayne State University; Brian Ray, Andy Daleiden, Pete Jenior,
Julia Knudsen, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Project 13517
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700 11. Contract or Grant No.
Portland, OR 97205 TO DTFH61-00023-T-13002
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period
Technical Report
U.S. Department of Transportation Informational Report
Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety September 2013 to August 2014
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
FHWA
15. Supplementary Notes
Jeffrey Shaw (jeffrey.shaw@dot.gov), Office of Safety Technologies (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/), served as the Technical
Manager for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The following FHWA staff contributed as technical working group
members, reviewers and/or provided input or feedback to the project at various stages: Joe Bared, Mark Doctor, Brian Fouch,
Elizabeth Hilton, Jim McCarthy, George Merritt, Will Stein, Jim Sturrock and Wei Zhang.
16. Abstract
This document provides information and guidance on Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) intersections. To the extent possible,
the guide addresses a variety of conditions found in the United States, to achieve designs suitable for a wide array of potential
users. This guide provides general information, planning techniques, evaluation procedures for assessing safety and operational
performance, design guidelines, and principles to be considered for selecting and designing RCUT intersections.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

RCUT, Superstreet, J-turn, Restricted Crossing U-turn, Reduced Conflict No restrictions.
Intersection, Synchronized Street, Alternative Intersections, Innovative
Intersections
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 186
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized
i
Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational Guide
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1— INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS AND INTERCHANGES ................... 1
INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS ......................... 1
ORGANIZATION OF THE GUIDELINES .............................................................................. 2
SCOPE OF THE GUIDE ............................................................................................................ 3
RCUT INTERSECTION OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 3
APPLICATION .......................................................................................................................... 7
RESOURCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 2— POLICY AND PLANNING ........................................................................... 15
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS AND
INTERCHANGES .................................................................................................................... 15
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH............................................................................................... 17
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................ 21
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 22
PLANNING CHALLENGES ................................................................................................... 24
PROJECT PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................... 25
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ................................................................................. 26
SUMMARY OF RCUT ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES ................................... 27
CHAPTER 3—MULTIMODAL CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................... 31
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH ............................................................................ 31
PEDESTRIANS ........................................................................................................................ 32
BICYCLISTS ............................................................................................................................ 42
TRANSIT VEHICLE CONSIDERATION .............................................................................. 47
HEAVY VEHICLE CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................... 49
CHAPTER 4 — SAFETY .......................................................................................................... 51
SAFETY PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................ 51
OBSERVED SAFETY PERFORMANCE ............................................................................... 54
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................ 58
INCIDENT RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................... 61
SAFETY EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................... 61
CHAPTER 5 — OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................... 63
OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................... 63
SYSTEM-WIDE CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................... 76
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE STUDIES ...................................................................... 79
iii
CHAPTER 6 — OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 83

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OVERVIEW ........................................................................... 84
PLANNING ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 87
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (HCM) ANALYSIS ...................................................... 88
MICROSIMULATION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 91
CHAPTER 7 — GEOMETRIC DESIGN ................................................................................ 95
DESIGN APPROACH.............................................................................................................. 95
GEOMETRIC DESIGN PARAMETERS/PRINCIPLES......................................................... 98
RANGE OF RCUT CONFIGURATIONS ............................................................................... 98
OPERATIONAL EFFECTS OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN ..................................................... 102
DESIGN GUIDANCE ............................................................................................................ 104
CHAPTER 8--SIGNALS, SIGNING, MARKING, AND LIGHTING ................................ 121
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH .......................................................................... 121
SIGNALIZED VERSUS UNSIGNALIZED RCUT INTERSECTIONS .............................. 121
SIGNALS ................................................................................................................................ 122
SIGNING ................................................................................................................................ 129
PAVEMENT MARKINGS .................................................................................................... 137
LIGHTING ............................................................................................................................. 138
CHAPTER 9 – CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 141
CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................. 141
COSTS .................................................................................................................................... 145
MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................... 149
LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS ........................................................................................... 150
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 153
Appendix A CATALOG OF ALL KNOWN INSTALLATIONS IN THE UNITED
STATES ....................................................................................................... 157
Appendix B SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY DETAILS .......... 159
Appendix C MARKETING AND OUTREACH MATERIALS .................................. 165
iv
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1-1. Example of a RCUT intersection with signals............................................................ 5

Exhibit 1-2. Example of a RCUT intersection with stop-control. .................................................. 5
Exhibit 1-3. Example of a RCUT intersection with merges. .......................................................... 6
Exhibit 1-4. Locations of RCUT Intersections. .............................................................................. 7
Exhibit 1-5. Signalized RCUT intersection on US-281 in San Antonio, TX with four-lane major
street and four-lane minor street.(2) ................................................................................................. 8
Exhibit 1-6. Stop-controlled RCUT intersection on US-1 near Southern Pines, NC.(2) ................. 9
Exhibit 1-7. Merge-controlled RCUT intersection on US-15 in Emmitsburg, MD.(3) ................... 9
Exhibit 1-8. RCUT intersection on US-15/501 in Chapel Hill, NC with no left-turn crossovers.(2)
....................................................................................................................................................... 10
Exhibit 1-9. Loon implemented on RCUT intersection in Wilmington, NC.(3)............................ 11
Exhibit 1-10. Signalized RCUT intersection in operation near San Antonio, TX showing a
pedestrian “Z” crossing.(3)............................................................................................................. 11
Exhibit 1-11. Three-legged RCUT intersection on US-17 at Brunswick Forest Parkway in
Leland, NC.(2) ................................................................................................................................ 12
Exhibit 1-12. RCUT corridor on US-17 in Leland, NC.(4)............................................................ 13
Exhibit 2-1. Relationship between total entering volume and intersection type. ......................... 17
Exhibit 2-2. Superstreet intersection public brochure from NCDOT.(4) ....................................... 19
Exhibit 2-3. Superstreet intersection graphic by NCDOT.(15)....................................................... 20
Exhibit 2-4. Reduced conflict intersection video by MnDOT.(16) ................................................ 20
Exhibit 2-5. J-Turn intersection video by MoDOT.(17) ................................................................. 21
Exhibit 2-6. Project development process. ................................................................................... 26
Exhibit 3-1. Pedestrian movements in a RCUT intersection. ....................................................... 32
Exhibit 3-2. Signalized RCUT with “Z” crossing near San Antonio, TX.(3) ................................ 33
Exhibit 3-3. Pedestrian-vehicle conflict points at conventional intersection. ............................... 34
Exhibit 3-4. Pedestrian-vehicle conflict points at RCUT intersection.......................................... 34
Exhibit 3-5. RCUT intersection with minor street approaches offset to produce a shorter
pedestrian crossing. ....................................................................................................................... 35
Exhibit 3-6. Three types of signalized mid-block crossing feasible on RCUT corridor. ............. 36
Exhibit 3-7. Pedestrian crossing of three-legged RCUT intersection. .......................................... 37
Exhibit 3-8. Alternative crossing treatments and modeled operational performance for
pedestrians..................................................................................................................................... 38
Exhibit 3-9. Median shared-use path design for the US Route 15/501 RCUT intersection in North
Carolina.(25) ................................................................................................................................... 39
Exhibit 3-10. Two-stage channelized pedestrian crossing at conventional intersection.(25) ......... 40
Exhibit 3-11. Right-turn lane with bicycle lane. ........................................................................... 43
Exhibit 3-12. Minor street through options for bicycles. .............................................................. 44
Exhibit 3-13. Curb cut design used in North Carolina to assist bicyclists crossing at a rural
RCUT with stop sign.(27) ............................................................................................................... 45
bicyclists. ...................................................................................................................................... 46
Exhibit 3-15. Potential bus stop locations at a RCUT intersection............................................... 47
Exhibit 3-17. RCUT intersection major street bus stop placement options between U-turn
crossovers. ..................................................................................................................................... 49
Exhibit 4-1. Conflict point comparison. ....................................................................................... 52
v
Exhibit 4-2. Vehicular conflict points at a four-approach conventional intersection. .................. 52

Exhibit 4-3. Vehicular conflict points at a four-approach RCUT intersection. ............................ 52
Exhibit 4-4. Typical site in NCDOT study of RCUT intersections with stop signs.(2) ................. 55
Exhibit 4-5. Results of analyses of RCUT intersections with stop signs in North Carolina.(11) ... 56
Exhibit 4-6. Typical site from FHWA study of Maryland RCUT intersections with merges.(3) .. 57
Exhibit 4-7. Summary of empirical safety studies of unsignalized RCUT intersections. ............ 58
Exhibit 4-8. Example of U-turn/right-turn conflict.(3) .................................................................. 59
Exhibit 4-9. U-turn crossover detail.(28) ........................................................................................ 60
Exhibit 4-10. Dual-lane crossover design overtracking potential. ................................................ 61
Exhibit 5-1. Concurrent movements at conventional intersection and signalized RCUT
intersection. ................................................................................................................................... 64
Exhibit 5-2. Signal placement at signalized RCUT intersection. ................................................. 65
Exhibit 5-3 Signal progression on a RCUT corridor. ................................................................... 66
Exhibit 5-4. Signal phasing for a RCUT intersection with four controllers. ................................ 69
Exhibit 5-5. Signal phasing for a RCUT intersection with one controller and a single concurrent
pedestrian phase to allow pedestrians to cross the major street. ................................................... 70
Exhibit 5-6. Signal phasing for a RCUT intersection with one controller in which pedestrians
cross the major street at two separated signal-controlled crosswalks. .......................................... 71
Exhibit 5-7. Feasible demand space for signalized RCUT intersection. ...................................... 75
Exhibit 5-8. RCUT corridor in Leland, NC.(4) .............................................................................. 77
Exhibit 5-9. Progression in RCUT corridors radiating outward from one non-RCUT intersection.
....................................................................................................................................................... 78
Exhibit 5-10. Corridor with RCUT intersections only where needed to provide two-way
progression. ................................................................................................................................... 79
Exhibit 5-11. RCUT simulation results, average of four time of day periods .............................. 80
Exhibit 5-12. Operational measures on US-281 north of San Antonio before and after RCUT
intersection installation.(35)............................................................................................................ 82
Exhibit 6-1. RCUT Analysis Techniques ..................................................................................... 85
Exhibit 6-2. Translating turning movements at a conventional intersection into a RCUT
intersection. ................................................................................................................................... 86
Exhibit 6-3. CAP-X planning level tool screen capture.(36) .......................................................... 88
Exhibit 6-4. Preliminary guidance from FHWA research on key parameters in operation analysis
of signalized RCUT intersections. ................................................................................................ 91
Exhibit 6-5. Final gap values after calibration.(11) ........................................................................ 93
Exhibit 7-1. Characteristics of a RCUT intersection with signals. ............................................... 96
Exhibit 7-2. Characteristics of a RCUT intersection with stop-control. ....................................... 96
Exhibit 7-3. Characteristics of a RCUT intersection with merges................................................ 97
Exhibit 7-4. Stop-controlled RCUT intersection on US-1 near Southern Pines, NC.(2) ............. 100
Exhibit 7-5. Merge-controlled RCUT intersection on US-15 in Emmitsburg, MD.(3) ............... 100
Exhibit 7-6. Signalized RCUT intersection on OH-4 outside Hamilton, OH with six-lane major
highway and four-lane minor road.(2).......................................................................................... 101
Exhibit 7-7. Signalized RCUT intersection on Big Beaver Road in Troy, MI with six-lane major
street and four-lane minor street.(3) ............................................................................................. 102
Exhibit 7-8. RCUT intersection with three-approaches. ............................................................. 102
Exhibit 7-9. RCUT intersection angle considerations. ............................................................... 104
vi
Exhibit 7-10. RCUT intersection schematic from NCDOT showing left-turn crossover
dimensions.(37) ............................................................................................................................. 106
Exhibit 7-11. Minor street left turn crossover with a merge on Woodward Avenue in
Birmingham, MI.(2) ..................................................................................................................... 107
Exhibit 7-12. Schematic of RCUT intersection with one-lane, minor street approaches. .......... 109
Exhibit 7-13. Signalized RCUT intersection with multiple lanes and channelization on the minor
street. ........................................................................................................................................... 110
Exhibit 7-14. Area near U-turn crossover where access point should be avoided. .................... 111
Exhibit 7-15. Back-to-back crossovers on Big Beaver Road in Troy, MI.(2).............................. 112
Exhibit 7-16 Loon implemented on RCUT intersection in Wilmington, NC.(3)........................ 113
Exhibit 7-17. Other treatments used at U-turn crossovers on Twelve Mile Road in Farmington
Hills, MI to accommodate large vehicles.(2) ............................................................................... 114
Exhibit 7-18. AASHTO-recommended minimum median widths for U-turn crossovers.(5) ...... 115
Exhibit 7-19. RCUT intersection with back-to-back two-lane crossover storage bays. ............. 115
Exhibit 7-20. U-turn crossover design on highway with curbs.(28) ............................................. 116
Exhibit 7-21. U-turn crossover design on highway without curbs.(28) ........................................ 116
Exhibit 7-22. Spacing consideration for a minor street through or left movement. ................... 118
Exhibit 8-1. RCUT intersection with four separate controllers. ................................................. 122
Exhibit 8-2. RCUT intersection with three separate controllers. ................................................ 123
Exhibit 8-3. RCUT intersection with two separate controllers. .................................................. 124
Exhibit 8-4. RCUT intersection with a single controller. ........................................................... 124
Exhibit 8-5. Possible signal pole and mast arm locations for RCUT intersection. ..................... 126
Exhibit 8-6. Signal pole locations at the main intersection of a RCUT intersection on US-17 in
North Carolina.(3) ........................................................................................................................ 126
Exhibit 8-7. Signal pole locations at the main intersection of another RCUT intersection on US-
17 in North Carolina.(3) ............................................................................................................... 127
Exhibit 8-8. Signal pole locations at the U-turn crossover of a RCUT intersection on US-17 in
North Carolina.(3) ........................................................................................................................ 127
Exhibit 8-9. Signal pole locations on the minor street approaches of a RCUT intersection on US-
17 in North Carolina.(3) ............................................................................................................... 128
Exhibit 8-10. Potential detector placements. .............................................................................. 129
Exhibit 8-11. Signalized RCUT intersection signing plan derived from Maryland practice.(3) . 131
Exhibit 8-12. Guide signs for U-turn crossovers based on Maryland (left side) and Texas (right
side) practice. .............................................................................................................................. 132
Exhibit 8-13. Overhead lane use signs provided on minor street (Evans Road) approaching major
street (US-281 in San Antonio, TX). .......................................................................................... 133
Exhibit 8-14. RCUT intersection with traffic island separating minor street right turn movements
from minor street through and left turn movements.(2) ............................................................... 134
Exhibit 8-15. Overhead guide signs at the RCUT intersection on US-15/501 in Chapel Hill,
NC.(27).......................................................................................................................................... 135
Exhibit 8-16. Stop-controlled RCUT intersection signing guidance from NCDOT practice.(40) 136
Exhibit 8-17. Signing at a merge-controlled RCUT intersection in Emmitsburg, Maryland.(3) . 137
Exhibit 8-18. Typical pavement marking at a directional crossover.(28) ..................................... 138
Exhibit 8-19. Pavement markings at a directional crossover with dual lanes.(28) ....................... 138
Exhibit 9-1. Construction staging when widening the street when converting two-lane road to
multilane RCUT intersection.(3) .................................................................................................. 142
vii
Exhibit 9-2. Construction staging for converting a conventional intersection to a RCUT

intersection.(3) .............................................................................................................................. 144
Exhibit 9-3. Summary of costs associated with RCUT intersections. ........................................ 146
Exhibit 9-4. RCUT intersection used in theoretical cost comparison.(3)..................................... 147
Exhibit 9-5. Conventional intersection alternatives used for cost comparison.(3)....................... 148
Exhibit 9-6. Footprint comparisons of a RCUT intersection versus conventional intersections. 149
viii
CHAPTER 1— INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS AND INTERCHANGES
Alternative intersections and interchanges offer the potential to improve safety and reduce delay
at a lower cost and with fewer impacts than traditional solutions. However, transportation
professionals are generally unfamiliar with many alternative intersection and interchange forms,
partially because some forms have only a few installations in operation or because installations
are concentrated in a few states. Furthermore, at the national level, well-documented and
substantive resources needed for planning, analysis, design and public outreach and education,
were limited.
Concurrent with this Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT) Informational Guide, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) developed and published informational guides for three other
alternative intersection and interchange forms: Median U-turn (MUT), Displaced Left Turn
(DLT), and Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI). These guides are intended to increase
awareness of these specific alternative intersections and interchanges and provide guidance on
how to plan, design, construct, and operate them. These guidelines represent summaries of the
current state of knowledge with the intent of supporting decisions when considering and
potentially selecting alternative intersection and interchange forms for appropriate applications.
INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
The term “intersection” means the junction of two or more street facilities. In some cases, this
may specifically mean an “at-grade” intersection form. In others, it may include the junction of
two or more streets requiring partial or complete grade separation (“interchanges”). A number of
state and city transporation agencies have or are implementing intersection control evaluation
processes or policies as a means of integrating the widest range of intersection forms as project
solutions. For example, California, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have policies or processes
to objectively consider and select the most appropriate intersection form for a given project
context.
Many of the policies or processes include common objectives in selecting the optimal or
preferred intersection control alternative for a given project context. The common elements
generally include but are not limited to the following:
• Understanding the intended context, and how operations, safety, and geometry fit the
context for each intersection or corridor including intended users (pedestirans, bicyclists,
passenger cars, transit vehicles, freight, emergency responders, and over size/over weight
[OSOW] vehicles)
• Identifying and documenting the overall corridor or intersection context including the
built, natural, and community environment and the intended performance outcomes of the
intersection form
• Considering and assessing a wide range of traffic control strategies and other practical
improvement concepts to identify worthy project-level technical evaluation
1
• Comparing engineering and economic analysis results of practical alternatives that

consider implementation costs, performance benefits and impacts (safety, multimodal,
operations, environment, etc.), and the estimated service life of alternatives
ORGANIZATION OF THE GUIDELINES
This guide is structured to address the needs of a variety of readers, including the general public,
policy makers, transportation planners, operations and safety analysts, and conceptual and
detailed designers. This chapter distinguishes RCUT intersections from conventional
intersections and provides an overview of each chapter in the guide. The remaining chapters in
increase in the level of detail provided.
Chapter 2: Policy and Planning—This chapter provides guidance on when to consider

alternative intersections in general and RCUT intersections in particular. This chapter provides
an overview of the policies, project challenges, performance measures, and project development
process throughout the duration of the project to balance trade-offs.
Chapter 3: Multimodal Considerations—This chapter provides an overview of multimodal

facilities at RCUT intersections and how various types of users can be safely integrated into the
design.
Chapter 4: Safety—This chapter summarizes the safety performance at RCUT intersections

based on studies completed by state agencies and recent research efforts. Although the
documented safety performance of RCUT intersections is limited, information about conflict
points and emergency services are discussed in this chapter.
Chapter 5: Operational Characteristics—This chapter provides information on the unique

operational characteristics of RCUT intersections and how they affect elements such as traffic
signal phasing and coordination. The chapter also provides guidance for practitioners related to
design elements such as driveways that may affect the operational performance of RCUT
intersections. It describes the unique operational characteristics of RCUT intersections and
prepares transportation professionals for conducting operational analysis as described in Chapter
6.
Chapter 6: Operational Analysis—This chapter presents an overview of the approach and tools
available for conducting a traffic operations analysis of a RCUT intersection.
Chapter 7: Geometric Design—This chapter describes the typical RCUT intersection design
approach and provides guidance for geometric features. Design of a RCUT intersection will also
require reviewing and integrating the intersection’s multimodal considerations (Chapter 3),
safety assessment (Chapter 4), and traffic operational analysis (Chapters 5 and 6).
Chapter 8: Signal, Signing, Marking, and Lighting—This chapter presents information

relating to the design and placement of traffic control devices at RCUT intersections, including
traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings, as well as intersection lighting.
Chapter 9: Construction and Maintenance—This chapter focuses on the constructability and

maintenance of a RCUT intersection.
2
An Appendix is included at the end of this guide for the purpose of providing more detailed
information about many of the resources and best practices presented in the guide. The Appendix
contains the following information:
• A - Catalog of all known installations in the United States
• B - Supplemental operational and safety details
• C - Marketing and outreach materials
• D - Supplemental construction and design details
SCOPE OF THE GUIDE
This document provides information and guidance on RCUT intersections, resulting in designs
suitable for a variety of typical conditions commonly found in the United States. To the extent
possible, the guide provides information on the wide array of potential users as it relates to the
intersection form. This guide provides general information, planning techniques, evaluation
procedures for assessing safety and operational performance, design guidelines, and principles to
be considered for selecting and designing RCUT intersections. This guide does not include
specific legal or policy requirements; however, Chapter 2 provides information on planning
topics and considerations when investigating intersection control forms. This first edition of the
Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational Guide has been developed from documented practices
and prior research. As more RCUT intersections are built, there will be opportunities to conduct
research to refine existing and develop new methods to inform project decisions about this
intersection form.
RCUT INTERSECTION OVERVIEW
The Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT) intersection is also known as a superstreet intersection,
a J-turn intersection, and synchronized street intersection. The RCUT intersection differs from a
conventional intersection by eliminating the left-turn and through movements from cross street
approaches. To accommodate these movements, the RCUT intersection requires drivers to turn
right onto the main road and then make a U-turn maneuver at a one-way median opening at least
400 feet after the intersection. At the main street approaches, the left turns are typically
accommodated similar to left turns at conventional intersections. In some cases, such as rural
unsignalized RCUT intersection designs, left-turn movements from the main street could also be
removed. RCUT intersections can have either three or four legs. In the case of a four-legged
RCUT intersection, there are two U-turn crossovers, and minor street left-turn and through
movements are not allowed to be made directly at the intersection.
There are three main types of RCUT intersections, including:
• Signalized – A signalized RCUT intersection can provide favorable progression along an

urban or suburban corridor. RCUT intersection signals typically require only two phases,
which can minimize the loss time at the intersection. Efficient progression can be
provided in both directions with any speed or signal spacing. Additional progression
3
advantages can be realized if there is more than one RCUT intersection along the
corridor. Signalized RCUT intersections are able to easily accommodate pedestrians and
adjacent access driveways. As there is a capacity limit for the cross street for signalized
RCUT intersections, this option may not be appropriate at the intersection of two
arterials.
• Stop-controlled – A stop-controlled RCUT intersection is sometimes used as a safety

treatment at an isolated intersection on a four-lane divided arterial in a rural area. There
are known safety benefits for this type of RCUT intersection. In some cases, a stop-
controlled RCUT intersection is later converted to a signalized RCUT intersection as
traffic volumes increase.
• Merge- or yield-controlled – A merge-controlled RCUT intersection can allow a rural

high-speed divided four-lane corridor to function similar to a freeway corridor in cases
where funding for interchanges and overpasses may not be readily available. This type of
RCUT intersection relies on long distances to U-turn crossovers to allow for the weaving
movement.
Hybrids of the three main types of RCUT intersections are possible and a RCUT intersection is
sometimes converted from one type to another.
The RCUT intersection is similar to the MUT intersection. However, these alternative
intersection types each have unique design features and are implemented at different locations
with unique characteristics. The RCUT intersection reroutes minor street left-turn and through
movements, while the MUT reroutes major street and minor street left-turn movements. The
RCUT intersection typically has better signal progression than a MUT intersection, but does not
serve minor street approaches with high through demand as well as the MUT intersection. The
RCUT intersection may complement a corridor with MUT intersections by serving the corridors
between the major intersections.
4
Exhibits 1-1 through 1-3 illustrate examples of the three types of RCUT intersections.
Exhibit 1-1. Example of a RCUT intersection with signals.
Exhibit 1-2. Example of a RCUT intersection with stop-control.
5
Exhibit 1-3. Example of a RCUT intersection with merges.
An intersection design like the RCUT, but without the major street left-turn crossovers, has been
in use on urban arterials in North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent for years.
For most of these intersections, the design operates without traffic signals, even with heavy
traffic volumes. In these countries, the design helps to create adequate traffic flow, reduces
conflicts, and reduces delay compared to uncontrolled intersections with similar demands.
The intersection design we now know as the RCUT intersection was first developed in the
United States by Richard Kramer and was also developed independently in Maryland and North
Carolina. Kramer published his concept in the mid-1980s.(1) Concerned with congestion on
suburban arterials, Kramer developed a set of principles defining an ideal suburban arterial to
overcome congestion and presented a design (he called it a “superstreet”) reflecting those ideals.
The superstreet’s key design features include large, uninterrupted progression bands in both
directions along the arterial and an arterial through movement that receives two-thirds to three-
fourths of the green cycle. Kramer pursued his concept for years, and his influence eventually
helped Alabama build RCUT intersections on US-231 in Dothan in the late 2000s.
Independently of Kramer, the Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA) began

developing concepts in as early as 1988 to address concerns related to maintaining adequate
traffic flow on rural high-speed four-lane highways. At some minor road intersections along
those highways, growing traffic volumes and conflicts created the potential need for traffic
signals. However, MSHA was concerned signalization would reduce arterial mobility and attract
more development (and minor street traffic) to the intersections. Instead of a signal, an
unsignalized RCUT intersection (called a J-turn by MSHA) was used in some locations. The first
J-turn was installed on US-15 near the Pennsylvania border and later on US-301 east of the Bay
Bridge.
Another independent development of the RCUT intersection occurred in western North Carolina
on a narrow, high-speed, four-lane highway through the mountains (US-23/74 near the Blue
6
Ridge Parkway). At this location, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
was attempting to mitigate an issue with conflicts from left-turning minor street traffic without
installing signals. However, there was insufficient right-of-way to widen the median to create a
refuge. The solution at this location was to install a series of RCUT intersections in 2000 that
continue to operate effectively.
APPLICATION
Exhibit 1-4 shows the location of each existing RCUT intersection in the United States, as of the
publication of this guide.
Exhibit 1-4. Locations of RCUT Intersections.
Exhibit 1-5 through Exhibit 1-12 feature photos of RCUT intersections that illustrate different
contextual environments and a variety of design features.
7
Exhibit 1-5. Signalized RCUT intersection on US-281 in San Antonio, TX with four-lane
major street and four-lane minor street.(2)
8
Exhibit 1-6. Stop-controlled RCUT intersection on US-1 near Southern Pines, NC.(2)
Exhibit 1-7. Merge-controlled RCUT intersection on US-15 in Emmitsburg, MD.(3)
9
Exhibit 1-8. RCUT intersection on US-15/501 in Chapel Hill, NC with no left-turn

crossovers.(2)
10
Exhibit 1-9. Loon implemented on RCUT intersection in Wilmington, NC.(3)
Exhibit 1-10. Signalized RCUT intersection in operation near San Antonio, TX showing a
pedestrian “Z” crossing.(3)
11
Exhibit 1-11. Three-legged RCUT intersection on US-17 at Brunswick Forest Parkway in

Leland, NC.(2)
12
Exhibit 1-12. RCUT corridor on US-17 in Leland, NC.(4)
RESOURCE DOCUMENTS
This RCUT intersection guide is supplemental to major resource documents including but not
limited to:
• A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] Green Book)(5)
• Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)(6)
• Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)(7)
13
• Highway Safety Manual (HSM)(8)
• Other research documents that appear and are more specialized to specific areas of the
guide include various National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
reports, Transportation Research Board (TRB) papers, and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) publications
The following supplemental resource documents related to the RCUT are also available:
• Economic Effects of Access Management Techniques in North Carolina by Cunningham,

et al.(9)
• Operational Effects of Signalized Superstreets in North Carolina by Haley et al.(10)
• Superstreet Benefits and Capacities by Hummer et al.(11)
• Field Evaluation of a Restricted Crossing U-turn Intersection by Inman and Haas.(12)
• Safety Effects of Unsignalized Superstreets in North Carolina, Accident Analysis and
Prevention by Ott et al.(13)
• Evaluation of J-turn Intersection Design Performance in Missouri, by Edara, et al.(14)
14
CHAPTER 2— POLICY AND PLANNING

This chapter contains guidance on how to consider alternative intersections in general and RCUT
intersections in particular. This chapter summarizes policy and planning considerations related to
RCUT intersections. The remaining chapters of this guide will provide specific details of the
multimodal, safety, operations, geometric design, and traffic control features of RCUT
intersections.
Alternative intersections are often initially considered for operational or safety needs, and other
key factors may include spatial requirements and multimodal needs. This chapter provides
approximate footprints for different types of RCUT intersections to allow for planning-level
screening and feasibility analysis.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS AND

INTERCHANGES
Alternative intersection evaluations may vary depending on the stage of the project development
process. Each project stage can affect how the policy and technical considerations are assessed.
While the operational aspects, design, safety, human factors, and signing controls are considered
at every stage of the development process, a planning-level design evaluation may not require
the same level of analysis or detailed evaluation of each consideration as projects in later
development stages. Evaluations may vary but should generally be as comprehensive as needed
to answer key project questions for each unique project context.
Serving Pedestrians and Bicycles
The unique geometrics and traffic control at a RCUT intersection can introduce both benefits and
challenges to pedestrians and bicyclists. Integrating pedestrian and bicycle needs at an early
stage of the project planning process, rather than simply incorporating these elements in the latter
stages of design, yields a higher quality solution.
A RCUT intersection reduces the total number of vehicle-pedestrian conflict points compared to
a conventional intersection, creates shorter and more direct paths at some pedestrian crossings,
and—at a signalized RCUT intersection—pedestrians will be able to use a larger portion of the
cycle. A RCUT intersection also provides opportunities for additional mid-block crosswalks,
particularly at the U-turn crossovers.
At a RCUT intersection, the layout of pedestrian crossings may be quite different from most
other intersection designs (including other alternative intersections), so details related to
navigation for visually impaired pedestrians are critical. Some paths for crossing pedestrians are
longer than at a conventional intersection, and some crossing movements will require pedestrians
to wait in the median. Accommodating bicycles at an RCUT, as with any intersection, begins
with the decision about whether or not to provide exclusive bicycle facilities, including marked
and buffered bike lanes, off-road shared-use paths, shoulder accommodations, etc. Once this
decision is made, the RCUT design must properly accommodate the ability of bicyclists to
navigate through or turn at the intersection. The unique geometry and channelization of an
15
RCUT may necessitate bicycle movements that are dissimilar from motor vehicle movements.
Chapter 3 provides more detail on multimodal design options.
Traffic Volume Relationships
Exhibit 2-1 conceptually depicts the relationship of conventional intersections, alternative

intersections, and grade separations in their ability to serve increasing traffic volumes.
16
Exhibit 2-1. Relationship between total entering volume and intersection type.
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
Similar to other transportation projects, stakeholder outreach is a critical part of the overall
planning process. Successfully implementing the first RCUT intersection in a community may
17
benefit from explicit and proactive outreach and education to affected stakeholders and the
general public. This would create opportunities to familiarize others with how the intersections
work while creating opportunities to hear of general project and RCUT intersection specific
issues and considerations. Creating multiple forums to engage the public (including presentations
at local council or board meetings, briefs at community organization functions, and project-
specific open house meetings) results in opportunities so listen to community interests and share
objective information about the intersection form.
Media campaigns through local newspapers, television, and public meetings can be effective
methods of keeping the community informed. Exhibit 2-2 is an example of an informational map
used by NCDOT for explaining RCUT intersections (superstreet intersections) to drivers.
Stakeholder outreach should also target other uses including pedestrians and bicyclists. Once the
intersection is open to the public, monitoring driver behavior and using law enforcement as
necessary to promote proper use of the new form can aid driver acclimation.
18
Exhibit 2-2. Superstreet intersection public brochure from NCDOT.(4)
19
NCDOT has developed a graphic to provide additional information and visuals for users of the
superstreet intersection, as shown in Exhibit 2-3.
Exhibit 2-3. Superstreet intersection graphic by NCDOT.(15)
Videos are another helpful tool for public outreach and user education implemented by many
agencies to demonstrate RCUT intersections. Some of the videos are developed through
simulation tools, and others may show a road view to illustrate what drivers may expect when
they travel through this type of intersection. Exhibit 2-4 illustrates multiple screen shots from a
simulation video used by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Exhibit 2-5
shows screen shots from a video used by MnDOT to demonstrate a school bus and heavy vehicle
using a RCUT intersection.
Exhibit 2-4. Reduced conflict intersection video by MnDOT.(16)
20
Exhibit 2-5. J-Turn intersection video by MoDOT.(17)
FHWA has created alternative intersection and interchange informational videos and video case
studies, which can be viewed on the FHWA YouTube channel
(https://www.youtube.com/user/USDOTFHWA).(18) In addition, FHWA has developed
alternative intersection brochures that can be found on the FHWA website (
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov).(19) Examples of this information are shown in the appendix.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Designing, operating, and managing a street and its intersections should align with the
appropriate jurisdictional policies associated with that facility. The facility location and type can
often dictate the appropriateness of the right-of-way and access management needs associated
with alternative intersections. The degree to which motor vehicle throughput should or should
not be prioritized over other modes also plays a role in determining the appropriateness of
alternative intersections at specific locations.
Some of the policy considerations that should be addressed while planning and designing a
RCUT intersection include:
• Access management
o Typical, minimum, and maximum U-turn crossover spacing
o Driveway spacing or signal spacing criteria
• Operational measures of effectiveness
• If signalized, acceptable cycle lengths, progression speeds, and progression bandwidths
• Design vehicles in crossovers
• Pedestrian facilities with access and wayfinding for persons with disabilities, including
the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 (the
Rehabilitation Act)(20)
21
• Bicycle facilities
• Snow removal and storage
• Incident management
• Emergency response needs
The RCUT intersection is a corridor treatment for an arterial and is not typically needed on
collectors or local streets. This intersection type is not typically suitable for an intersection of
two arterials. RCUT intersections with stop-control or merges are typically used as safety
treatments or as an interim treatment at an isolated intersection on rural high-speed four-lane
arterials. While signalized RCUT intersections may be used at isolated intersection locations, a
corridor treatment with multiple installations in an urban or suburban area can provide the most
efficient progression benefits.
Access management considerations when reviewing potential RCUT intersection installations.

are listed below:
• Access management particularly applies to signalized RCUT intersections. However, as

many unsignalized RCUT intersections eventually become signalized, access should be
considered in all types of RCUT intersections.
• RCUT intersections can provide opportunities for adjacent driveways and side streets.
There are also opportunities for a driveway at the end of a U-turn crossover.
• RCUT intersection designs have significant flexibility with locating the crossover.
Crossovers can be moved within generous limits to accommodate access needs.
Crossover spacing is typically based on signal visibility and queuing.
• RCUT intersections provide significant progression benefits along a corridor, which can
allow for speed control using the signals. Areas with multiple access points and high
pedestrian activity may choose to use lower speeds.
• RCUT intersection corridors can accommodate more signals than a conventional

intersection corridor, while still producing lower through vehicle delays, due to the
efficient progression of the signalized RCUT intersections. This allows agencies to
provide signalized driveways and crossovers for various types of development.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The following are planning considerations for alternative intersection design:
• Community goals – Outside of formalized land use policies, cities and communities
often have general goals that provide insights about the nature and character of their
community. These goals can range from concepts that preserve a historic character or
identified heritage to creating walkable communities or complete streets. Other goals can
22
be to encourage economic development by preserving existing business or residential

areas while encouraging thoughtful development. Regardless of the specific goals or
vision, these considerations may influence street and intersection design.
• Surrounding land uses and zoning – RCUT intersections are well suited for any type of
zoning or surrounding land uses. RCUT intersections could particularly provide benefit
on a main street through a dense downtown area.
• Project context – Key questions that help to identify stakeholders for a particular project
might include:
o What is the purpose and function of the existing or planned road facilities?
o What are the existing and planned land uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the
road facilities?
o Who will likely desire to use the road facilities given the existing and planned
land uses?
o What are the existing and anticipated future socio-demographic characteristics of

the populations adjacent to and in the vicinity of the existing or planned road
facilities?
o What are the perceived or actual shortcomings of the existing road facilities?
o Who has jurisdiction over the facility?
o Where is capital funding for the project originating (or expected to originate)?
o Who will operate and maintain the facility?
• Multimodal considerations – Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit needs should play a role in
selecting an intersection form and the developing design elements of the intersection.
• Design vehicles – The intersection geometry will need to accommodate transit,

emergency vehicles, freight, and potentially oversize and overweight (OSOW) vehicles.
• Types of RCUT intersections – Stop-controlled RCUT intersections are typically used

as a safety countermeasure, RCUT intersections with merges are often used as an interim
measure instead of implementing an interchange, and RCUT intersections with signals
are an arterial corridor treatment.
• Kramer’s Arterial Theory – Kramer’s arterial theory describes the goal of wide and
continuous progression bands along an arterial at a desirable speed in both directions of
the corridor. In some cases, adjusting the lead and lag left-turn phases at conventional
signals can allow those desired progression bands. Signalized RCUT intersections are
needed where conventional signals with lead and lag left turns do not provide sufficient
bandwidths.
23
• Side street demand – A signalized RCUT intersection has a side street demand limit of
approximately 25,000 vehicles per day (vpd), which is derived from HCM calculations.
This assumes a U-turn crossover accommodates the minor street left-turn and through
movement, the crossover is a maximum of two lanes, and the crossover uses no more
than one-third of the signal cycle.
• CAP-X – CAP-X is a suitable tool for evaluating a RCUT intersection capacity at a

planning level. Additional information on CAP-X can be found in the Appendix.
• RCUT and other alternative intersections – RCUT intersections have the potential to
complement other alternative intersections such as MUT or DLT intersections. A
signalized RCUT intersection is typically used along a corridor, while MUT and DLT
intersections are often used in high-demand locations. MUT and DLT intersections can
provide good progression, but not as favorable as the RCUT intersection, particularly in
both directions of the corridor.
PLANNING CHALLENGES
The following are several challenges associated with planning RCUT intersections:
• Driver education – Successful implementations of alternative intersections are often

preceded by public outreach and education campaigns, which are typically not conducted
for conventional intersection improvements.
• Driver expectation – Alternative intersections relocate one or more movements from

their conventional location, potentially resulting in driver confusion. However, a RCUT
intersection is typically easier to navigate than a MUT or DLT intersection since major
street drivers follow the same path as a conventional intersection and minor street
vehicles are only given the choice to turn right at the main junction.
• Multimodal facilities– As with any street segment or intersection, each configuration

must consider and serve the various users who currently or may be expected to use the
facilities. This should always include pedestrians and bicycles, understanding that the
exact provisions may necessarily vary from site to site. However, pedestrian facilities
must always be made accessible. RCUT intersections are generally compatible with
transit as well.
• Sufficient corridor right-of-way – Some alternative intersections can have a larger

overall footprint or require more right-of-way in certain areas compared to an equivalent
conventional design. Although RCUT intersections generally are known to have wide
medians, they can also work with narrower medians when bump-outs or “loons” are used
to accommodate U-turn crossovers. There is flexibility in locating the U-turn crossover,
allowing agencies to minimize the right-of-way cost of loons.
• Emergency vehicle use and fire or ambulance station location – Emergency vehicles
operating along the main street at a RCUT intersection or serving a crash on the RCUT
intersection are not expected to have concerns. However, vehicles responding from an
24
emergency station along the minor street near a RCUT intersection would likely
experience delay.
PROJECT PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Measuring the effectiveness of overall project performance depends on the nature or catalyst for
the project. Understanding the intended specific operational, safety, and geometric performance
context for each intersection or corridor, including intended users, guides project assessments.
The project performance may be directly linked to the specific design choices and performance
of the alternatives considered. The project performance categories described below can influence
and are influenced by the specific RCUT intersection design elements and their
characteristics.(21)
Accessibility
Chapter 3 of this guide describes accessibility as it relates to special consideration given to

pedestrians with disabilities including accommodating pedestrians with vision or mobility
impairments. However, for the purposes of considering a project’s general context and the
performance considerations, the term “accessibility” goes beyond the conversation of policy
related to ADA and Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) and is meant to
be considered in broader terms.(22) With respect to considering applicable intersection forms for
a given project context, accessibility is defined broadly as the ability to approach a desired
destination or potential opportunity for activity using highways and streets (including the
sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes provided within those rights-of-way). This could include the
ability for a large design vehicle to navigate an intersection as much as it might pertain to the
application of snow mobiles or equestrian uses in some environments or conditions.
Mobility
Mobility is defined as the ability to move various users efficiently from one place to another
using highways and streets. Mobility can sometimes be associated with motorized vehicular
movement and capacity. For the purposes of this guide, mobility is meant to be independent of
any particular travel mode.
Quality of Service
Quality of service is defined as the perceived quality of travel by a road user. It is used in the
2010 Highway Capacity Manual to assess multimodal level of service for motorists, pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit riders. Quality of service may also include the perceived quality of travel
by design vehicle users such as truck or bus drivers.
Reliability
Reliability is defined as the consistency of performance over a series of time periods (e.g., hour-
to-hour, day-to-day, year-to-year).
25
Safety
Safety is defined as the expected frequency and severity of crashes occurring on highways and
streets. Expected crash frequencies and severities are often disaggregated by type, including
whether or not a crash involves a non-motorized user or a specific vehicle type (e.g., heavy
vehicle, transit vehicle, motorcycle). In cases where certain crash types or severities are small in
number, as is often the case with pedestrian- or bicycle-involved, it may be necessary to review a
longer period of time to gain a more accurate understanding.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
For the purposes of this guide, the project development process is defined as consisting of the
stages described below. Federal, state, and local agencies may have different names or other
nomenclature with the overall intent of advancing from planning to implementation. Exhibit 2-6
illustrates the overall project development process.
Exhibit 2-6. Project development process.
Planning Studies
Planning studies often include exercises such as problem identification and other similar steps to
ensure there is a connection between the project purpose and need and the geometric concepts
being considered. Planning studies could include limited geometric concepts on the general type
or magnitude of project solutions to support programming.
Alternatives Identification and Evaluation
The project needs identified in prior planning studies inform concept identification,
development, and evaluation. At this stage, it is critical to understand the project context and
intended outcomes so potential solutions may be tailored to meet project needs within the
opportunities and constraints of a given effort. FHWA describes context sensitive solutions as
“… a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders in providing a
transportation facility that fits its setting.”(23) In considering the concept of “context sensitive
design/solutions,” this stage calls for meaningful and continuous stakeholder engagement to
progress through the project development process.
26
Preliminary Design
Concepts advancing from the previous stage are further refined and screened during preliminary
design. For more complex, detailed, or impactful projects, the preliminary design (typically 30-
percent design level plans) and subsequent documentation are used to support more complex
state or federal environmental clearance activities. The corresponding increased geometric
design detail allows for refined technical evaluations and analyses that inform environmental
clearance activities. Preliminary design builds upon the geometric evaluations conducted as part
of the previous stage (alternatives identification and evaluation). Some of the common
components of preliminary design include:
• Horizontal and vertical alignment design
• Typical sections
• Grading plans
• Structures
• Traffic/intelligent transportation systems (ITS)
• Signing and pavement markings
• Illumination
• Utilities
Final Design
The design elements are advanced and refined in final design. Typical review periods include 60-
percent, 90-percent, and 100-percent plans before completing the final set of PS&E. During this
stage, there is relatively little variation in design decisions as the plan advances to 100-percent.
Functionally, in this stage of the project development process, the targeted performance
measures have a lesser degree of influence on the form of the project.
Construction
Construction may be related to temporary streets, connections, or conditions that facilitate

construction. Project performance measures may relate to project context elements.
SUMMARY OF RCUT ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
As described in Chapter 1 and the previous sections of this chapter, RCUT intersections have
unique features and characteristics, including multimodal considerations, safety performance,
operations, geometric design, spatial requirements, constructability, and maintenance.
27
Exhibit 2-7 provides an overview of the primary advantages and disadvantages of RCUT
intersections for users, policy makers, designers, and planners to understand when considering
this type of alternative intersection form.
28
Exhibit 2-7. Summary of RCUT intersection advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Reduces conflicts between vehicles and • Increases conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians for most crossing movements pedestrians for some crossing movements
• Creates shorter pedestrian crossing • Creates longer pedestrian crossing
distance for some movements distances for some movements, which
• Creates opportunities to install mid-block could add delay and reduce convenience
signalized crossings in many places along • Requires pedestrians to cross in two
an arterial stages in some cases, which could add
Non-motorized
delay and reduce convenience
users
• Overall pedestrian wayfinding may
require additional signs and other features
to create appropriate crossings for
pedestrians of all abilities
• Provisions for bicycle facilities may be
very different from conventional
intersections, and may result in reduced
convenience.
• At rural four-lane sites, reduces crashes, • Increases sideswipe crashes
injuries, and fatalities • Increases travel distances which could
Safety
• Reduces turning and angle crashes lead to more crashes that are related to
• Reduces vehicle-pedestrian conflict points distance traveled, such as animal and run-
off-road crashes
• Creates the possibility for the largest • Increases travel distance (and potentially
possible progression bands in both travel time) for minor street left turn and
directions of the arterial at any speed with through movements
any signal spacing • Experiences a firm capacity
• Provides potential to reduce overall travel • Creates potential for spillback out of
time at signalized sites crossover storage lane
• Provides potential to reduce delay and • Minor street left turn and through drivers
Operations travel time for arterial through traffic at must make unusual maneuvers and may
signalized sites need additional guidance
• Provides potential for shorter signal cycle
lengths
• Allows larger portion of signal cycle to be
allocated to the arterial through movement
• Reduces the need for signalization of
intersections along rural, high-speed,
divided highways
• Provides multiple driveway or side street • Does not allow driveway or side street
locations along the RCUT corridor near entrance to U-turn crossover
• Signals for driveways or side streets may • Landowners will not have driveways with
Access be installed without introducing significant direct left turns out of their properties
management extra delay for arterial through movement
• Allows flexibility for crossover locations
to accommodate adjacent driveways and
side streets
• Does not require frontage roads
29
Advantages Disadvantages
• Two-way progression capabilities provide • The additional barrier to direct minor
the opportunity to set any progression street through traffic across arterial could
Traffic calming
speed (even low speed) be a concern for communities that
• Provides an additional barrier to fast minor straddle the arterial and desire direct
street through traffic across arterial vehicle connections
• The greater arterial throughput creates • May require additional right-of-way for
Space possibility to reduce the basic number of loons or wider medians
through lanes on the arterial and achieve
similar service levels
• Less queuing on the arterial may reduce • When signalized, there are more signal
pavement rutting and wear controllers and cabinets than a
comparable conventional intersection
• There are more signs than a comparable
Maintenance conventional intersection
• If designed with a larger median, there is
more to maintain than a comparable
conventional intersection
• More pavement to maintain in U-turn
crossovers and loons
Aesthetics • Median and islands provide opportunity
for landscaping
30
CHAPTER 3—MULTIMODAL CONSIDERATIONS

This chapter provides an overview of multimodal facilities at RCUT intersections and how
provisions for pedestrians and bicycles should influence the overall planning and design of these
intersections. Several of the guidelines presented here are based on elements of the AASHTO
Green Book, but applied within the unique context of a RCUT intersection.(5) The overall
objective is to develop a design, regardless of the type of intersection, compatible with a
Complete Street. A Complete Street is a facility that serves many types of users including
freight, transit, and non-motorized users.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH
A RCUT intersection has the potential to deliver more safety and efficiency benefits to motor
vehicles than a comparable conventional intersection in some contexts. With proper design, a
RCUT intersection can also benefit users of other modes, especially pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit passengers. The RCUT intersection is an adaptable design that can be effective in rural
setting as well as in urban settings where the objectives are to provide a suitable environment for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users while moving vehicles at an appropriate speed.
• Signalized RCUT forms can be used in various land use settings to meet the need of a
variety of modal users
• Unsignalized RCUT forms may also serve a variety of users, including farm equipment in
rural areas. Some unsignalized RCUT intersections in Minnesota have slightly depressed
channelizing islands to allow farm equipment to directly make a minor street through
movement
RCUT intersection planning and design should consider the variety of transportation modes
using the intersection. The following elements should be evaluated when considering a RCUT
intersection:
• RCUT intersections may be unfamiliar for many users. Pedestrians and bicyclists will
need to learn how to use or cross the intersection. Both the intersection’s geometry and
traffic control devices can help pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate the intersection
safely and effectively.
• The RCUT may have a wider median and reduced number of traffic signal phases
compared to a conventional intersection, which can introduce both benefits and
challenges to pedestrians, bicyclists, transit passengers, and persons with disabilities.
• Large vehicles require adequate paved areas to accommodate their swept paths.
Therefore, the geometry of the intersection and all its associated movements need to
accommodate the design vehicle for the facility.
• RCUT intersections may be designed with merges on high-speed rural four-lane

highways as an alternative to an interchange or overpass. In these cases, designers should
expect heavy vehicles.
31
This chapter describes the unique characteristics of the four primary non-auto modes
(pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and heavy vehicles) that should be considered when analyzing
and designing RCUT intersections. Understanding and identify the various users and their needs
within the RCUT configuration will guide planning and design decisions at a given intersection
location.
PEDESTRIANS
RCUT intersections require pedestrian crossings that differ from conventional intersections.
More movements are unsignalized, and there are a greater percentage vehicles turning right. The
RCUT intersection’s wide geometric footprint can make it challenging to accommodate
pedestrians but the short cycle lengths associated with RCUT intersection operations can help
make pedestrian movements more comparable to crossing times at conventional intersections.
Pedestrian crossings at RCUT intersections must be accessible for all users, including those with
visual impairments. Therefore, the provisions for pedestrians must take into account the need to
communicate crossing patterns in non-visual ways, using wayfinding techniques that are
discussed in the PROWAG.(22) This may include audible devices, channelization, and separation
and detectable delineation of the pedestrian route and crossing.
At this time, the most common means of serving pedestrians at a RCUT intersection is a “Z”
crossing treatment. Exhibit 3-1 shows a “Z” crossing treatment.
Exhibit 3-1. Pedestrian movements in a RCUT intersection.
A “Z” crossing allows all six desired pedestrian movements at an intersection. The two minor
street crossings (A to B, C to D) are made similarly to a conventional intersection. Three of the
movements (A to C, B to D, and A to D) require pedestrians to take a longer, unconventional
route. The sixth movement (B to C) requires pedestrians to take a shorter, unconventional route.
32
Unintended crossing routes (A to C directly, B to D directly) should be discouraged through the

use of buffer treatments. Exhibit 3-2 shows a “Z” crossing at a signalized RCUT intersection
near San Antonio, TX.
The major road crossing distance could be shortened by adding a raised barrier or channelization
between major street through lanes and major street right turn lanes.
Exhibit 3-2. Signalized RCUT with “Z” crossing near San Antonio, TX.(3)
Pedestrians using the “Z” crossing at a RCUT intersection encounter fewer conflicting traffic
streams than at a conventional intersection. At a conventional intersection, pedestrians cross the
entire street width during the vehicle phase of the parallel road. Exhibit 3-3 shows the traffic
movements and conflict points that pedestrians experience at a conventional intersection.
33
Exhibit 3-3. Pedestrian-vehicle conflict points at conventional intersection.
In comparison, Exhibit 3-4 shows the pedestrian conflict points with a RCUT intersection
design. At a RCUT intersection, the left turns are removed from the minor street and occur away
from the intersection, thus removing potential pedestrian exposure to left-turning vehicles.
However, the volume of vehicles turning right to the minor street is higher than at a conventional
intersection.
Exhibit 3-4. Pedestrian-vehicle conflict points at RCUT intersection.
A RCUT intersection reduces the number of vehicle-pedestrian conflict points from 24 to 8 using
a “Z” crossing. Movements requiring a longer unconventional route or having more conflict
points may tempt some pedestrians to directly cross the major street (i.e., C to A or B to D), or
cross from the center diagonal island (E) to one of the alternate quadrants (i.e., A or D). Several
34
options, described in the next section, can be considered for discouraging undesirable pedestrian
crossings.
Additional Crossing Options
Exhibit 3-5 shows a variation of the RCUT intersection design in which the minor street
approaches are offset to allow a perpendicular pedestrian crossing of the major street. This has a
minimal impact on vehicle operations at most RCUT intersections. A shorter crossing distance
decreases the pedestrian exposure to moving vehicles on the major street. Wayfinding signing
and other devices would be needed to direct pedestrians to the crossing locations and deter them
from crossing at the minor street intersections. This minor street offset design is typically not
feasible where streets already exist, but in a developing area where minor street or driveway
locations have not been established this variation should be strongly considered.
Exhibit 3-5. RCUT intersection with minor street approaches offset to produce a shorter
pedestrian crossing.
An advantage of the RCUT intersection, compared to many other at-grade intersections and
arterials, is the flexibility for traffic signal placement on the corridor. Because each direction of
travel on the arterial can operate independently (i.e., similar to individual one-way streets),
negligible vehicle delay to major-street vehicles results when installing additional traffic signals,
as the signals can be timed to progress major-street vehicles. This feature allows mid-block
pedestrian signals to be installed with minimal impact on vehicular travel time. Exhibit 3-6
shows three U-turn crossover configurations lending themselves to signalized mid-block
pedestrian crossings, including one where there are two U-turn crossovers near each other, one
where there are two U-turn crossovers some distance from each other, and one where there is one
U-turn crossover.
35
Exhibit 3-6. Three types of signalized mid-block crossing feasible on RCUT corridor.
In the latter case in Exhibit 3-6, the signal controlling the lower crossing can be a specialized
signal, such as a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB; formerly known as a HAWK signal), to further
minimize the impact to main street vehicle traffic. A PHB is only applicable in the latter case
because in the first and second cases a conventional signal is needed to control vehicle traffic at
the U-turn crossover.
36
The pedestrian crossing of a three-legged RCUT intersection requires at least one mid-block
crosswalk, as shown in Exhibit 3-7. The crossing route is direct. The optional second mid-block
crosswalk, just beyond the U-turn crossover, would reduce the amount of out-of-direction travel
for some pedestrians. As it provides sizeable benefits to pedestrians at a minimal cost and impact
to major street vehicles, the second crossing should be strongly considered.
Exhibit 3-7. Pedestrian crossing of three-legged RCUT intersection.
Travel Time Experiment
Four pedestrian crossing treatments, shown in Exhibit 3-8, were evaluated by a recent research
project sponsored by the NCDOT.(24) The researchers used a calibrated microsimulation model in
a factorial experiment, systematically varying cycle length from 90 to 180 seconds, major street
green split from 60- to 80-percent, and signal offsets. Pedestrians had origins and destinations in
all four quadrants around the intersection, half of the pedestrians complied with all signals and
half did not comply if a suitable gap presented itself, the major and minor streets both had four
lanes, and the median was 40 feet wide. Exhibit 3-8 summarizes the pedestrian treatments and
the modeled operational results of the four alternatives.
37
pedestrians.
Mean Total Delay

Mean Travel Time per Pedestrian
Crossing Type Illustration per Pedestrian (Sec) (Sec)
“Z” 465 132
Signalized Mid-block 479 119
Median Cross 487 160
Barnes Dance (exclusive

422 102
pedestrian phase)
In many situations where an RCUT is being considered, the Barnes Dance exclusive pedestrian
phase may not be practical due to operational trade-offs, but was included in the experiment to
provide perspective to the other alternatives. As seen in Exhibit 3-8, the Barnes Dance produced
the least pedestrian delay, while the median cross produced the greatest pedestrian delay of the
modeled scenarios. Based on the extent of vehicle delay created by the Barnes Dance signal
phasing, the researchers recommended a “Z” crossing or a combination of the “Z” crossing along
38
with signalized mid-block crossings.(24) Choosing the appropriate type of crossing, including
signalization, depends on the context of the corridor and intersection under study.
Channeling Pedestrians to Cross Correctly
Wayfinding signing (and other wayfinding devices for the visually-impaired) can help direct
pedestrians through the intersection to their desired destinations. Adequate wayfinding signing
and other devices help direct pedestrians who are unfamiliar with a RCUT intersection’s
designated crossing patterns to cross streets at the appropriate locations.
Channelization, such as curbs, railings or landscaping, may be used to help pedestrians locate
and use intended crossing locations. However, choices on the types of channelizing devices or
features should take into account the proximity to traffic and appropriate roadside design
principles. An example of a shared use path across a RCUT intersection is shown in in Exhibit 3-
9. Exhibit 3-10 shows an example of a two-stage channelized pedestrian crossing at a
conventional intersection in Tucson, AZ. Similar to a RCUT intersection, each crossing operates
independently to enable bi-directional progression on the corridor.
Exhibit 3-9. Median shared-use path design for the US Route 15/501 RCUT intersection in
North Carolina.(25)
39
Exhibit 3-10. Two-stage channelized pedestrian crossing at conventional intersection.(25)
ADA and PROWAG Accessibility Considerations
Accessibility was previous described in Chapter 2 in the broader contexts of considering a

project’s contextual environment and the ability for various users to approach a desired
destination or potential opportunity for activity using highways and streets (including the
sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes provided within those rights-of-way). In this section, accessibility
is explicitly focused on the policies related to ADA and Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility
Guidelines (PROWAG).(22) Special consideration should be given to pedestrians with disabilities
including accommodating pedestrians with vision or mobility impairments. Being relatively new
on a national level, specific guidance for “Accessible RCUTs” is not yet available. However,
general accessibility principles can be borrowed from other forms of intersections and applied
here. The United States Access Board provides many additional resources on accessibility and
specific requirements for Accessible Public Rights of Way, to which the transportation
professional should refer to and be familiar.(22)
The basic principles for accessible design can be divided into the pedestrian walkway and the
pedestrian crossing location. For the pedestrian walkways, the following considerations apply:
• Delineate the walkway through landscaping, curbing, or fencing to assist with wayfinding
for blind pedestrians
• Provide sufficient space (length and width) and recommended slope rates for wheelchair
users and other non-motorized users such people pushing strollers, walking bicycles, and
others
• Construct an appropriate landing with flat slope and sufficient size at crossing points
For pedestrian crossing locations, these additional considerations apply:
• Provide curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces at the edge of the sidewalk and
transition to the street
40
• Separation of the pedestrian path from the back of curb and delineation of the pedestrian
route using vegetative or other type of buffer
• Provide accessible pedestrian signals with locator tone at signalized crossings
• There is little experience with pedestrian crossings at unsignalized RCUT intersections.

Treatments such as pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) and rectangular rapid flash beacons
(RRFB) may be appropriate.
• Locate push-buttons to be accessible by wheelchairs and adjacent to the crossing at a

minimum separation of 10 feet
• Use audible speech messages where spacing is less than 10 feet, or where additional
narrative for the expected direction of traffic is needed (as may be the case for many
major street crossings at RCUT intersections)
• Align the curb ramp landing to the intended crossing direction
• Crosswalk width through the intersection should be wide enough to permit pedestrians
and wheelchairs to pass without delay from opposing directions, and the medians should
provide sufficient storage for all non-motorized users to safely wait when two-stage
crossing is required
All pedestrians—but especially those with vision, mobility, or cognitive impairments—may

benefit from targeted outreach and additional informational material created with pedestrians in
mind. These outreach materials include information on crosswalk placement and intended
behavior, as well as answers to frequently asked questions. For blind pedestrians, materials need
to be presented in an accessible format, with sufficient descriptions of all features of the RCUT
intersection.
If all minor street lanes of a RCUT are channelized, accessibility considerations are similar to a
conventional intersection approach without channelization. If a RCUT has a channelizing island
separating some right-turn lanes from others, like the RCUT shown in Exhibit 1-5, sections of
the PROWAG for channelized turn lanes at conventional signalized intersections will apply.(22)
The pedestrian and vehicle paths in a RCUT intersection will likely be new to pedestrians, and
extra guidance should be provided, especially for those users with vision or cognitive
impairments who may not be able to use wayfinding signs. Some of the cues that pedestrians
with vision impairments rely on to cross intersections (e.g., sound of traffic parallel to their
crossing) will be different at the RCUT intersection. Locator tones on pedestrian signals and
detectable warning surfaces are suggested. Audible pedestrian signals will be required at all new
pedestrian traffic signals and are particularly beneficial at an unconventional intersection like a
RCUT configuration.
Design features, such as smaller curb radii, minimize crossing distances at these locations and
encourage pedestrians to cross in crosswalks. Minimizing conflicts between pedestrians and
41
vehicles by prohibiting right-turn-on-red (RTOR), especially for the major street right turns
which typically have long green phases, may also provide safer pedestrian crossings.
Signal Phasing
For the “Z” crossing, pedestrians can cross the major street in one or two stages, depending on
the signal timing offsets that define when a progression band arrives in each direction on the
major street. A one-stage crossing occurs when the pedestrian can cross the main street without
waiting in the median for a “walk” signal to cross the second direction. A two-stage crossing
results when the pedestrian must wait in the median. Two signal phases are used to operate most
RCUT intersections, which can result in a shorter cycle length. Therefore, the delay experienced
by a pedestrian making a two-stage crossing should be relatively small compared to a two-stage
crossing at a conventional intersection.(3)
Some pedestrian crossings at a RCUT intersection may have longer crossing distances and more
conflict points compared to a conventional intersection despite the overall reduction in vehicle-
pedestrian conflict points at the intersection. However, in contrast to most conventional
signalized intersections with permissive (green ball) left and right turns, most pedestrian-vehicle
conflict points at a RCUT intersection are protected. The only permissive conflict at a signalized
RCUT intersection with a “Z” crossing involves the main street right-turning traffic and
pedestrians crossing the minor street, although there will be a heavier volume of main street
right-turning volume at a RCUT than at a comparable conventional intersection.
Signal design considerations are discussed in Chapter 8 of this guide.
BICYCLISTS
Bicycles on the major roadway travel though a RCUT the same way they travel through a
conventional intersection. Minor street left-turning or through bicycles do not have a direct route
at a RCUT intersection if they are travelling in vehicular lanes. At the same time, newer and
reconstructed streets in many communities typically integrate Complete Streets policies that
include bicycle facilities. RCUT intersections can be designed to reduce or eliminate out-of-
direction travel by bicyclists. Consequently, both the challenges and benefits RCUT intersections
offer bicyclists must be carefully evaluated to guide project planning and design decisions.
Major Street
Major street through and right-turning bicyclists at a RCUT intersection encounter relatively
more green time percentages for their movements, resulting in lower delay and, potentially,
fewer stops for red lights. RCUT intersections are generally constructed on higher-volume
roadways, so physically separating bicycle lanes from general purpose lanes using buffered bike
lanes, cycle tracks or similar treatments may be appropriate. Major street bicyclists turning left
can ride in the left-turn lane or stop at the crosswalk and use the “Z” crossing like a pedestrian.
On the other hand, a higher volume of major street right-turning vehicles occur at RCUT
intersections, compared to conventional intersections, resulting in more exposure between
bicycle through and vehicle right-turn movements. An increasingly common practice at
conventional or alternative intersections is to shift the right turn lane to the right of the bicycle
42
lane, illustrated in Exhibit 3-11. This exhibit identifies the conflict areas between through
bicyclists and right-turning vehicles.
Exhibit 3-11. Right-turn lane with bicycle lane.
Minor Street
There are three primary ways to serve minor street through and left-turn bicyclists in a RCUT
intersection: (1) similar to pedestrians, (2) similar to motor vehicle traffic, or (3) direct bicycle
crossings. These options are illustrated in Exhibit 3-12. Bicyclists who desire to make a left turn
or through movement from the minor street will be required to choose between using the “Z”
crossing like a pedestrian, using the U-turn crossovers like a motorist, or passing through/across
the channelizing island. The “Z” crossing is the best choice for bicyclists if the pathway through
the intersection is designed for shared-use and wide enough to be comfortable for bicyclists.
Otherwise, bicyclists may have to dismount and walk their bicycles across. If a direct bicycle
crossing is not available, the choice of crossing with pedestrians or motorists will likely depend
on the distance to the U-turn crossover and the type of bicyclist. A commuter bicyclist is more
likely to prefer to travel in the street while novice (or recreational) bicyclists may prefer the path
through the median. The choice will also depend on the quality of bicycling possible if riding
with the motorists, determined by features such as the speed of the main street vehicle traffic,
shoulder width or the presence of a bicycle lane, the volume of main street traffic, and the
distance to the U-turn crossover.
43
Exhibit 3-12. Minor street through options for bicycles.
The U-turn may be difficult for bicyclists. Vehicles executing U-turns will have difficulty
staying in lanes, and large vehicles may produce greater off-tracking causing some vehicles to
encroach into lanes occupied by bicyclists. This includes a lane beside a heavy vehicle at a
multilane U-turn crossover, and a major street lane or shoulder opposite a U-turn crossover.
The third option, a direct bicycle crossing, would only be available without a pedestrian “Z”
crossing. This option would be appropriate to design on a rural bicycle touring route without
pedestrian facilities or at a RCUT intersection where a different pedestrian crossing treatment is
used.
Appropriate signing is needed to direct bicycles to the pathway through the median and to assist
a bicyclist in making decisions about riding or walking through the intersection. Exhibit 3-9
(above) shows a shared-use path through the median at a RCUT intersection, and Exhibit 3-10
(above) shows channelizing treatments that could be added to such a crossing (although more
width would probably be necessary for bicycles). Design guidelines for shared-use paths for
individual jurisdictions and at the national level should be referenced for specific
recommendations on geometric elements of the path.(26)
Exhibit 3-13 shows a treatment used in North Carolina to aid minor street left-turning and
through bicyclists in negotiating a rural RCUT intersection with stop-control and no pedestrian
facilities due to the lack of nearby pedestrian-generating land uses. The treatment consists of
curb cuts and narrow paths through the median. Signs should be used to direct bicyclists to the
crossing, since it otherwise may not be apparent it is intended for them.
44
Exhibit 3-13. Curb cut design used in North Carolina to assist bicyclists crossing at a rural
RCUT with stop sign.(27)
Travel Time Experiment
Alternative bicycle crossing treatments at signalized RCUT intersections were explored with a
research project sponsored by the NCDOT.(24) Like the pedestrian crossing experiment presented
earlier, the researchers used a calibrated microsimulation model in a factorial experiment,
systematically varying cycle length from 90 to 180 seconds, major street green split from 60 to
80 percent, and signal offsets. Bicyclists had origins and destinations in all four quadrants around
the intersection, all bicyclists complied with all signals, the major and minor streets both had
four lanes, and the median was 40 feet wide. Exhibit 3-14 summarizes the bicycle treatments and
the operational results of the four modeled alternatives.
45
bicyclists.
Mean Travel Time Total Delay per

Crossing Type Illustration per Bicyclist (Sec) Bicyclist (Sec)
Vehicle U-turn
564 420
Crossover
Signalized Shared-use
428 282
Mid-block Crossing
Bicycle U-turn
542 403
Crossover
Direct Cross 328 210
The minimum free-flowing bicycling time through the network was about 120 seconds. The
direct cross treatment had the lowest modeled delay to bicyclists, while the U-turn crossovers
generally had the highest delay of the modeled scenarios. Although the direct cross treatment
looks promising, there are no known implementations, and there are many details related to
geometric design, signing, and signaling that have not been studied and developed.
46
TRANSIT VEHICLE CONSIDERATION
A RCUT intersection can provide significant benefits to most transit users due to the ability to
progress traffic in both directions along the major street, which results in higher average bus
speeds. However, bus routes following the minor street at a RCUT intersection, or making a
minor street left turn, will likely experience extra time compared to a conventional intersection
as the buses use the U-turn crossovers. U-turn crossovers designed to accommodate large
combination trucks without curb encroachments, as Chapter 8 presents, should be able to
accommodate standard transit and school buses.
Bus Stop Locations
RCUT intersections may serve bus stops on either the intersection’s near- or far-sides, just like at
conventional intersections. Mid-block stops near the U-turn crossover are also an option,
particularly if a signalized crossing on the major street is also provided at this location. Exhibit
3-15 shows these three options. Unique aspects of RCUT intersections that should be considered
when locating bus stops are discussed below.
Exhibit 3-15. Potential bus stop locations at a RCUT intersection.
Far-side bus stops typically result in lower levels of vehicular delay than near-side bus stops.
However, far-side stops at a RCUT intersection with a “Z” crossing place the bus stops away
from the pedestrian crosswalk across the minor street. This placement may encourage prohibited
pedestrian crossings and will increase the time required for alighting bus passengers to reach
destinations on the other side of the street. A far-side stop would be located, in order of
preference, (1) in an exclusive bus lane, (2) in a pullout accessed via the near-side right-turn lane
(exempting buses from the right-turn requirement), and (3) in the curbside travel lane (potentially
blocking cross-street right turns). If a pullout is used, consideration should be given to how the
bus will re-enter the travel lanes.
47
A nearside stop is also an option at a RCUT intersection. In this case, a bus stopped at a nearside
stop in the right-turn lane will block right-turn movements, which could cause motorists to make
undesirable turns in front of the bus from an inside lane. One alternative would be to channelize
the right turn, develop a short bus lane out of the right-turn lane up to the intersection, and to
place the bus stop on the channelizing island. This alternative keeps buses from blocking the
right-turn lane. The two-phase signal operation minimizes delay to buses that fall out of
progression while serving passengers at the bus stop. Buses could be provided with a queue-
jump phase when exiting the stop or could continue on an extension of the bus lane.
When bus routes run along the minor street and must cross the intersection, offering bus stops on
both the near- and far-side of the intersection is preferred. Far-side stops can be located on the
major street at a shared major street/minor street bus stop if major street bus service is present.
Exhibit 3-16 shows major street nearside bus stops can be located in conjunction with minor
street stops and the “Z” crossing.
Exhibit 3-16. Bus stop locations on the minor and major streets at a RCUT intersection.
When a bus route turns left from the major street, the bus stop should be located on the minor
road so buses do not have to weave from the outside lane into the inside lane to use the U-turn.
Bus stops should not be located in loons to keep them free for turning vehicles. An additional
option for bus stop placement at a RCUT intersection is between two U-turn crossovers, as
shown in Exhibit 3-17.
48
Exhibit 3-17. RCUT intersection major street bus stop placement options between U-turn
crossovers.
The advantage of this option is that there is no major street right-turning traffic and bus conflicts
and pedestrians have a signal-controlled crossing of the arterial nearby. However, the
disadvantage of this stop placement is that it is not near the minor street. Bus stops could be
“nearside” in front of the stop bar or “far-side” beyond the stop bar, as Exhibit 3-16 shows;
nearside placement could mean loss of efficiency in the lane where the bus stops are while far-
side placement could mean longer lost times for main street traffic.
RCUT with Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail
A RCUT corridor is efficient for major street movements and could be beneficial to rail transit
operations. As with conventional intersections, bus rapid transit (BRT) or light rail transit (LRT)
could be incorporated at a RCUT intersection. Key elements to be evaluated with the RCUT
operations include route alignment, stop or station placement, and connectivity with pedestrian
crossing locations.
HEAVY VEHICLE CONSIDERATIONS
The typical RCUT crossover can serve heavy vehicle U-turn movements given the wide median
provided in a typical RCUT corridor. The crossover design detail is further described in Chapter
7. A single-lane crossover is designed to provide adequate turning radii and tracking for both the
front and rear ends of trucks. If the median width is less than adequate for larger vehicle U-turns,
additional pavement can be added at the far side of the U-turn crossover in the form of loons (see
Chapter 7).
49
This page intentionally left blank.
50
CHAPTER 4 — SAFETY
This chapter provides an overview of the safety considerations and elements affecting decisions
about RCUT intersections. The chapter begins with a discussion of safety principles and the
theoretical safety attributes of RCUT intersections. The next section describes the empirical
evidence available regarding crash frequency and severity at RCUT intersections. Finally, the
chapter contains sections discussing additional safety considerations, emergency vehicle
considerations, and techniques for evaluating safety at RCUT intersections. RCUT intersections
with stop signs or merges are often installed as safety countermeasures at conventional
intersections to reduce crash frequency and severity. Many other alternative intersection forms,
including RCUT intersections with signals, may offer safety benefits to all road users but are
generally installed to improve traffic operations.
SAFETY PRINCIPLES
Conducting an appropriate level of safety assessment corresponding to the stage of project

development process (planning, alternatives identification and evaluation, preliminary design,
final design, and construction) supports decisions about RCUT intersections. The analysis should
be consistent with the available data, and the data should be consistent with the applied tools.
Multimodal safety principles, including vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-bicycle conflict points,
accessibility, and crossing options, are discussed in Chapter 3.
Reduced Vehicle-Vehicle Conflict Points
Crash data are often used to develop safety performance functions or crash modification factors
(CMFs) to ultimately help professionals make decisions about street network features. Crash data
are often limited or unavailable for some types of facilities. The documented safety performance
of RCUT intersections is limited because they are relatively new and still not common. Safety
surrogates may be useful to support intersection form selection.
While no mathematical relationship between conflict points and crashes has been determined,
conflict points are often used as a surrogate measure, particularly to compare different
intersection forms. Exhibit 4-1 shows the number of vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points present at
three- and four-leg RCUT and conventional intersections. The RCUT intersection offers
substantial decreases in conflict points for three-leg and four-leg intersections compared to
conventional forms.
Exhibit 4-2 shows the conflict diagram for vehicles at a conventional four-leg intersection, while
Exhibit 4-3 shows the conflict diagram for vehicles at a four-leg RCUT intersection. These
diagrams are based on traffic streams, so the number of conflict points does not change as the
numbers of lanes change. At a four-leg intersection, a RCUT has 14 conflict points compared to
32 at a conventional intersection. In addition to reducing total conflict points, RCUT
intersections reduce crossing conflict points. Crossing maneuvers can result in angle crashes a
crash type that is generally more severe than other types.
51
Exhibit 4-1. Conflict point comparison.
Conflict Points
Number of Intersection Legs Conventional RCUT
3 9 7
4 32 14
Exhibit 4-2. Vehicular conflict points at a four-approach conventional intersection.
Exhibit 4-3. Vehicular conflict points at a four-approach RCUT intersection.
52
Speed Profile from Signal Progression
Another safety surrogate, especially for crash severity, is the speed profile along a facility. In this
regard, a corridor of signalized RCUT intersections have an advantage over other alternative
intersections and conventional intersections in that the independent progression for each
direction of travel maximize the percent of green time for the major street and make signal
coordination comparable to a one-way street couplet. This is described further in Chapter 5. With
a RCUT intersection’s progression capability, an agency has greater control over the progression
speed; this could be used, for example, to slow drivers through an area with many signals or to
more easily accommodate pedestrian crossings without disrupting coordination.
Human Factors, Principles, and Considerations
Human factors and driver expectancy suggest motorists typically accustomed to using
conventional intersections position their vehicles to the left side of a directional street when
approaching an intersection where they intend to make a left turn. Similarly, motorists position
their vehicle to the right side of the directional street when approaching an intersection where
they intend to make a right turn. The RCUT intersection is consistent with these expectations for
major street drivers.
Drivers who are unfamiliar with the intersection form and intend to make a left turn or through
movement at the minor street may not expect to first make a right turn at the major cross street.
After making a U-turn and heading back to the main intersection, minor street drivers will have
to move into position for a through or right-turn movement. Compared to intersection designs
that prohibit movements using signs and markings, such as MUT intersections, RCUT
intersections should be easier for drivers to negotiate because channelization typically prevents
drivers from making prohibited movements.
Compared to a conventional intersection form with permissive or protected-permissive left-turn

or right-turn signal phasing, signalized RCUT intersections reduce the decision-making burden
for motorists. Whether the conflicting traffic consists of vehicles or pedestrians or both, turning
drivers using permissive or protected-permissive signals at a conventional intersection have to
look for a gap in vehicle traffic and crossing pedestrian traffic before beginning their turn
movement. In contrast, motorists using the two-phase signals at a RCUT intersection have a
reduced set of decisions to make at each junction. At a typical signalized RCUT intersection,
there are no uncontrolled vehicle-vehicle conflict points. There are two uncontrolled vehicle-
pedestrian conflict points, one at each major street right turn conflicting with pedestrians
crossing the minor street. RCUT intersections also offer simplified decision-making in
comparison to a conventional two-way stop-controlled intersection with a two-way median
opening on a divided street. Traffic using the two-way median opening faces potential conflicts
from other vehicles in the median, and a RCUT intersection removes these conflicts by
eliminating movements.
RCUT intersections often use unique signing and marking designs to help motorists negotiate
unfamiliar movements and avoid incorrect maneuvers. Wrong-way signs and arrow pavement
markings will decrease the likelihood of a motorist travelling the wrong way through a median
opening. A set of signs and markings that repeats the needed message, perhaps using different
53
devices, helps minor street left turn and through vehicles navigate to the U-turn crossover and
return to the main intersection. Chapter 8 shows devices agencies have deployed at RCUT
intersections.
OBSERVED SAFETY PERFORMANCE
There is little published crash data and documented safety performance for RCUT intersections.
There have been two noteworthy studies of RCUT intersections with stop signs and one
noteworthy study of RCUT intersections with merges. There has not yet been a noteworthy study
of crash experience at RCUT intersections with signals, and no crash data involving pedestrians
or bicycles at RCUT intersections have been analyzed. This section presents and discusses
available empirical safety results for RCUT intersections in the United States.
RCUT Intersections with Stop Signs
North Carolina Study
Researchers completed a safety analysis of RCUT intersections with stop signs in North Carolina
in 2010.(11) The analysis examined crash data before RCUT intersection installation—when the
intersection was operated as a conventional stop-controlled intersection with a two-way median
opening—and after RCUT intersection installation. The sample included 13 RCUT intersections
across the state where a two-lane rural minor road intersects a four-lane high-speed (greater than
or equal to a posted speed of 55 miles per hour [mph]) major road. Exhibit 4-4 shows a typical
site. Before periods were typically about five years, and after periods ranged from 8 to 115
months.
54
Exhibit 4-4. Typical site in NCDOT study of RCUT intersections with stop signs.(2)
Exhibit 4-5 shows the results from four different types of analysis. The analysis results account
for the different lengths of time between the before and after periods. The naïve analysis and
comparison group analysis do not account for regression to the mean; therefore, we do not know
the degree to which the changes in crashes shown are attributable to the RCUT intersection form
or the natural regression of crashes to a long-term average. The two analyses included the
empirical Bayes methodology do account for regression to the mean, therefore providing a
higher degree of confidence the changes in crashes shown are due to the RCUT intersection.
However, as the sites included in the empirical Bayes analysis were those selected because of
their higher crash frequency, the results shown may overestimate the expected number of crashes
reduced. Each analysis shows a drop in total crashes with RCUT intersection installation ranging
from 27- to 74-percent. Fatal and injury, angle, and left-turn crashes decreased by more than half
following the RCUT intersection installation, while sideswipe, rear-end, and other types of
crashes tended to decrease by a lesser degree or increase.
55
Exhibit 4-5. Results of analyses of RCUT intersections with stop signs in North Carolina.(11)
Percent change in crashes from conventional to RCUT intersection

Empirical Bayes
analysis with
Comparison Naïve empirical comparison
Type of crash Naïve analysis group analysis Bayes analysis groups
Total -34 -46 -27 -74
Fatal and injury -58 -63 -51 -85
Angle -86 -74 -86 -78
Left-turn -75 -59 -76 -66
Sideswipe 15 -13 -12 -36
Rear-end 7 -1 12 -16
Other 15 -15 8 -27
Missouri Study
Edara, et al. evaluated five RCUT intersection installations in Missouri.(14) The locations were on
rural, four-lane highways; one major road had a speed limit of 70 mph while the other sites had
speed limits of 65 mph. One site had three legs, and the others had four legs. Major road average
annual daily traffic (AADT) ranged from 10,000 to 26,000 vpd while minor road AADT ranged
from 400 to 1,300 vpd. The RCUT intersections and the conventional intersections they replaced
had stop sign control on the minor streets. Three years of before data and one to three years of
after data were available at each. The authors employed an empirical Bayes analysis method to
account for potential regression to the mean bias. The empirical Bayes procedure used the crash
prediction model from the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) for rural four-lane highway
intersections with calibration factors from Missouri. The results indicated the RCUT intersection
installation reduced total reported crashes by 35-percent on average, and reduced injury and
crashes by 54-percent on average. There were no fatal crashes at the five RCUT intersection
study sites during the study period after installation. As in North Carolina and Maryland, the
researchers observed a large reduction in angle crashes after the RCUT intersection installation.
RCUT intersections with Merges
Researchers completed a safety analysis of RCUT intersections with merges in Maryland in

2012.(12) The analysis examined crash data before RCUT intersection installation (when the
intersection was operated as a conventional stop-controlled intersection with a two-way median
opening) and after RCUT intersection installation. The sample included nine RCUT intersections
on US-15 in central Maryland and US-301 on the Eastern Shore of Maryland where a two-lane
rural minor road met a four-lane, 55 mph major road. Exhibit 4-6 shows a typical site. Typically,
the distance from the main junction to a U-turn crossover was approximately 2,000 feet. Before
and after periods were three years. A set of comparison sites was gathered to adjust for history
and maturation biases, and a “wider range of similar sites” was gathered to adjust for potential
regression to the mean. The researchers also collected traffic conflicts and other observational
field data.
56
Exhibit 4-6. Typical site from FHWA study of Maryland RCUT intersections with
merges.(3)
The researchers conducted three types of analysis on the crash data: a naïve analysis, which
accounted for no potential biases; a comparison group analysis, which accounted for history and
maturation biases using the set of comparison sites but did not account for regression to the
mean; and an empirical Bayes analysis, which accounted for regression to the mean using the
rural intersection safety performance function from the HSM calibrated for Maryland.(8) The
analysis using the empirical Bayes and calibrated safety performance function is considered to
produce the most reliable results. This analysis showed a 44-percent decrease in total crashes.
The field observations showed there were fewer conflicts at RCUT intersections than comparable
conventional intersections during several hours of data collection.
RCUT Intersections with Signals
There are no known empirical, rigorous safety analyses of signalized RCUT intersections.
FHWA has commissioned a study to determine a CMF for replacing a conventional signalized
intersection with a signalized RCUT intersection, and results are expected in 2015.
Summary
Exhibit 4-7 summarizes the results from the three major empirical studies of unsignalized RCUT
intersections published thus far. The data suggests installing unsignalized RCUT intersections in
circumstances similar to those studied in North Carolina, Maryland, and Missouri will likely
result in a one-third reduction in crashes and a one-half reduction in injury crashes.
57
Exhibit 4-7. Summary of empirical safety studies of unsignalized RCUT intersections.
State North Carolina(11) Maryland(12) Missouri(14)

Number of RCUT intersection sites 13 9 5
Type of traffic control Stop Merge Stop
% decrease in total crashes 27 44 35
% decrease in injury crashes 51 42 54
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
The general pattern after replacement of a stop-controlled conventional intersection with a stop-
controlled or merge-controlled RCUT intersection is of many fewer angle and turning crashes
but the chance of slightly higher sideswipe and rear end crashes. There are several safety
considerations to potentially mitigate negative effects.
Minor Street Right Turns
One safety consideration at a signalized RCUT intersection with multiple lanes on the minor
street approaches is the potential for sideswipe crashes. Drivers turning right from the minor
street may not be intuitively aware which lanes they should use to position themselves for the
next movement. Minor street left-turning vehicles should generally stay to the left on the minor
street approach, minor street through vehicles should stay in the middle, and minor street right-
turning vehicles should stay to the right. However, minor street drivers at a RCUT intersection
may have a tendency to seek a better position in the queue, irrespective of the next maneuver
downstream. Chapter 8 shows traffic control devices agencies have chosen for RCUT
intersections to balance lane choice guidance and lane choice flexibility. Applying traffic control
devices resulting in unneeded exclusive lanes may lead to loss of efficiency as queue lengths
become uneven.
Deceleration Lane Spillback
Spillback out of the deceleration lane leading to a crossover is a safety concern at RCUT
intersections, particularly those with signals. Signalized RCUT intersections are typically
efficient enough due to progressed two-phase signals with short cycles that spillback is not
common. However, the crossovers are closely spaced; increasing the possibility. The geometric
design of a RCUT intersection should go hand-in-hand with the operational analysis, and
spillback potential should be checked during design. Potential treatments include signal timing
adjustments, changing single-lane crossovers into dual-lane crossovers, and increasing the
distance between the main junction and the U-turn crossover in question. Chapter 5 discusses
moving crossovers at a RCUT intersection without impacting signal progression along the major
street.
Weaving
RCUT intersections with stop signs or signals controlling the minor street and crossovers do not
create weaving movements on the major street. Instead, drivers must wait for an acceptable gap
58
or a green signal. In contrast, RCUT intersections with acceleration lanes and merges at the
minor street and the U-turn crossovers do create weaving movements. A minor street left-turning
or through driver emerging from the minor street will, in effect, have to make a two-sided weave
right to left. A minor street through driver emerging from the U-turn crossover will have to make
a two-sided weave left to right. To minimize the risks in those two-sided weaving maneuvers, the
crossover can be located far enough away from the minor street to create acceptable weaving
operations; this distance is up to one-half (0.5) mile at some RCUT intersections with merges.
The AASHTO Green Book contains recommendations on acceleration and deceleration lane
lengths appropriate to RCUT intersections with merges.(5) Heavy vehicles and uphill grades
influence crossover distances and lane lengths, and required associated appropriate traffic control
devices.
Right-Turn / U-turn Conflicts
Where crossovers are aligned with streets or driveways that permit only right turns, U-turns from
the crossover and right turns from the street/driveway are potentially in conflict depending on
driver lane choices. Where lower volumes exist on the crossover and/or the opposing street, and
where the main street is sufficient to accommodate simultaneously turning vehicles (i.e. three or
four lanes in each direction), U-turns and right-turn movements can be served under the same
signal phase. However, at signalized intersection locations where the volumes of right-turn and
U-turn movements create conflicting movements, separate signal phases can be provided for U-
turn and right-turn phases. For a given site, a study would be required to determine if the
additional signal phase impacts the main intersection phasing and main street progression, and if
an additional U-turn and/or an additional right-turn lane is needed to provide sufficient capacity
and operations. U-turn movements also potentially conflict with buses on the major street, such
as bus stopped opposite or several vehicle lengths downstream from a crossover. A bus at such a
stop would wait until a gap in major street traffic and U-turning traffic was present before
departing. Exhibit 4-8 shows an example of a U-turn/right-turn conflict.
Exhibit 4-8. Example of U-turn/right-turn conflict.(3)
Potential for Wrong Way and Other Illegal Movements
U-turn crossovers are directional, not two-way as in typical divided highway corridors. This
typically has no negative effects if crossovers are designed with channelization to prevent
59
wrong-way movements. Exhibit 4-9 provides the details of a Michigan Department of

Transportation (MDOT) typical U-turn crossover.(28) MDOT uses these crossovers for MUT
intersections, but a RCUT crossover could be designed in the same manner.
Exhibit 4-9. U-turn crossover detail.(28)
Another place at a RCUT with the potential for prohibited movements potentially leading to
crashes is at the main intersection. Drivers may be tempted to make direct left turns from the
minor street. Providing curbed islands, delineation, and clear traffic control devices at the main
intersection will help overcome this temptation. Some presence by law enforcement, especially
in the first few weeks that a RCUT intersection is open, may also be beneficial.
Intersection Sight Distance
Minimum distance between consecutive U-turn crossovers allows drivers at one stop bar to see
past a queue built up in the storage bay of the other crossover. Exhibit 4-9, from MDOT, calls for
a minimum separation of 100 feet and a desirable separation of 150 feet between U-turn
crossovers. If consecutive U-turn crossovers must be closer together, the location could be
signalized or left turns on red (LTOR) could be prohibited. Intersection sight distances at RCUT
crossovers can be attained by carefully designing slopes and cutting back plantings in the median
beyond the lines of sight.
Truck Navigation of Crossovers
For U-turn crossovers with multiple lanes, designing adequate crossovers for large trucks
requires focused detail on truck turning paths. First, large trucks should be signed to use the
rightmost, or outermost, U-turn lanes. Secondly, the crossover must accommodate vehicle
tracking through the crossover so the path of a design vehicle (such as a WB-67) does not
overlap with the path of a passenger car or single-unit truck in the leftmost of the dual lanes.
Exhibit 4-10 illustrates the potential for vehicle overtracking; design details for dual-lane
crossovers are provided in Chapter 7.
60
Exhibit 4-10. Dual-lane crossover design overtracking potential.
INCIDENT RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS
Most incident responses and emergency vehicle operations at a RCUT intersection will be
unchanged from a comparable conventional arterial with a median because major street vehicles
proceed in the same way. Considerations for other movements are noted below:
• One-lane crossovers can be designed wide enough for emergency vehicles to pass a
queue if needed. The typical one-lane U-turn crossover width in Michigan at MUT
intersections is 30 feet, which is also sufficient for this purpose at a RCUT intersection.
• Channelizing islands in the median opening of the main intersection can be mountable to
allow emergency vehicles to make left-turn or minor street through movements. Many of
Maryland’s RCUT intersections with merges have this treatment.
• RCUT intersections may be undesirable at intersections where an emergency vehicle

station is located on the minor street. Emergency vehicles making left turns or through
movements from minor streets will have to negotiate the U-turn crossover or cross
mountable channelizing islands, which will add to the response time.
SAFETY EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS
Crash Modification Factors (CMF) in FHWA’s CMF Clearinghouse are available for converting
unsignalized conventional intersections to unsignalized RCUT intersections.(29) A 2012 study by
Inman and Haas found a CMF value of 0.56 with a 3-star rating for all crash types and all crash
severities in a rural area.(12) A 2010 study by Hummer et al. found a CMF value of 0.54 with a 3-
star rating for all crash types and all crash severities in a rural area.(11)
The studies noted above also developed CMFs specific to certain crash types, crash severities,
area types, and other parameters. These CMFs can be obtained directly from the CMF
Clearinghouse.
RCUT intersections are sometimes installed in combination with access management techniques
along a highway corridor. There are numerous locations in urbanized areas where businesses line
the street with multiple driveways for ingress and egress. One practice in the past has been to
61
provide two-way center left-turn lanes (TWLTLs) to accommodate left turns into and out of the
businesses. However, the use of TWLTLs may not be equally appropriate along all types of
roadways. Some jurisdictions are removing the TWLTLs and installing raised medians, which,
like an RCUT, only permit right turns by vehicles entering or exiting the driveways and have
been shown to improve corridor safety.(30)
There are several factors to consider in conducting before-and-after safety evaluations of RCUT
projects:
• The boundaries of the analysis area need to be large enough to include all crossovers. It
would be unfair to compare a conventional intersection to just the main junction of a RCUT
intersection.
• Minor street left-turn and through vehicles at a RCUT intersection drive longer distances to
negotiate the intersection than comparable conventional intersections. Thus, analyses using
rates, such as crashes per vehicle-mile, should adjust for these “extra” distances driven.
• It is possible some drivers, especially on minor street approaches to a RCUT intersection,

may alter their routes to avoid the intersection. Thus, crash migration is a possible threat to
the validity of a before/after analysis. Analyses should consider traffic demands during the
before and after periods. If crash migration is suspected, the scope of the analysis should be
widened to include the new routes drivers are using.
• RCUT intersections are often installed as safety countermeasures at high-crash conventional

intersections. This reinforces the need to account for regression to the mean in an analysis.
• RCUT intersections are often installed in conjunction with developments that generate
traffic. This reinforces the need to account for volume in an analysis.
General guidance on before/after safety studies and development of CMFs can be found in
FHWA’s A Guide to Developing Quality Crash Modification Factors.(31)
62
CHAPTER 5 — OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

This chapter provides information on the unique operational characteristics of RCUT
intersections and how they affect elements such as traffic signal phasing and coordination. The
guidance presented here builds on existing RCUT intersection studies, which include operational
performance studies, comparative performance studies, and simulation analysis. It is intended to
help prepare transportation professionals for conducting operational analysis as described in
Chapter 6.
OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES
This guide describes three main types of RCUT intersections: signal-controlled, stop-controlled,
and with merges. This chapter concentrates on RCUT intersections controlled by signals. At a
conventional intersection being considered for conversion to a RCUT with stop signs or merges,
agencies should expect the minor street movements being rerouted to the U-turn crossovers to
experience more travel time. At Maryland RCUT intersections with merges where U-turn
crossovers are typically around 2,000 feet from the main intersection, this extra time is usually
around one minute per vehicle.(12) However, the alternative to RCUT intersection installation is
often signal installation, where additional delay is incurred by major street through vehicles due
to the traffic signal.
Exhibits 5-1 shows the concurrent movements at a conventional intersection and at a signalized
RCUT intersection. Exhibit 5-2 shows the typical signal locations for a RCUT intersection. At a
RCUT with a “Z” crossing, pedestrians would cross the minor roadway during the signal phase
shown in Exhibit 5-1, and they would cross the major roadway during the signal phase not
shown in Exhibit 5-1.
63
Exhibit 5-1. Concurrent movements at conventional intersection and signalized RCUT

intersection.
64
Exhibit 5-2. Signal placement at signalized RCUT intersection.
Bi-directional Progression
A key reason to install a signalized RCUT intersection is to improve signal progression on the
main street. The RCUT intersection is the only at-grade design known at this time to enable each
direction on a two-way arterial to operate independently. No movement crosses both directions
of the major street, so there is no need for both directions of the major street to receive the same
signal indication at the same time. Both directions can be progressed at any speed and at any
signal spacing. The green band can be set equal to the length of the shortest green split along the
arterial. This type of progression is usually only possible with progression in one direction on an
arterial, or on a one-way street. Informally, it is sometimes referred to as “perfect progression” or
“100-percent efficiency.” The other alternative intersection and interchange designs covered in
these alternative intersection guides—MUT and DLT intersections—offer progression that is
typically improved compared to conventional arterial corridors but not to the extent of a RCUT
intersection.
Exhibit 5-3 shows progression on a RCUT arterial. Signals on one side of the arterial, A through
F, are independent of the signals on the other side of the arterial, G through L. Each side of the
arterial on a RCUT corridor effectively operates as a one-way street. Each side of the arterial can
have its own cycle length and/or progression speed.
65
Direction Parameter
Signal F E D C B A
Distance
from Not
750 650 1000 700 600
Right to previous applicable
left signal, ft
Offset to
start of 74 59 46 26 12 0
green, sec
Signal G H I J K L
Distance
from Not
600 850 1050 600 600
Left to previous applicable
right signal, ft
Offset to
start of 0 12 29 50 62 74
green, sec
Note: Assumed progression speed of 50 feet per second (34 mph) in both directions
Exhibit 5-3 Signal progression on a RCUT corridor.
Signal offsets along a RCUT arterial depend primarily on the speed at which the operator
chooses to progress traffic. If the operator wants to decrease the progression speed from signal A
to B in Exhibit 5-3, for example, the offset of B relative to A can be increased. Like a one-way
street, RCUT corridors offer the potential for speed control with signal timing without impacting
coordination.
The independence of the signals on each side of a RCUT corridor and associated progression
capabilities allow for signals to be added or relocated as traffic and land use patterns change with
minimal impact on through arterial traffic.
Signals at RCUT intersections typically have two phase intervals, one for the main street and one
for the crossover or minor street. At a signalized U-turn crossover that also serves a driveway or
side street, a third dedicated signal phase interval is sometimes provided to serve traffic turning
right out from the driveway or side street.
Cycle Length
Cycle lengths at RCUT intersections will generally be shorter than at comparable conventional
intersections. This is because each signal will typically have only two phases and because longer
66
cycle lengths are not needed for desirable progression as they are in many conventional corridors
with two-way progression. Shorter cycles reduce delay for most vehicles and for pedestrians
crossing the arterial, even if the arterial crossing is in two stages.
Exhibit 5-2 showed the location of the four signals at a signalized RCUT intersection. To
establish major street progression, there will almost always be progression from signal 2 to 1.
This means signals 2 and 1 must have a common cycle length. Similarly, signals 3 and 4 must
have a common cycle length and a means of communication between them.
Signal timing at a RCUT intersection or corridor is fundamentally different from any other
intersection or corridor due to the ability to have different cycle lengths in each direction of the
major street. Signal timing at a RCUT intersection or corridor can use a common cycle length in
both directions of the major street or a different cycle length for each direction of the major
street.
If a common cycle length in both directions is used, there is an opportunity to provide for some
progression for the movements using the crossovers. This may also allow pedestrians to cross the
arterial within one signal cycle. With different cycle lengths in each direction, arrivals in the
crossovers would be random, most pedestrians would cross the major street in two stages (with a
delay in the median), and minor street movements could not be progressed.
A common cycle length in both directions results in a cycle length less than optimum for each
particular junction. For example, in Exhibit 5-2, the optimum cycle length for signals 1 and 2 in
some design time period might be 80 seconds, while for signals 3 and 4 it might be 120 seconds.
A compromise of 100 seconds for all four signals might introduce significant extra delay at all
four signals. Using 80- and 120-second cycles would reduce delay values. Selecting a common
cycle length in both directions requires considering the possible benefit from providing some
progression at the crossover movements compared to the possible benefit from providing a cycle
length in each direction that is optimal for the individual intersections. For a particular time of
day and set of demands, signal timing software packages can help consider each method to
compare the resulting performance.
A procedure for establishing progression with RCUT intersections with independent control in
both directions includes the following steps:(3)
1. Use a standard signal timing method to determine the optimum cycle length at each
signal
2. Select one common cycle length for each direction of the arterial and readjust the green
times at the individual signals accordingly
3. Establish the arterial progression speed
4. Determine signal offsets based on the distances between signal-controlled intersections

and the progression speed (e.g., the end of the major street green phase at one signal-
controlled intersection relative to the end of the major street green phase of the adjacent
signal-controlled intersection)
67
5. Adjust the offsets to allow for adequate start-up times to discharge standing queues and to
provide progression possibilities for left-turning and U-turning traffic
Phasing
With a few exceptions, the RCUT intersection typically has two-phase signals. Exhibit 5-2
showed the four signal locations at a signalized RCUT intersection. One phase at each signal
would serve major street through movements, while the second phase would serve crossover
and/or minor street movements.
Manual signal optimization equations or signal optimization software are available to find
optimum phase times for each signal at a RCUT intersection. The methods can be used for each
time period of interest given basic input data like demands, speeds, and pedestrian crossing
times. Richard Kramer, an early innovator in RCUT intersection applications, suggested the
major street on a RCUT corridor should receive two-thirds to three-quarters of the cycle length
as green.(1) If less than two-thirds of the cycle is provided for the major street, the minor street
demands may be relatively too heavy for the RCUT intersection design. If more than three-
quarters of the cycle is provided for the major street, the minor street demands may be too light
for signals to be warranted.
Most two-phase signals at RCUT intersections have green ball indications for each direction. To
reduce delay where sight distances and other site features are favorable, many agencies allow
RTOR from the minor street or LTOR from a U-turn crossover. If LTOR is prohibited by law,
but site conditions would otherwise allow it, a flashing yellow arrow indication is possible
instead of a red ball. The two crossover phases would use a green arrow display for a protected
turn and flashing yellow arrow for a permissive turn. NCDOT has used this treatment for several
years at the left-turn and U-turn crossover signals of a RCUT intersection on US-421 just south
of its junction with NC-132 in Wilmington. Traditionally, flashing yellow arrow treatments have
been used for one-lane turn bays. However, the NCDOT has installed a flashing yellow arrow on
a two-lane turn bay in Cary, NC.
In theory, a RCUT intersection signal could employ a third signal phase when a U-turn crossover
is located at the same place as a driveway or a side street. The three phases would be:
1. The major street green ball
2. The driveway green ball, with perhaps a green ball signal for the U-turn crossover
allowing permissive U-turns
3. The U-turn crossover green arrow protected movement
A three-phase signal at a U-turn crossover has recently been installed in Detroit, MI on Eight
Mile Road just east of Woodward Avenue. Almost always, the driveway or side street demands
do not justify the third phase and the extra delay it would introduce for all road users. U-turn
crossover drivers generally understand they must yield to driveway or side street traffic and do
so without conflicts. However, there are U-turn crossovers at MUT intersections in Michigan—
such as along M-59 east of M-53 in Shelby Township, MI—where the driveway and side street
demand has built up to the point that MDOT installed “Left Turn Yield on [green ball]” signs for
68
the U-turning traffic. Access management practices and flexible crossover placement help
minimize the number of places where a third signal phase would be needed.
Signalized RCUT intersections with four approaches may use actuated signals. Detectors can be
used in all of the crossovers, on the minor street approaches, and on the major street
approaches.(3) Exhibit 5-4 displays signal phasing for a RCUT intersection with each of the four
signals operated by a dedicated controller.
Exhibit 5-4. Signal phasing for a RCUT intersection with four controllers.
While not yet implemented, it is feasible to use one controller for the four signal locations. Exhibit 5-
5 and Exhibit 5-6 show two possible signal phasing schemes. With just one controller, there is only
one cycle length serving both directions of the arterial. Therefore, some additional delay may result
compared to a plan with different cycle lengths in each direction of the major street.
The signal phasing schemes in Exhibits 5-5 and 5-6 include three main movements:
1. Major street through movements
2. U-turns
3. Left turns from the major street concurrent with right turns from the side street
These phasing schemes afford flexibility to accommodate junctions where there are unbalanced left-
turn and/or U-turn volumes.
69
Exhibit 5-5. Signal phasing for a RCUT intersection with one controller and a single
concurrent pedestrian phase to allow pedestrians to cross the major street.
70
Exhibit 5-6. Signal phasing for a RCUT intersection with one controller in which
pedestrians cross the major street at two separated signal-controlled crosswalks.
Exhibits 5-5 and 5-6 illustrate that pedestrians can cross the minor street approaches during the
phases that serve major street through vehicles. Pedestrians can cross the major street approaches
during the phases that serve major street left-turning vehicles. Providing a minimum green time
to allow pedestrians to cross both major street legs during a single phase (i.e., a one-stage
71
crossing) could potentially create substantial delays for major street through volumes and
eliminate bi-directional progression. However, a single-stage crossing may promote desired
crossing actions by pedestrians. A multistage crossing presents additional challenges for visually
impaired pedestrians. Regardless of the type of phasing used, the minimum green time for
pedestrian crossings must be sufficient, based on the assumed walking speed of 3.5 feet per
second from the MUTCD.(7) As per PROWAG, audible pedestrian signals will be required at all
new signals, including those at RCUT intersections.(22) More information on pedestrian
considerations is provided in Chapter 3.
Split Times
A rule of thumb is for the main street at a RCUT intersection to receive two-thirds to three-
quarters of the green time during a cycle. At anything under 60-percent of green time for the
main street, other intersection designs will likely serve the relatively heavy minor street demand
more efficiently. RCUT intersection designs allowing LTOR from the U-turn crossovers where
legal, RTOR from the minor street, and/or permissive left turns from the left-turn crossovers
(using a flashing yellow arrow signal) to minimize the need for green time for the minor phases.
Major street minimum green times for serving pedestrians are also relatively short because major
street pedestrian crossings almost always happen in two stages. That is, pedestrians wishing to
cross the RCUT major street first wait for the “walk” signal to cross the first half of the arterial;
this “walk” signal is concurrent with the minor street green. Once across the first half of the
arterial, pedestrians cross the median and wait for a “walk” signal to cross the second half of the
arterial; that “walk” signal is concurrent with the minor street green on that side of the arterial.
Offsets
Providing bi-directional progression along the major street is a typical objective of a RCUT
intersection.
The following procedure could be used for establishing optimum offsets to attain progression in
a RCUT corridor with different cycle lengths in each direction:(3)
1. Use a standard signal timing method to determine the optimum cycle length and phase
times at each signal
2. Select one common cycle length for each direction of the arterial and readjust the green

5. Adjust the offsets to allow for adequate start-up times to discharge standing queues
created by U-turning and minor street traffic
72
The following procedure could be used for establishing progression in a RCUT corridor with the
same cycle length in both major street directions:
1. Use a standard signal timing method to determine the optimum cycle length and phase
times at each signal
2. Select one common cycle length for both directions of the arterial and readjust the green

5. Adjust the offsets to allow for adequate start-up times to discharge standing queues
created by U-turning and minor street traffic
6. For each of the minor street movements that one wishes to try to progress, adjust the
offsets along the major street so that the minor street movement can progress, making
sure to keep the relative offsets along the major street from step 5 undisturbed
The ability of a corridor with RCUT intersections to accommodate a conventional intersection

within the signal system increases the possible range of applicability of the RCUT intersection
design. A RCUT corridor could include a conventional intersection that allows left turns and/or
through movements from the side street while generally preserving progression. The
conventional intersection results in operations such that both directions of the main street of the
RCUT intersection have the same signal cycle length and will lock in the offset values. Two-way
progression along the arterial could still be attained.
Optimization
It is possible to manually time signals at a single RCUT intersection or in a RCUT corridor.

Commercial signal timing software is sometimes helpful in more complex cases such as when
trying to progress minor street movements. There are a few general considerations when
applying commercial signal timing packages to time RCUT intersections.
• Out-of-the-box the software will not have incorporated any adjustments for unique
RCUT intersection features such as U-turn saturation flows or unbalanced lane
distributions.
• The usual measures of effectiveness the packages use to optimize and report may not be
the suitable for RCUT intersections. As Chapter 6 discussed, a measure like control delay
at an individual junction is helpful but does not reflect the more complex needs of
multiple junctions at a RCUT intersection.
73
Commercial signal timing packages generally do not allow different cycle lengths for each
direction of the major street. This may require running the software in a non-standard way, such
as treating a RCUT intersection as a one-way street pair with some hypothetical distance
between the two directions.
RCUT Intersection Capacity
RCUT intersections have a fairly rigid capacity that can be derived from basic traffic engineering
relationships. At a RCUT intersection, there are three types of junctions: left-turn crossover,
minor street right turn, and U-turn crossover. Of the three, the U-turn crossover is typically the
capacity constraint of the entire RCUT intersection because it serves more movements (including
redirected movements) than the left-turn crossover. Also, it is limited to two lanes in current
professional practice in contrast to the minor street right turn which can be expanded to more
than two lanes. The key to the derivation is using the rule of thumb that the main street should
receive at least two-thirds of the signal cycle, meaning the U-turn crossover—which serves the
minor street left-turn and through movements—receives no more than one-third of the cycle. The
derivation is presented in the Appendix.
Exhibit 5-7 shows a plot of the feasible demand space for a signalized RCUT intersection based
on the derivation described above. At minor street demands below 5,000 vpd, agencies should
consider unsignalized RCUT intersections. For minor street demands of more than 25,000 vpd,
there are most likely other alternative intersections such as a MUT or DLT intersection that
would generally serve the minor street more efficiently.
74
Exhibit 5-7. Feasible demand space for signalized RCUT intersection.
75
SYSTEM-WIDE CONSIDERATIONS
There are several system-wide factors to consider when looking at signalized RCUT
intersections in comparison to conventional or other types of intersections. First and foremost,
the primary purpose for installing a signalized RCUT intersection is to enhance signal
progression along an arterial. RCUT intersections are therefore suited to corridors where a major
street has several intersections with smaller minor streets, rather than at the junction of two major
streets. RCUT intersections are likely to be more effective in a network of irregularly spaced
intersections, where two-way progression is more difficult to achieve, rather than in a network of
evenly-spaced intersections where a combination of the right speed and cycle length can produce
good two-way progression with conventional intersections. These characteristics make RCUT
intersections well-suited to areas with heavy demands in a linear pattern rather than a grid. The
ability to independently progress traffic in both directions also makes RCUT intersections well-
suited for arterials with near 50/50 directional splits during the peak periods. Exhibit 5-8 shows a
corridor of RCUT intersections in Leland, NC.
As with any highway network or corridor with some movements that are relatively more efficient
than others, travelers in an area with a RCUT corridor may find creative paths to avoid making a
minor street left-turn or through movement if it decreases their overall trip time.
On the major street, a RCUT is high-capacity, “big pipe” intersection. As such, it has the ability
to transfer bottlenecks elsewhere in a corridor if other capacity constraints are present. In those
cases, corridor analysis is recommended rather than single intersection analysis and the network
needs to be looked at as a whole. If several intersections downstream are evaluated, no overall
system improvement may be seen, especially in travel times. Higher demands could activate
downstream bottlenecks, which could be worse than the existing location before the RCUT was
installed. FHWA is currently developing bottleneck identification and mitigation guidance and
anticipates that guidance will be issued as a volume of the Traffic Analysis Toolbox.(32)
76
Exhibit 5-8. RCUT corridor in Leland, NC.(4)
Corridors containing all RCUT signalized intersections could have bi-directional progression at
any speed and any signal spacing, but those benefits can be realized on other corridors with some
77
compromises. A corridor or network can have multidirectional progression radiating out from a
conventional intersection, as Exhibit 5-9 shows, with all signals operating on the same cycle.
Exhibit 5-9. Progression in RCUT corridors radiating outward from one non-RCUT
intersection.
Some of the progression benefits of a RCUT corridor can be achieved on a “hybrid” corridor of
conventional signalized intersections and signalized RCUT intersections. Starting with an
existing or planned corridor, agencies can develop a time-space diagram for the desired speed
and cycle length. After manipulating leading and lagging left turns as needed, intersections along
78
the corridor supporting a wide band in both directions can be left to operate conventionally.
Intersections where no feasible progression band exists in both directions can be converted to
RCUT intersections.(33) Exhibit 5-10 illustrates the concept, and the steps are generally described
as follows:
• Start with a reasonable cycle length and desired progression speed for the arterial and lay
out progression bands in both directions
• Make small adjustments to the speed and cycle length to optimize timing
• Consider leading and lagging left turn phasing as needed
• Identify locations where progression in one direction or the other would be interrupted
• Consider RCUT intersections in those locations where the progression band was
interrupted
Exhibit 5-10. Corridor with RCUT intersections only where needed to provide two-way
progression.
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE STUDIES
Several studies have compared signalized RCUT intersections to conventional intersections.

They have generally found RCUT intersections to decrease delay and travel time compared to
conventional intersections.
Research Prior to 2010
Kim et al. compared three signalized RCUT design cases under varying volumes to conventional
intersection design.(34) Two of the RCUT design cases featured one U-turn lane and the other
featured two U-turn lanes. With a RCUT intersection, travel time decreased by 30- to 40-percent
and throughput increased 22- to 40-percent. The highest vehicle throughput for the one U-turn
79
lane design was achieved when green time on the minor road was 20-percent of the green time
on the major road. In comparison, the RCUT design with two U-turn lanes experienced a smaller
increase in vehicle throughput, ranging from 9- to 12-percent.
A simulation study of a Michigan corridor comparing the arterial operated as with TWLTL to
MUT intersection operation also investigated RCUT intersection operation.(3) Exhibit 5-11
shows the average results of the four time periods analyzed. During peak conditions, travel time
on the RCUT corridor decreased 10-percent. In addition, travel speed was 15-percent higher than
the same conditions using a TWLTL due to decreased intersection delay. During off-peak
conditions, the study revealed that the RCUT intersection produced operations that were similar
to TWLTLs.
Exhibit 5-11. RCUT simulation results, average of four time of day periods
Major Street Total System Time, Mean Stops Per

Geometry veh-hrs Vehicle Mean Speed, mi/h
TWLTL 251 1.75 19.6
MUT 208 1.94 24.4
RCUT 226 2.16 22.5
Simulation results using a range of intersection configurations and volumes from intersections in
Virginia and North Carolina suggested mixed results in overall travel time when RCUT
intersections were compared to traditional intersection designs. Travel time of the RCUT
intersection compared to the conventional intersection ranged from -8-percent to +18-percent
during off-peak conditions and -10-percent to +71-percent during peak conditions. The results
were also mixed with respect to overall stops when compared to traditional intersection design.
Stops with the RCUT intersection compared to the conventional intersection ranged from -8-
percent to +187-percent during off-peak conditions and +16- to +146-percent during peak
conditions.(3)
Simulation Results from 2010 AIIR(3)
The Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR) authors simulated five

intersection lane configurations. The configurations ranged from a four-lane main street meeting
a two-lane minor street with one-lane turn lanes and crossovers to a six-lane main street meeting
a two-lane minor street with dual left-turn and crossover lanes. RCUT intersections and
conventional intersections were simulated for each case, and the demand levels varied.
Directional split on the major road ranged from 50:50 to 75:25, and the ratio of the minor road
total volume to total intersection volume ranged from 0.12 to 0.40.
For all geometries tested, the throughput for RCUT intersections was 15- to 30-percent higher
than comparable conventional intersections when the ratio of the minor road total volume to total
intersection volume was in the range of 0.1 to 0.18. The throughput of the RCUT intersection
became similar to the conventional intersection when the ratio of the minor road total volume to
total intersection volume was in the range of 0.18 to 0.25. Beyond a 0.25 ratio of the minor road
80
total volume to total intersection volume, the conventional intersections had 5- to 17-percent
higher throughput than RCUT intersections.
The pattern was similar for travel time. Simulation results indicated a 25- to 40-percent reduction
in network travel time for RCUT intersections in comparison to conventional intersections when
the ratio of the minor road total volume to total intersection volume was in the range of 0.10 to
0.15. The network travel times for the RCUT intersections became similar to the conventional
intersections when the ratio of the minor road total volume to total intersection volume was in
the range of 0.18 to 0.25. Beyond the ratio of the minor road total volume to total intersection
volume of 0.25, the network travel time for the RCUT intersections increased from 15- to 25-
percent in comparison to the network travel time for conventional intersections.
The results conclude RCUT intersections are best suited for intersections where the ratio of
minor road total volume to total intersection volume is 0.25 or less.
Results from 2010 NCDOT Study(11)
NCDOT sponsored a study of their RCUT intersections. Complete field data from the before
periods were not available so simulation was used for the comparison. Simulations of the RCUT
intersections were calibrated with field data collected at several signalized RCUT intersections.
Simulations compared seven RCUT intersections to conventional intersections—five
intersections in a corridor along US-17 in Leland, one intersection on US-421 in Wilmington,
and one intersection with a unique geometry (no major street left-turn crossovers) on US-15/501
in Chapel Hill. The experiment used the same number of lanes at the conventional and RCUT
intersections.
Six levels of demand were tested, which ranged from the 2009 peak-hour measured demands
minus 40-percent to the 2009 peak hour measured demands plus 20-percent. In every case, travel
time decreased with the RCUT intersection. The drop was over 100 percent at intersections on
the US-17 corridor for demands above the peak. The drop was smallest for the two isolated
RCUT intersections. The bulk of the travel time decrease was by major street through travelers,
while right-turn and major street left-turn vehicles experienced little change, and minor street
left-turn and through vehicles often had increased travel time. Overall, the NCDOT study
confirmed NCDOT chose its RCUT locations well, RCUT intersections generally perform better
in a corridor rather than in isolation, and main street through vehicles are the particular
beneficiaries of RCUT intersections.
Field Measurements from Texas
In 2010, a 3.5-mile section of US-281 in an exurban area north of San Antonio with a 60-mph
posted speed was converted from a four-lane divided conventional arterial to a four-lane RCUT
corridor. Three four-approach signalized intersections were converted to RCUT intersections. A
before-and-after study measured operational changes on US-281, including travel times, speeds,
and traffic volumes on midweek days.(35) As shown in Exhibit 5-12, the RCUT intersections
decreased travel time and increased travel speeds despite an increase in traffic volume.
81
Exhibit 5-12. Operational measures on US-281 north of San Antonio before and after
RCUT intersection installation.(35)
Metric Before RCUT After RCUT

Southbound travel time
23.3 minutes 13.9 minutes
(morning rush hour)
Southbound average speed
16 mph 20 mph
(morning rush hour)
Northbound travel time
19.2 minutes 12.7 minutes
(evening rush hour)
Northbound average speed
19 mph 29 mph
(evening rush hour)
Traffic count (vehicles per day) 60,100 – 74,000 63,600 – 81,500
82
CHAPTER 6 — OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS

The previous chapter presented operational characteristics unique to RCUT intersections.
Conducting an appropriate level of traffic operations analysis corresponding to the stage of the
project development process will support decisions regarding the choice and design of a RCUT
intersection. The level of analysis needs to be consistent with the available data, and that data
needs to support the applied analysis tools. Vehicular traffic operations coincide with multimodal
considerations. Final intersection configurations and associated signal timing should be in
balance with multimodal needs for each unique project context.
A RCUT is a system of multiple intersections. As discussed previously in this guide, there are
three types of RCUT intersections:
• Signal-controlled
• Stop-controlled
• Merge-controlled (with merges at the minor street right turns and U-turn crossovers and
yield signs at the left-turn crossovers)
The main intersection is broken into two separate intersections on either side of a wide median.
Operational analysis must consider the operations of each intersection and the relationship
between all of the intersections.
Available data could include the following elements:
• Average daily traffic (ADT)
• Speed (posted, design, or 85th percentile)
• Weekday and weekend peak-hour turning movement counts
• Weekday and weekend off-peak turning movement counts
• Pedestrian volume at the intersection
• Bicycle volume at the intersection
• Proportion of the traffic stream composed of heavy vehicles
• Basic geometric data including distances between the main and crossover
intersections
Measures of effectiveness are used to evaluate the operational efficiency of a particular design
like the RCUT intersection. The FHWA Traffic Analysis Toolbox has identified the following
seven basic measures of effectiveness for vehicles:(32)
83
• Travel time: average time spent by vehicles traversing a facility, including control delay,
in seconds or minutes per vehicle
• Speed: rate of motion (expressed in distance per unit of time)
• Delay: additional travel time expereienced by travelers at speeds less than the free-flow
(posted) speed (expresed in seconds or minutes)
• Queues: length of queued vehicles waiting to be served by the system (expressed in

distance or number of vehicles)
• Stops: number of stops experienced by the section and/or corridor (based on a minimum
travel speed threshold)
• Density: number of vehicles on a street segment averaged over space (usually expressed
in vehicles per mile or vehicles per mile per lane)
• Travel time variance: a quantification of the unexpected non-recurring delay associated

with excess travel demand (can be expressed in several ways)
The final two measures, density and travel time variance, are less applicable to an intersection
treatment than an uninterrupted flow facility, but may still be considered during the operational
analysis. While average speed and travel time apply to the RCUT intersection much like they
would to a conventional intersection (as long as the analysis area includes the entire
configuration), the delay and stops performance measures must be carefully aggregated over the
multiple intersections contained within intersection. Individual performance measures such as
queues, stops, and delay across multiple intersections of a typical vehicle progressed through the
intersection provides more meaningful comparisons versus simply adding or averaging the
performance measures from each intersection.
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
According to FHWA’s Traffic Analysis Toolbox, several tools are available to analyze traffic
operations at intersections, including the following:(32)
• Planning Level Analysis (such as critical lane volume and CAP-X)
• Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Analysis
• Microsimulation Analysis
One major factor distinguishing these three types of analysis is the amount of time required to
evaluate each scenario. HCM analysis may take several times as long as planning analysis, and
microsimulation is typically an order of magnitude greater than HCM analysis. Planning-level
tools are useful in the initial feasibility analysis and to conduct a high-level comparison of the
approximate number of lanes for a RCUT intersection. An operational analysis using a
deterministic method, such as the HCM, is useful to perform a more detailed peak-hour
performance analysis and to estimate performance measures like delay, travel time, and queue
84
lengths. The HCM analysis may provide insight on additional geometric design and signal timing
details. Microsimulation is useful for alternative intersection forms containing multiple closely-
spaced intersections for which an HCM procedure has not been explicitly developed.
Exhibit 6-1 provides a summary of available analysis techniques for each type of RCUT
intersection. Planning analysis is available for signal-controlled RCUT intersections, but rarely
needed for stop-controlled and merge-controlled intersections because performing more detailed
HCM procedures are only slightly more difficult to conduct. At the level of HCM analysis, it is
currently possible to piece together a procedure for a signal-controlled RCUT from various HCM
procedures, but requires making multiple assumptions.(6) A FHWA-funded effort is underway to
create an HCM operational analysis procedure specifically for RCUT intersections. HCM
procedures for stop-controlled and merge-controlled RCUT intersections are currently feasible
with HCM methods, and the FHWA effort will solidify procedures specifically for these types of
RCUT intersections. Finally, microsimulation analysis is available for all three types of RCUT
intersections, but is rarely needed for stop-controlled and merge-controlled RCUT intersections
because those tend to be safety countermeasures in low volume environments where detailed
operational results are not needed for decision-making. The following sections will detail each
type of analysis.
Exhibit 6-1. RCUT Analysis Techniques
Available Techniques
Type of RCUT Planning Highway Capacity Manual Microsimulation
Difficult to perform now for Can be performed for
motor vehicles; can analyze motor vehicles,
Available using critical
Signal-controlled crossing pedestrians and pedestrians, and
lane analysis and CAP-X
bicycles. RCUT-specific HCM bicycles with most
procedure under development simulation packages
Possible to perform now;
Possible to perform with Can be performed but
Stop-controlled RCUT-specific HCM
HCM but rarely used rarely needed
procedure under development
Possible to perform now;
Possible to perform with Can be performed but
Merge-controlled RCUT-specific HCM
HCM but rarely used rarely needed
procedure under development
Exhibit 6-2 shows how to translate turning movements into RCUT intersection movements for
main streets running north-south or east-west. Most analysis software designed for RCUT
intersections (such as the CAP-X program described below) will make the translation
automatically. Most microsimulation packages start with an origin-destination matrix rather than
intersection-level turning movement data, but analysts using software not designed for RCUT
intersections or making manual calculations will have to make the translations shown in Exhibit
6-2. Pedestrian and bicycle movements from a conventional intersection will also have to be
converted for the RCUT intersection geometry before analysis.
85
Exhibit 6-2. Translating turning movements at a conventional intersection into a RCUT

intersection.
86
PLANNING ANALYSIS
As noted in Exhibit 6-1, it is possible to perform a planning analysis on stop-controlled or

merge-controlled RCUT intersections. For stop-controlled RCUT intersections, this can be done
using the planning analysis procedure for stop-controlled intersections described in the HCM for
each of the six stop-controlled junctions to see if any are at or near capacity. For merge-
controlled RCUT intersections, this could be done using the planning analysis procedure for
stop-controlled intersections described in the HCM for each of the two yield-controlled
crossovers to see if either is at or near capacity. This represents a conservative analysis, as a
yield-controlled movement would have a higher capacity than a stop-controlled movement.
Analysts can use the planning analysis procedure for two-sided weaves in the HCM as a check to
see if any of the movements from the minor street to the U-turn crossover or from the U-turn
crossover to the minor street are at or near capacity. Even at an early project development stage,
most analysts are apt to choose to conduct HCM analyses of these types of RCUT intersections
rather than planning analyses because the additional effort to do so is only incremental.
Most planning analyses of RCUT intersections are performed for signal-controlled cases. The
classic calculation for the planning analysis of a signalized intersection, described in several
editions of the HCM, is the critical lane analysis method. This is appropriate to apply to a RCUT
intersection. The idea behind the method is that in the middle of any intersection is a key conflict
point where two or more traffic streams compete for space and only one can possess it at any
time. The conflict point with the highest volume to capacity (v/c) ratio will be “critical” to
intersection performance. The highest v/c ratio at any point at an intersection is a useful predictor
of overall intersection performance at the planning level, though more minor elements affecting
capacity, such as some nuances of signal control and operational effects of geometrics, are not
captured.
A step-by-step procedure for performing a critical lane analysis at an intersection with two, three,
or four approaches is shown in the Appendix, along with an example. The procedure uses flow
rates (demands during the peak 15 minutes expressed as vehicles per hour).
FHWA has developed a planning tool to conduct capacity analysis for planning of alternative
intersections (CAP-X), described as “a tool that can be used to evaluate selected types of
innovative or alternative junction designs (8 intersections, 5 interchanges, and 3 roundabouts)
using given peak hourly traffic counts.(36)” Exhibit 6-5 is a screen capture from the spreadsheet
that is downloadable from the Transportation Systems Institute website, A Federal Highway
Administration Project in partnership with the Transportation Systems Institute at the University
of Central Florida. Inputs include turning movement volume, percent trucks, truck adjustment,
turn adjustments, and capacity. The user enters the number of lanes for each approach to each
junction of the RCUT intersection on the results screen. The results screen shows the critical lane
demand and demand to capacity ratio at each junction. Exhibit 6-3 shows the inputs for the
example problem described above; the CAP-X results verify a critical lane demand of 1,167
vphpl at the northern U-turn crossover and a demand to capacity ratio of 0.69 at that point. CAP-
X is a convenient way to perform a planning analysis on a RCUT alternative.
87
Exhibit 6-3. CAP-X planning level tool screen capture.(36)
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (HCM) ANALYSIS
Stop-Controlled RCUT
Analysts can perform macroscopic analysis of the individual junctions at a stop-controlled

RCUT intersection using the 2010 HCM and software that implements its methods.(6) This
produces a set of results showing whether any of the junctions are near- or over-capacity, and
would provide delay and level of service (LOS) for each movement at each junction. For the
88
minor street left turns and through movements, there would be two sets of performance
measures: one at the main junction and one at the U-turn crossover. Having two sets of
performance measures creates challenges when comparing a RCUT intersection to a
conventional intersection.
For example, is a minor street left turn at a RCUT intersection operating at LOS B and C at the
two junctions performing better than a minor street left turn at a conventional intersection
operating at LOS E? LOS at stop-controlled intersections is based upon control delay, so the two
RCUT intersection delay estimates can be added and compared to the delay estimate for a single
movement at a conventional intersection. However, for the RCUT intersection, the minor street
left-turning vehicle experiences extra travel time to the U-turn crossover and back, which is not
accounted for in this type of comparison. In summary, current macroscopic methods can be
helpful in examining a stop-controlled RCUT intersection but there is a need for a procedure
accounting for all aspects of operation.
FHWA has commissioned a research team to develop a macroscopic operational analysis

procedure for RCUT intersections to appear in the next update of the HCM. The thoughts below
are based on the early progress of that research. Information provided below is in draft form and
is subject to change by the time the next update of the HCM is published (scheduled for 2015).
The operational measure of effectiveness (MOE) for a stop-controlled RCUT intersection in the
next edition of the HCM will likely be a form of extra travel time compared to a conventional
intersection. Setting aside U-turn demands, eight of the 12 movements at a four-approach RCUT
intersection are unchanged from a conventional intersection, so the techniques of Chapter 19 of
the 2010 HCM will apply to them without change. Only the minor street left turns and minor
street through movements would use the new MOE.
The research team has concentrated on two aspects of the Chapter 19 procedure that may differ
for RCUT intersections:
• Gap-acceptance behavior of motorists at U-turn crossovers
• Travel time for minor street left-turning and through vehicles from the main junction to
the back of the queue at the U-turn crossover and from the U-turn crossover stop bar
back to the main junction
Early indications suggest gap acceptance behavior is similar to corresponding conventional

movements in the 2010 HCM, and the free-flow speed is a reasonable predictor of travel time
from the main junction to the U-turn crossover and back again.
An interim step-by-step procedure for the HCM analysis of a stop-controlled RCUT intersection,
until publication of the next edition of the HCM, is presented in the Appendix.
Merge-Controlled RCUT
RCUT intersections with yield signs or merges at the minor street right-turn and/or the U-turn
crossover create a two-sided weave (from right to left) between the minor street and the U-turn
crossover and another two-sided weave (from left to right) between the U-turn crossover and
89
minor street. Most of these installations are safety countermeasures at low volume locations
where operational concerns are minimal.
RCUT intersections with merges present unique challenges for operational analysis, and there is
no readily applicable analysis method in the 2010 HCM that can be applied.(6)
Signal-Controlled RCUT
As at stop-controlled and merge-controlled RCUT intersections, there is no current HCM

analysis procedure available for signalized RCUT intersections. However, FHWA-sponsored
research is underway to create such a procedure for the next edition of the HCM. It is possible to
piece together a procedure from other parts of the HCM. This section provides guidance on how
to conduct a HCM analysis of a signalized RCUT intersection from the information that is
currently available, including the FHWA research project. Some parts of the procedure
recommended here may change when the RCUT intersection-specific HCM procedure is
published.
The Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) for an operational analysis of a signal-controlled RCUT

intersection in the forthcoming HCM procedure will likely be a form of extra travel time,
comparing the travel time a movement would have experienced using a direct path without
traffic control to the travel time the movement experiences making its way through the RCUT
intersection. Unlike stop-controlled RCUT intersections, most movements at a four-approach
signal-controlled RCUT intersection behave differently from a conventional intersection because
they progress through at least two signals. This is a reason for the use of extra travel time as the
MOE for signalized RCUT intersections.
No decisions have yet been made on a recommended LOS scale. The options include using the
current LOS scale from Chapter 18 of the 2010 HCM (with 80 seconds of control delay as the
LOS F threshold) or establishing a scale with a higher LOS F threshold.
Inputs for a signal-controlled RCUT intersection include the turning movement count, geometry
(numbers of lanes on each approach), distances from the main intersection to the U-turn
crossovers, lengths of the storage bays for each crossover, and free-flow speed on the main
street. Signal timing parameters are also needed, particularly some measure of the quality of
progression along the major street, as that is the reason many signalized RCUT intersections are
built.
The FHWA research developing an operational analysis procedure for signalized RCUT
intersections is concentrating on several elements of the existing signalized intersection
procedure in Chapter 18 that may differ for RCUT intersections. These elements include:
• Saturation flow rates in U-turn crossovers

• Lane utilization at multilane right turns or U-turn crossovers
• Left turn on red (LTOR) and right turn on red (RTOR) critical headways and follow-up times
• Travel times from main intersection to crossover and back
90
Exhibit 6-4 describes the preliminary findings from the FHWA research usable in the interim
until publication of a new operational analysis procedure.
Exhibit 6-4. Preliminary guidance from FHWA research on key parameters in operation
analysis of signalized RCUT intersections.
Parameter Preliminary Guidance

Saturation flow Use adjustment factor of 0.8 for typical one-lane crossovers and 0.9 for typical
rates in U-turn two-lane crossovers; use adjustments above 0.9 or below 0.8 if turn radius is
crossovers particularly large or small.
For unsaturated movements, use lane distributions proportional to downstream
Lane utilization at
movements. For example, if two-thirds of the vehicles using a dual lane U-turn
multilane right
crossover are minor street through vehicles and one-third are minor street left turn
turns or U-turn
vehicles, for analysis place two-thirds of the crossover volume in the outside lane
crossovers
and one-third in the inside lane.
LTOR and RTOR
Use the same critical gap and mean follow-up times as in the 2010 HCM Chapter
critical headways
19 for minor street right turns.(6)
and follow-up times
Use travel times based on the measured main street free-flow speed multiplied by
Travel times from
the distance from the minor street to the U-turn crossover. Note that accelerations
main intersection to
and decelerations are already accounted for in the control delay estimation
crossover and back
formulae for each signalized junction.
An interim step-by-step procedure for the operational analysis of a signalized RCUT

intersection, until publication of the next edition of the HCM, is presented in the Appendix.
The techniques in Chapter 18 of the 2010 HCM may be used to compute LOS for pedestrians
and bicycles crossing RCUT intersections. The application is straightforward, with a LOS being
generated for each crossing stage negotiated. For example, a pedestrian walking along one side
of the minor street and crossing the major street would cross the minor street first, then one half
of the major street, then the second half of the major street, so three separate levels of service
would be generated. To get an overall travel time for any pedestrian or bicycle crossing
movement would entail adding the delays estimated at each stage of the crossing to the extra
time because of the median width and because the crossing may be at an angle other than 90
degrees.
MICROSIMULATION ANALYSIS
Microsimulation can be an effective tool to study RCUT intersections. Microsimulation

programs create individual simulated vehicles and move them through a network, governed by
fundamental equations of traffic flow, at small time increments such as 0.1 seconds. Simulation
provides greater flexibility to examine unusual cases and networks, a distribution of responses
rather than a single response value, and animation. A practitioner can simulate multiple modes,
including passenger cars, heavy vehicles, light rail, pedestrians, and bicycles. Simulation is
plausible for all three types of RCUT intersections—stop-controlled, merge-controlled, and
signalized—but is rarely employed for stop- and merge-controlled RCUT intersections. Stop-
91
and merge-controlled RCUT intersections are typically safety countermeasures and operation
analysis is less relevant.
There are several drawbacks to simulation. Input is more detailed than planning or HCM
analyses, making it time-consuming to gather and code. Simulation programs are more complex
and expensive to purchase than planning or HCM analysis software, and require trained or
experienced users. The output is voluminous and requires post-processing to compute
meaningful performance measures. Simulation studies do not necessarily produce higher quality
results than planning or HCM studies; if agencies employ simulation, they must ensure programs
are used properly in order to achieve useful results.
Many microsimulation efforts need to be calibrated for the special conditions of RCUT
intersections. Calibration is the process of adjusting the governing traffic flow equations so
simulation results match field conditions as closely as needed to achieve study objectives. A
discussion on the calibration process can be found in the FHWA’s Traffic Analysis Tools
website in Volumes III or Volume IV (specific to CORSIM).(32)
A 2010 research effort sponsored by NCDOT was the most comprehensive effort undertaken at
the time of this writing to calibrate a VISSIM microsimulation model for RCUT intersections.(11)
The researchers collected field data from four intersections with 12 possible travel patterns (left,
through, and right at each leg of the intersection) for a total of 48 movements. The researchers
combined the travel times for each of the 48 movements from four intersections at three sites and
calibrated the models based on the mean percent difference in travel time between field and
simulation to achieve a set of calibration parameters that was the best for the sites collectively.
Parameters adjusted in VISSIM to try to achieve an acceptable fit to the field data were:(11)
1. The mean value of the main street free-flow speed distribution (the shape of the distribution
was input as equivalent to the field measurements and kept constant throughout calibration)
2. The sizes of the speed zones for all turns
3. Increased conflict areas for minor street RTOR
4. Added desired speed decisions for minor roads
5. Adjusted gap values for all RTOR and for the flashing yellow arrow signals that were
employed at the Wilmington site for permissive turns from all crossovers
Gap values from the study sites are shown in Exhibit 6-5.
92
Exhibit 6-5. Final gap values after calibration.(11)
U-turn Major left

RTOR (flashing yellow) (flashing yellow)
Front gap Rear gap Front gap Rear gap Front gap Rear gap
SITE (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec)
Chapel Hill 2.0 3.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wilmington 2.0 3.6 3.0 7.1 2.0 5.5

US-17 2.5 3.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
The overall lessons from the NCDOT calibration and validation effort were that calibration of a
VISSIM model to the RCUT intersection design is possible; however, the effort was extensive.
Agencies needing to calibrate their own simulation model to local RCUT corridors need to be
aware that this is a complex and time-consuming undertaking.
93
94
CHAPTER 7 — GEOMETRIC DESIGN

This chapter describes the typical RCUT intersection design approach and provides guidance for
geometric features. It requires input from the multimodal considerations (Chapter 3), safety
assessment (Chapter 4), and traffic operational analysis (Chapters 5 and 6). The guidance in this
chapter is intended to supplement national resources on intersections that apply basic design
principles.
Geometric design is similar for RCUT intersections with stop signs and with traffic signals, and
RCUT intersections with stop signs can be converted to signalized RCUT intersections. The
geometric design of signalized RCUT intersections makes up the bulk of the discussion in this
chapter. RCUT intersections with merges have unique design and operational considerations and
are also discussed. In this chapter, unless specifically referring to a RCUT intersection with
merges, the discussion is intended to apply to RCUT intersections with stop signs or traffic
signals.
DESIGN APPROACH
The geometric design of a RCUT intersection requires a series of key decisions, some of which
are the same as for a conventional intersection and some of which are different. Unlike other
alternative intersections, such as the MUT and DLT, the RCUT intersection is not discussed as
an explicit concept in the current edition of the AASHTO Green Book.(5)
Developing the geometric layout for an intersection configuration requires considering the
relationship and interaction of safety, operations, and design. The overarching goal is to provide
geometry that meets the expectations of all road users. This includes appropriate channelization
that is supplemented with signing and pavement markings. As with any intersection form under
consideration, undesirable geometry cannot necessarily be mitigated by signing and pavement
markings. Exhibits 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 highlight the characteristic features of the three types of
RCUT intersections.
95
Exhibit 7-1. Characteristics of a RCUT intersection with signals.
Exhibit 7-2. Characteristics of a RCUT intersection with stop-control.
96
Exhibit 7-3. Characteristics of a RCUT intersection with merges.
The design of and RCUT intersection should begin with some basic information on the number
of approaches, through lanes, intersection angle, typical design parameters, turning movement
demands in the design hour, and provisions for pedestrians and bicycle facilities. At an early
stage in the design, a planning-level capacity analysis (described in Chapter 6) will aid designers
in determining the number of lanes required at each crossover. The crossovers are typically
designed with one lane only for RCUT intersections with stop signs and with merges.
Another early design decision is the RCUT intersection width and length. RCUT width is
influenced by the median width and of placing storage lanes heading into the crossovers back-to-
back or side-by-side. There are a number of considerations influencing the median width. RCUT
length is affected by the decision of where to place the U-turn crossovers. The considerations for
each of these decisions are described in detail below.
As with all intersection design, the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, transit vehicles and users, and
other special vehicles can influence the intersection geometrics. To date, most constructed RCUT
intersections with merges and with stop signs have been in rural, undeveloped areas with no
surrounding pedestrian and bicycle activity or facilities. Therefore, these RCUT intersections
have not provided pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. However, a flexible geometric
configuration is one that could be readily converted to serve those user needs.
There are several geometric design and operational features that can affect the layout and
operations of a RCUT intersection. A shorter cycle length (without violating the need for
minimum pedestrian crossing times) may result in shorter average queues, which may allow for
shorter storage bays and a shorter distance from the main intersection to the U-turn crossover.
The shorter distance required may reduce travel times for minor street left-turning and through
vehicles and improve vehicular levels of service. Short cycle lengths and closer spacing of the u-
turn crossover will also generally be beneficial to pedestrians (reduced delay) and bicyclists
(shorter travel distance if riding in the roadway).
97
GEOMETRIC DESIGN PARAMETERS/PRINCIPLES
The geometric design of a RCUT intersection introduces some unique design principles that are
not typically present at a conventional intersection. These principles include:
• A wide median can make accommodating U-turn movements easier or more

straightforward. Typically this median is uniform through the intersection and main
crossing street, but there are design variations that reduce the length of the wide median
or locate the median on the minor street. Bump-outs or loons can also be used to
compensate for narrower median widths, yet still accommodate the U-turn movements.
• A large enough vehicle path at the U-turn crossover to accommodate trucks and allow for
more efficient movements through the U-turn by passenger vehicles.
• Design elements that provide positive guidance using design elements and signage to
reduce chances of driver error or the ease of illegal turns.
• Signing, marking, and geometric design that promotes safe and efficient movements that
would otherwise be unexpected or not familiar to motorists.
• Corridor-wide access strategies and management considerations to properties along the

median street to promote safe and efficient access to these properties.
• Stopping sight distance at all points through the intersection and intersection sight
distance for all movements at each RCUT intersection junction. Intersection sight
distance must be provided if RTOR movements, LTOR movements, or permissive
movements are allowed.
The parameters and principles of geometric design for a RCUT intersection are similar to the
principles for any other intersection design. In most cases, a RCUT intersection will consist of a
principal arterial intersecting a minor arterial or collector road. The design principles outlined in
the AASHTO Green Book for those facility types may generally be applied.(5)
A RCUT intersection is channelized to allow certain movements through the major street median
at specific locations. The AASHTO Green Book provides principles and design details for
channelization applicable to RCUT intersections.(5)
RANGE OF RCUT CONFIGURATIONS
A wide range of RCUT intersections configurations are possible. Many of the locations from a
land use standpoint have not incorporated pedestrian and bicycle facilities into the RCUT
intersection design. However, as discussed in Chapter 3 and throughout this Guide, it is
important for a designer to understand the context of the intersection and integrate all users. A
summary of the range of RCUT configurations are shown below.
1. Major streets can range from four lanes to eight lanes wide. Some corridors in Michigan
have MUT intersections on ten-lane major streets that could be converted to the RCUT
intersection design within the existing right-of-way.
98
2. Minor streets at a RCUT intersection can be up to four through lanes wide.
3. U-turn crossovers can be one or two lanes wide, while left-turn crossovers could range
from one to three lanes wide.
4. The distance from the main intersection to the U-turn crossovers can vary from 400 feet
for a stop- or signal-controlled RCUT intersection to one-half mile for a merge-controlled
RCUT intersection.
5. The major street right-of-way could be as narrow as 70 feet with four 10-foot travel lanes,
a 10-foot median providing room for left-turn crossovers and pedestrian staging, and 10-
foot buffers on either side. The buffer could include curb and gutter, berms, and
sidewalks.
6. An eight-lane major street with a generous median width could have as much as a 200-
foot right-of-way.
7. RCUT intersections with merges that accommodate large trucks making U-turns would
need either a wider median or loons sized to accommodate the truck U-turns.
8. A RCUT intersection may have three or four approaches.
Exhibit 7-4 shows a typical stop-controlled RCUT intersection in a rural area near Southern
Pines, NC. This location has a high-speed four-lane major highway, a two-lane minor road, and
one-lane crossovers. Due to the rural context there are no pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities
at this location.
99
Exhibit 7-4. Stop-controlled RCUT intersection on US-1 near Southern Pines, NC.(2)
Exhibit 7-5 shows a typical merge-controlled RCUT intersection in a rural area in Emmitsburg,
MD. This location has a high-speed four-lane major highway, a two-lane minor road, and one-
lane crossovers. Due to the rural context there are no pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities at
this location.
Exhibit 7-5. Merge-controlled RCUT intersection on US-15 in Emmitsburg, MD.(3)
100
Exhibit 7-6 shows a signalized RCUT intersection with a six-lane major highway in a suburban
area outside Hamilton, OH. This location has a four-lane minor street and two-lane U-turn
crossovers. Two minor street lanes are designated for U-turn crossover, and one lane is
designated for a right turn to continue on the major street. Due to the suburban location, there are
no pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities.
Exhibit 7-6. Signalized RCUT intersection on OH-4 outside Hamilton, OH with six-lane
major highway and four-lane minor road.(2)
Exhibit 7-7 shows a signalized RCUT intersection in a suburban area with a six-lane major street
and a four-lane minor street in Troy, MI. It includes a mix of one-lane and two-lane crossovers.
There are pedestrian crosswalks at the main intersection along the major street and a pedestrian
crosswalk of the major street on the left side of the photo.
101
Exhibit 7-7. Signalized RCUT intersection on Big Beaver Road in Troy, MI with six-lane
major street and four-lane minor street.(3)
Exhibit 7-8 shows a RCUT with three approaches. This type of RCUT configuration reduces
conflict points compared to one with four approaches (refer to Chapter 4 for more details).
Exhibit 7-8. RCUT intersection with three-approaches.
OPERATIONAL EFFECTS OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN
This section addresses the operational effects of geometric design on safety performance and
traffic operations. Examples of the operational effects of geometrics at RCUT intersections
include:
102
1. The distance from the main intersection to the U-turn crossovers affects minor street left-turn
and through vehicle travel times, which are a strong measure of operational effectiveness.
2. The radii of turning movements affect saturation flow rates. The smaller the radius, the
slower the vehicle makes the turn and the lower the saturation flow rate. RCUT intersections
with narrow medians and no ability for U-turning vehicles to turn onto a shoulder may result
in low saturation flow rates. However, small turning radii may benefit crossing pedestrians.
3. Short distances from the main intersections to the U-turn crossovers may require RCUT
intersections with multiple lanes on the minor street approach or in the U-turn crossover.
Short distances may result in uneven lane utilization, as drivers preposition themselves for
the next maneuver downstream. Uneven lane utilization reduces capacity.
4. An offset between the two minor streets at a four-approach RCUT intersection will reduce
the pedestrian walking distance. This shorter distance would lead to shorter minimum green
times for the minor street and major street left-turn signal phase.
The orientation of a RCUT intersection angle may influence the conversion of a conventional
intersection to a RCUT intersection, as well as traffic operations. A RCUT intersection with less
than 90 degrees (acute angle) can serve the left turns on the major street more efficiently than
one greater than 90 degrees (obtuse angle). Exhibit 7-9 illustrates the intersection angles for a
RCUT intersection.
103
Better candidate for a RCUT conversion:
Less ideal candidate for a RCUT conversion:
Exhibit 7-9. RCUT intersection angle considerations.
DESIGN GUIDANCE
This section provides design guidance for all types of RCUT intersections with stop signs, traffic
signals, and merges. There is additional specific guidance related to RCUT intersections with
merges provided at the end of this section.
RCUT intersections may be used on divided streets or on undivided streets with special
provisions for accommodating U-turns. Geometric design guidance is organized into the
following sections:
• Main intersection turn lanes
• U-turn crossover with two-way crossovers, or single directional crossovers
• Median widths and loons
• Right-of-way requirements
104
• Design vehicle accommodations
• Spacing between the main intersection and U-turn crossovers
• Spacing between crossovers along a MUT corridor of intersections
• Pedestrians and bicycles
• Transit
Main intersection turn lanes
Left-Turn Crossovers
At a four-approach RCUT intersection, each left-turn crossover serves just one movement (a
major street left turn), while each U-turn crossover serves two movements (minor street left turn
and through movements). Therefore, it is possible that the left-turn crossovers can serve traffic
efficiently with only one lane each while the U-turn crossovers have two lanes each.
Exhibit 7-10 shows a detail of RCUT intersection left-turn crossovers from NCDOT.
105
Exhibit 7-10. RCUT intersection schematic from NCDOT showing left-turn crossover
dimensions.(37)
The 100-foot radius curve fits within the 36-foot-wide median and allows sight lines for a left-
turning vehicle to see past a queue in the opposing left-turn storage bay. A pedestrian refuge area
should be provided in the middle of the channelizing island to allow for crosswalks or the future
addition of crosswalks.
Drivers can violate the traffic control devices RCUT intersections in rural areas by making direct
left turns from the minor street. Curbs on the median islands can discourage wrong-way
movements. Aligning the minor street approach toward the intended turn direction, as shown in
Exhibit 7-10, can encourage vehicles to turn right and discourage wrong-way movements.
Typically, the design speed of the left-turn crossovers is 15 to 20 mph.
Direct Left Turn from Minor Street
If direct left turns from the major street are redirected to U-turn crossovers, direct left turns from
the minor street can be allowed. Exhibit 7-11 shows an example of a minor street left-turn
crossover on a street in Michigan. At this site, the left-turn crossover ends with a left merge into
the major street. Other options for direct left turns from the minor street have been published but
not constructed.(38)
106
Exhibit 7-11. Minor street left turn crossover with a merge on Woodward Avenue in
Birmingham, MI.(2)
Minor Street Approaches and Channelization
In most cases, the minor street approach to a RCUT intersection will have a median dividing the
two directions of travel. As with any street or channelization separating oncoming movements,
medians on the minor street help drivers to avoid head-on conflicts and discourage wrong-way
maneuvers. Minor street medians should be a minimum of 6 feet wide. Three options exist for
channelizing minor street traffic:
• No channelizing island
107
• A channelizing island (or channelizing end treatment on a median) separating all of the
right-turn lanes from the minor street lanes leaving the intersection
• A channelizing island separating minor street right turns that remain on the major street
from minor street right turns that subsequently make a U-turn on the major street (i.e. the
redirected movements).
The advantages and disadvantages of right-turn channelization on the minor street at a RCUT
intersection are described below:
1. Advantages
o Guides drivers more firmly, likely reducing sideswipe conflicts during the turn
o Shortens pedestrian crossing distances to a refuge
o Reduces the paved surface area
o Provides the opportunity for a lane addition and a free right turn (merge),
reducing delay for that maneuver
2. Disadvantages
o Requires pedestrians to cross more vehicle pathways, with the right turns moving
faster and/or freely; uncontrolled right turns are more difficult to navigate for
visually-impaired pedestrians
o Creates potential for uneven lane utilization on the minor street
o Requires drivers on the minor street to select a lane earlier
o Increases right-of-way to accommodate the channelization
There are multiple ways to treat the RCUT intersection’s minor street approach depending upon
the storage bay length to the U-turn crossover. One option is to align the curve leading out of the
minor street to continue directly into the storage bay for the U-turn crossover. The other option is
to align it to the major street through lanes, with the U-turn crossover storage bay taper
beginning further downstream. If the U-turn crossover storage bay needs to extend all the way
back to the minor street, the first option aligning the turn directly into the bay for minor street
vehicles is preferred.
The RCUT intersection example in Michigan (shown in Exhibit 7-7) shows both options, with
the continuous curve into the storage bay on the left side of the photo (serving the southbound
minor street if north is at the top of the photo) and the curve into the major street with the storage
bay taper beginning downstream on the right side of the photo (serving northbound minor street
traffic).
108
The example from North Carolina (shown in Exhibit 7-4) has the minor street vehicles turning
into the major street lanes, while the example from Ohio (shown in Exhibit 7-6) shows minor
street vehicles destined for the U-turn crossover turning directly into storage lanes.
Exhibit 7-12 shows a schematic example at a signalized RCUT intersection with one of the two
minor street lanes leading directly into the storage bay for the U-turn. Exhibit 7-13 shows a
schematic example of a signalized RCUT intersection with two of the three minor streets lanes
leading directly into the storage bay for the U-turn; in this case, a channelizing island separates
the two lanes leading into the storage bay from the third U-turn. The trade-offs of channelizing
islands are noted above.
Exhibit 7-12. Schematic of RCUT intersection with one-lane, minor street approaches.
109
Exhibit 7-13. Signalized RCUT intersection with multiple lanes and channelization on the
minor street.
U-turn crossover with two-way crossovers, or single directional crossovers
The U-turn crossovers at a RCUT intersection are quite similar to those at a MUT intersection.
Therefore, for additional information, designers may consider referencing the Median U-turn
Informational Guide.
The typical distance from the main intersection to the U-turn crossover at a RCUT intersection
with stop signs or signals is 400 to 800 feet. In general, shorter travel distances result in fewer
distance-related crashes such as animal and run-off-road crashes. Smaller distances also result in
shorter travel times for minor street left-turn and through vehicles; this can be especially helpful
to minor street bicyclists making a left turn or a through movement. A longer distance results in
more time for drivers to understand navigational tasks and make corresponding decisions. The
distance to the U-turn crossover is dictated by the need to provide a storage bay that avoids
queue spillback.
The minimum distance between consecutive U-turn crossovers is dictated by the need for drivers
at one stop bar to see past a queue built up in the storage bay of the other crossover. MDOT calls
for a minimum separation of 100 feet and a desirable separation of 150 feet. If consecutive U-
turn crossovers must be closer together, the crossovers may be signalized. In these cases, LTOR
would be prohibited. The presence of pedestrians can influence the distance between consecutive
U-turn crossovers. If pedestrian crosswalks are present at the crossovers, as mentioned in
Chapter 3, a longer separation requires the sidewalk between the two crosswalks to run parallel
to the major street for some distance; this is shown in Exhibit 7-17. The longer pedestrian
distance increases the pedestrian travel time and could encourage jaywalking. The design speed
for the U-turn crossovers is typically 15 mph.
110
Access Management Considerations
RCUT intersections do not require frontage roads to serve nearby land parcels. Driveways and
side streets can be placed along a RCUT intersection at almost any point, generally avoiding the
signal and near the entrance to a U-turn crossover as shown in Exhibit 7-14. Back-to-back
crossovers with no access points between are shown in Exhibit 7-15.
Exhibit 7-14. Area near U-turn crossover where access point should be avoided.
This access-controlled area addresses the following items:
1. Discourages drivers from using that access point to enter the U-turn crossover
2. Discourages drivers from using that access point to drive the wrong way on the major
street
3. Reduces the risk of blocking major street travel lanes while queued
Since there is no particular need to concentrate driveway and side street movements at a small
number of points along the arterial, frontage roads typically provide little value for the cost and
the right-of-way needed.
111
Exhibit 7-15. Back-to-back crossovers on Big Beaver Road in Troy, MI.(2)
Median widths and loons
An important consideration in the U-turn crossover design is accommodating the designated

design vehicle. Providing a semi-circle of additional pavement outside the travel lane to allow
the design vehicle to complete the U-turn maneuver and merge back into the traffic stream is
called a “loon” or a “bump out.”(39) Exhibit 7-16 is a photograph of a loon implemented in
Wilmington, NC. Exhibit 7-1 also shows a pavement marking channelizing the two lanes of the
U-turn crossover, attempting to minimize sideswipe conflicts during side-by-side turns. Such
pavement markings have been used at the RCUT intersections on US-281 in San Antonio, TX.
Loons may be designed by applying a turning vehicle template for the chosen design vehicle.
Signing to prohibit parking and additional enforcement may be necessary to keep loons free of
stopped vehicles. U-turn crossovers may be located where there is available right-of-way for a
loon.
112
Exhibit 7-16 Loon implemented on RCUT intersection in Wilmington, NC.(3)
Short of designing a full loon, there are other ways to accommodate U-turns by the chosen
design vehicle at a RCUT intersection. One method of reducing right-of-way is to allow vehicles
to turn onto the existing or widened shoulder. If the volume of trucks is relatively low, this can
be a cost-effective approach, as strengthening the shoulder in the U-turn area may reduce long-
term maintenance needs. The U-turn crossover on the right side of Exhibit 7-17 shows this
configuration as implemented in Michigan. A second method is to design the U-turn to align into
a right-turn lane, as illustrated by the U-turn crossover on the left side of Exhibit 7-17.
113
Exhibit 7-17. Other treatments used at U-turn crossovers on Twelve Mile Road in
Farmington Hills, MI to accommodate large vehicles.(2)
The AASHTO Green Book provides values for minimum median width without loons based on
the needs of U-turning design vehicles, as shown in Exhibit 7-18. Without a loon or other
treatment, the design vehicle and the number of opposing lanes directly govern the needed
median width at the crossover.(5) A median width of 69 feet is needed to serve aWB-67 U-turn
maneuver without encroaching on the outside curbs or shoulders of a four-lane major street. This
directive reflects the value of 57 feet from Exhibit 7-18 plus 12 feet for the width of the storage
lane leading into the U-turn crossover. Assuming 12-foot-wide lanes and right-of-way limits 10
feet beyond the edge of the travel way, the right-of-way for RCUT intersection major streets
without loons can range from 137 feet for four-lane arterials to 161 feet for eight-lane arterials.
114
Exhibit 7-18. AASHTO-recommended minimum median widths for U-turn crossovers.(5)
Placing the storage bays for the left-turn and U-turn crossovers back-to-back rather than side-to-
side is a means of minimizing the median width in a RCUT intersection. Exhibit 7-19 shows a
sketch of a RCUT with back-to-back two-lane storage bays. This results in a 30-foot-wide
median. Back-to-back storage bays length and design are based on providing storage for the
estimated queue lengths for the design period from the operation analysis (refer to Chapters 5
and 6 for more details).
Exhibit 7-19. RCUT intersection with back-to-back two-lane crossover storage bays.
115
Exhibit 7-20 and Exhibit 7-21 illustrate MDOT guidelines for designing directional median
crossovers and show one-lane crossovers.(28) Large trucks and other heavy vehicles typically use
the entire width of the crossover. MDOT uses striped two-lane crossovers (with two lanes of
storage leading up to the crossover) in some places. If considering the application of striped two-
lane crossovers, the designer should check the local and state agency standards to determine if
this is allowed. These crossovers are typically 36 feet wide.
Exhibit 7-20. U-turn crossover design on highway with curbs.(28)
Exhibit 7-21. U-turn crossover design on highway without curbs.(28)
A RCUT intersection can generally accommodate access to nearby parcels. Access points are
generally avoided near a signal or near the entrance to a U-turn crossover (as shown earlier in
Exhibit 7-4). Driveways or side streets may be aligned with the exit of a U-turn crossover.
MDOT has extensive experience with this practice along MUT corridors and has revealed no
safety or operational concerns. If there is a significant traffic demand by right-turning vehicles
coming out of the driveway or side-street, adding a third signal phase can manage the conflict
between the right-turning vehicles and U-turning vehicles. This has been added at a U-turn
116
crossover on Eight Mile Road in Detroit, MI just east of Woodward Avenue. In most cases,
motorists manage that conflict adequately as shown by the safety record of the MUT arterials in
Michigan as described in the Median U-turn Informational Guide.
Right-of-way requirements
The median width of a RCUT intersection is the main variable in determining the necessary
major street right-of-way width. If loons are used at the U-turn crossovers, the median may be as
narrow as a left-turn lane and a minimal median separation (i.e. a 12-foot lane and a 6-foot
median). As presented previously, a 69-foot-wide median will typically allow U-turns by large
trucks or buses on a four-lane major street without encroaching over the curb or needing to
include a loon.
Based on the median width requirements described above, MDOT uses median widths between
47 and 71 feet to accommodate design vehicles at U-turn crossovers at MUT intersections
without encroaching on outside curbs or shoulders. These dimensions are also applicable to
RCUT intersections. If 12-foot lanes are assumed and an additional 10 feet is provided beyond
the edge of the travelled street for drainage and utilities, the right-of-way can vary from 139 feet
for four-lane streets to 163 feet for eight-lane streets. Similarly, using Exhibit 7-19 for minimum
median widths, when designing U-turns and using the same lane width assumptions described
above, the right-of-way requirements would range from 139 feet for four-lane streets and 165
feet for eight-lane streets.
Design vehicle accommodations
Crossovers at a RCUT intersection are only used by vehicles heading to or from the minor street
(or an access point along the main street). Therefore, the design vehicle for the crossovers can
usually be the same as the design vehicle for the minor street or access point. The design vehicle
is usually a tractor-trailer configuration but could be a bus or emergency response vehicle. In an
urban area, the design vehicle at a RCUT intersection need be no larger than what can be served
on the surrounding street network.
The design vehicle’s turning movements at the U-turn crossover and the additional time required
for design vehicles to complete this movement are the primary differences between the design of
a conventional intersection and a RCUT intersection. Where loons are not used, the medians
typically need to be 47 to 71 feet wide to accommodate the turning radius and the width of a
design vehicle’s turning path; for comparison, medians at conventional intersections with dual-
left turn lanes are typically 28 feet. Additionally, the lane width of the crossover must be
increased to accommodate the turning path of the larger vehicles.
Dual U-turn lanes can be implemented if vehicle demand supports it. Dual-lane U-turns are often
designed so that a large truck’s swept path would use both lanes, as discussed in Chapter 4 and
shown in Exhibit 4-10. If a high percentage or number of heavy vehicles is anticipated, dual U-
turn lanes can be designed to accommodate large trucks and buses in both lanes side by side,
simultaneously. The size of the U-turn crossover could be reduced if large vehicles were limited
to one lane by signing and regulation, eliminating the possibility of two large vehicles using the
crossover at the same time.
117
Additional signal time must also be provided for heavy vehicles at the U-turn crossover. Studies
have shown that U-turns require up to 17-percent more time for passenger cars to complete than
a right- or left-turn movement.(28) Therefore, it is expected that heavy vehicles may require even
more time to complete U-turns than passenger cars.
Spacing between the main intersection and U-turn crossovers
The distance between the main intersection and the U-turn crossover must be considered for both
directions of travel on the major crossroad. The distance for right-turning vehicles (with a
destination to the minor street or left on the major street) from the minor crossroad to move from
the right side of the major crossroad after completing their right turn to the left side prior to the
deceleration lane. While traffic laws varying among states, in some states, right-turning vehicles
are mandated to enter the rightmost lane available on the crossroad into which they are turning.
This distance is shown in Exhibit 7-22.
Exhibit 7-22. Spacing consideration for a minor street through or left movement.
The AASHTO Green Book and MDOT provide guidance on the distance between the main
intersection and a U-turn crossover at a RCUT intersection.
118
MDOT recommends a distance of 660 feet ±100 feet between the main intersection and the U-
turn crossover for a RCUT intersection, which is based in part on the deceleration length
required for the major street having a posted speed limit of 45 mph.(26) The AASHTO Green
Book recommends a distance range of 400 to 600 feet.(5) The AASHTO Green Book also
suggests that at locations where the U-turn crossovers were designed specifically for eliminating
direct left turns at a major intersection, the crossover should be located downstream of the
intersection, preferably mid-block between adjacent crossroad intersections.
Where the minimum required distance to the U-turn crossover plus the distance required for the
next downstream left-turn lane are greater than the distance between the two adjacent
intersections, the AASHTO Green Book recommends the U-turn crossover should be located 50
to 100 feet in advance on the next downstream left-turn lane.(5)
Spacing between crossovers along a RCUT corridor of intersections
On a corridor with multiple RCUT intersections, the spacing between opposing directional U-
turn crossovers should be sufficient to prevent operational conflicts between the two U-turn
crossovers. MDOT guidance for MUT corridors suggests a 100 feet minimum and 150 feet
desirable distance; this is also applicable to RCUT intersections.
Pedestrians and bicycles
Chapter 3 provides guidelines to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists at RCUT intersections.

As for conventional intersection design, ADA and PROWAG guidelines provide guidance for
designing crosswalks, pedestrian ramps, and sidewalks, which applies to both pedestrian and
shared-use pedestrian/bicycle paths.(20)
As discussed in Chapter 3, the “Z” crossing shown in Exhibit 3-1 is the most common design at
this time at existing RCUT intersections.
Transit
As discussed in Chapter 3, transit bus stops are located similarly to a conventional intersection.
Additional Guidance for RCUT Intersections with Merges
Examples of RCUT intersections constructed in Maryland are shown in Exhibit 7-5. RCUT
intersections with merges have one-lane minor street approaches and one-lane crossovers. The
distance from the minor street to the U-turn crossover from the main intersection (typically 2,000 to
2,600 feet) is longer than for other types of RCUT intersections. Auxiliary lanes can be used to
support higher major street speeds. The AASHTO Green Book provides guidance on determining
auxiliary lane lengths for each condition.(5) Exhibit 7-5 shows an acceleration lane for U-turning
drivers that was constructed into the median and then continued as an auxiliary lane to the left-
turn crossover.(3)
The components of the street between the minor street to the U-turn crossover are an acceleration
lane plus taper, a certain weaving length for vehicles to move from the right to the left side of the
major street, and a taper plus deceleration lane on the left side.(3) The components of the street
119
between the U-turn crossover and the minor street are a left-side acceleration lane plus taper, a
certain weaving length for vehicles to merge from the left to the right side (for the minor street
through vehicles), and a taper plus deceleration lane. Designers should determine the desired length
in both directions and then use the larger of the two values. The AASHTO Green Book provides
guidance on determining acceleration and deceleration lane length and taper length. Criteria for a
minimum weaving length for this scenario do not exist.(5)
If the U-turn crossover ends in a left-side merge with the major street, the median on the major
street will have to be wider than at other types of RCUT intersections or the U-turn will not be
able to accommodate large vehicles. For the example from Maryland shown in Figure 7-5, the
median is about 50 feet wide and the U-turn crossover likely can accommodate vehicles no
larger than passenger cars without encroachment into the major street travel lanes. Larger U-
turning vehicles likely have to yield in the crossover and wait for a gap in the major street traffic
stream. Exhibit 7-18, showing needed median widths to accommodate various U-turning design
vehicles, will be helpful to find the optimum median width.
120
CHAPTER 8--SIGNALS, SIGNING, MARKING, AND LIGHTING

Traffic control devices are critical elements at all intersections. Their role is especially vital to
the success of alternative designs like the RCUT intersection. As users may be unfamiliar with
this type of alternative intersection, adequate traffic control devices are necessary to promote its
intended use. Since the opportunity to create progression is a key feature and benefit of the
RCUT intersection, signal design is central to the success of a signalized RCUT intersection.
This chapter describes current practices for signalizing, signing, marking, and lighting a RCUT
intersection. The chapter supplements the available national resources on traffic control devices
at intersections, including the MUTCD and local agency design standards and policies.(7)
Agencies building their first RCUT intersection may benefit from considering traffic control
devices generated by other agencies that have successfully implemented RCUT intersections.
This chapter focuses on traffic control devices and is complementary to Chapters 5 and 6, which
described the operational characteristics of RCUT intersections and showed how to conduct an
operational analysis of a RCUT intersection, respectively.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH
Traffic signal design, signing, pavement marking, and lighting design at a RCUT intersection can
be different from conventional intersections, particularly in relation to the minor street
movement prohibitions at the main intersection. The following treatments are unique at RCUT
intersections compared to conventional forms:
• Provide signage and pavement markings to indicate the prohibition of through and left
turns on the minor street and alternative routing of these movements
• Provide one-way and wrong-way signage to supplement the channelization of U-turn

intersections
• Provide a means for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle crossings
• Provide appropriate lighting at conflict points (i.e., main and U-turn intersections) within
the RCUT configuration to emphasize the presence of various users
SIGNALIZED VERSUS UNSIGNALIZED RCUT INTERSECTIONS
As noted throughout this Guide, RCUT intersections may be signalized or unsignalized with stop
signs, yield signs, or merges at the minor streets and crossovers. Unsignalized RCUT
intersections can provide adequate operations if the traffic demands are low. If the minor street
ADT is 5,000 or more, a RCUT intersection will generally operate better with signals.
Many tools are available to evaluate an unsignalized or signalized RCUT intersection. Chapter 6
notes how planning analyses, capacity and level of service analyses, various macroscopic
analysis software packages, and various microscopic analysis software packages can be used to
evaluate RCUT operations. The MUTCD signal warrants apply to RCUT and other intersections.
121
SIGNALS
A RCUT intersection can provide bi-directional progression (further discussed in Chapter 5) with
each direction of the arterial coordinated independently at various speeds and signal spacings,
similar to a pair of one-way streets. While adding extra cost compared to a conventional
intersection with one signal, the additional signals at a RCUT intersection do not degrade traffic
operations.
A four-legged RCUT intersection may have between one and four traffic signals, or up to six
signals if signalized pedestrian crosswalks at the U-turn crossovers are included. If one signal at
a RCUT intersection is warranted, as a rule of thumb, it is likely all four will be. U-turn
crossovers typically serve a large fraction of the demand at the minor street. Generally, if a signal
is justified at the main intersection, it will likely also be appropriate at the accompanying U-turn
crossover.
Controllers
Different traffic signalization practices may affect the number of signal controllers provided at a
RCUT intersection.
For a four-legged RCUT intersection with four typical signal locations, separate signal
controllers can be installed at each of the four signal locations. This preserves the independence
of the signal control on either side of the arterial. This practice may increase the implementation
cost of RCUT intersection installation and may prevent the signals from working together
optimally in an actuated environment. Exhibit 8-1 illustrates a RCUT intersection with four
separate controllers.
Exhibit 8-1. RCUT intersection with four separate controllers.
122
RCUT intersections may feature three controllers. One controller would handle the signal
displays at the main intersection, and the other controllers would handle the signal displays at the
U-turn crossovers. This design would not allow different cycle lengths in each direction of the
arterial. Exhibit 8-2 illustrates a RCUT intersection with three separate controllers.
Exhibit 8-2. RCUT intersection with three separate controllers.
It is possible for a RCUT configuration to use two controllers; with each controlling the signals
for each direction of the arterial. This design would allow different cycle lengths in each
direction of the major street. Exhibit 8-3 illustrates a RCUT intersection with two separate
controllers.
123
Exhibit 8-3. RCUT intersection with two separate controllers.
Finally, a RCUT intersection can be signalized with one controller as described earlier in this
chapter. One controller would be less expensive but would result in fewer control options and no
chance to have different cycle lengths in each direction of the major street. Exhibit 8-4 illustrates
a RCUT intersection with a single controller.
Exhibit 8-4. RCUT intersection with a single controller.
124
The advantages of single- and multiple-controller signal systems are described below.
Advantages of multiple controllers instead of a single controller include:
• Independent, bi-directional coordination is easier to operate
• If one controller fails, the other intersections of the RCUT can still function
• Programming phases and signal timing are simpler to install and maintain
• Installations require shorter wire lengths (signal conductor wire/detector wire runs to
local controller only)
• Easier for signal maintenance in that each cabinet will likely be placed with visibility
provided to the signal heads it controls
Advantages of a single controller instead of multiple controllers include:
• The system requires fewer cabinets and controllers to purchase, install, and maintain
• Interconnection is not required to keep signals coordinated
• There is a single controller to program and maintain
• There is a single service point for power
• There are fewer components to fail
• Vehicle detection may be easier to configure
Signal Equipment Locations
Mast arms and signal head locations should result in signals that are highly visible to the
applicable traffic stream, especially to traffic using the crossovers. The placement should not be
confusing to drivers. As with any signalized intersection, traffic equipment must be located to
minimize crash potential. Traffic equipment placement should consider pedestrian and bicycle
travel areas and not be an obstacle or inadvertently screen these users from the street. Exhibit 8-5
shows pole, mast arm, and head locations for a typical signalized RCUT intersection constructed
by NCDOT. The figure shows a pole-mounted signal head in the median for traffic using the U-
turn crossover to supplement the overhead far-side heads. Some agencies in Michigan also use
this configuration.
The presence of a loon creates special considerations when locating the signal pole and mast arm
for a signal at the U-turn crossover.(3) Exhibits 8-6 through 8-9 show signal installations along
the RCUT corridor on US-17 in Brunswick County, NC. In Exhibit 8-8, note how a signal pole
was placed at the loon, in contrast to Exhibit 8-5 where the pole is shown downstream of the
loon. Exhibits 8-6, 8-7, and 8-9 also show US-17 RCUT intersections operating with pole-
mounted signals in the median for the U-turning traffic. A potential disadvantage for signal
125
heads mounted on poles in the median is that sight lines to these signal heads may be blocked by
queued traffic.
Exhibit 8-5. Possible signal pole and mast arm locations for RCUT intersection.
Exhibit 8-6. Signal pole locations at the main intersection of a RCUT intersection on US-17
in North Carolina.(3)
126
Exhibit 8-7. Signal pole locations at the main intersection of another RCUT intersection on
US-17 in North Carolina.(3)
Exhibit 8-8. Signal pole locations at the U-turn crossover of a RCUT intersection on US-17
in North Carolina.(3)
127
Exhibit 8-9. Signal pole locations on the minor street approaches of a RCUT intersection on
US-17 in North Carolina.(3)
Detection
Exhibit 8-10 shows potential detector placements at a RCUT intersection. Vehicle, bicycle, and
pedestrian detection can be implemented similar to a conventional intersection to “call-off”
phases that have extra green time. This green time could be allocated to other phases needing
additional green time. This technique may be simpler in a RCUT intersection since there are only
two phases needing to be adjusted compared to a conventional intersection. This technique can
be particularly effective in off-peak times by providing more green time to the displaced left
turns, mitigating the longer travel path.
128
Exhibit 8-10. Potential detector placements.
Pedestrian Signals
Pedestrian signals at a RCUT intersection should be installed to accommodate a two-stage

crossing, even if it is possible to make a single-stage crossing. This is because pedestrians who
are slower or faster than the design value for walking speed may get caught in the median with a
red signal. This means a set of pedestrian signal heads, push buttons, and accessible pedestrian
signals would be provided in the median as well as on the roadside, as Exhibit 8-9 showed
previously.
Bicycle Signals
In general, bicycle signals are used to direct and control bicycle movements that are atypical
compared to conventional intersections and not concurrent with vehicle movements. Chapter 3 of
this guide discusses a number of options for minor street through and left-turn movements by
bicycles, some of which involve passing through the channelizing island in the center of the main
intersection. Although there are no known installations to date, bicycle signals could be provided
at a RCUT intersection for such movements.
SIGNING
Signing a RCUT intersection is similar to signing and marking a MUT intersection (as described
in an accompanying guide) or other alternative intersection that reroutes left-turning movements.
Special signing and marking considerations at a RCUT intersection compared to a conventional
form include:
• Providing destination guide signing for the minor street left-turn and through movements
129
• Including signs to guide motorists to the optimum lane in a multilane minor street
approach or in a multilane crossover
• Providing signing for right or left turn on red prohibitions
This section addresses signing and for signal-controlled RCUT intersections, stop-controlled
RCUT intersections, and RCUT intersections with merges. Some of the signing and marking
practices depicted in this section reflect observed practice at RCUT intersections that may not be
included in the MUTCD.(7) The MUTCD includes a procedure for agencies wishing to conduct
field experiments with new signs and markings.
Signal-Controlled
Exhibit 8-11 shows a signing plan for one direction of travel at a signalized RCUT intersection
based largely on Maryland State Highway Administration guidance. RCUT intersection signing
is not explicitly addressed in the MUTCD.
The key elements are well-placed regulatory signs to indicate prohibited movements and clear
and visible guide signs to aid the minor street left-turn and through traffic. In the plan shown in
Exhibit 8-11 there is no sign or marking provided for U-turn crossover or minor street vehicles
on which lane they should choose to reach a particular destination. However, such a sign was
developed for a RCUT intersection in Texas. Whether to provide lane choice signing and
marking is left to the agency’s discretion and is discussed below. Standard street name signs at
the main intersection may be helpful for main street motorists. Wide main streets could benefit
from a guide sign in the median just beyond the main intersection and also on the right
(shoulder) side of the street. Exhibit 8-12 shows two options for a sign in the median on the
approach to a U-turn crossover.
130
Exhibit 8-11. Signalized RCUT intersection signing plan derived from Maryland practice.(3)
131
Exhibit 8-12. Guide signs for U-turn crossovers based on Maryland (left side) and Texas
(right side) practice.
Allowing right turn on red (RTOR) and/or left turn on red (LTOR) (if allowed by law) at a
RCUT intersection can reduce travel times. RTOR is generally easier for motorists to execute
from a minor street at a RCUT intersection compared to a conventional intersection. This is
because there is no legal crossing for pedestrians on that corner seeking to cross the main street.
The LTOR movement from a U-turn crossover generally does not encounter pedestrian traffic.
Prohibiting RTOR and/or LTOR is conveyed via regulatory signing. This can include multiple
signs on any particular approach prohibiting RTOR or LTOR, especially on wide minor street
approaches or multilane crossovers. Some agencies chose to post signs saying what is allowed.
For example, Texas agencies have posted “TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY” regulatory
signs on some of its U-turn crossovers. An agency in Michigan posts regulatory “PROCEED ON
GREEN [ball] ONLY.”
In multilane U-turn crossovers on MUT corridors in Michigan, the inner lane is typically marked
as a U-turn only lane while the outer lane is marked as an optional U-turn or straight through
lane (if there is a driveway or side street at the end of the crossover). By contrast, at the RCUT
intersections in Michigan and in North Carolina, the agencies provide no guidance to minor
street or crossover traffic as far as which lane of a multilane approach or crossover drivers should
use for a certain destination.
At a RCUT intersection where the minor street is busy, additional guidance to minor street
through motorists on the median signs may be beneficial. Examples in Texas have included
overhead lane use signing to guide minor street motorists into the desired lane. Exhibit 8-13
shows the overhead lane use signs on the three-lane minor street approach (Evans Road) to US-
281. The sign is placed about 350 feet prior to the stop bar. The middle lane can be used by
drivers making the minor street through movement (following Evans Road) or making the minor
street right-turn movement onto northbound US-281. The other two lanes of the approach serve
specific destinations. Exhibit 8-14, with an overhead view of the RCUT intersection, shows a
traffic island to separate the right lane of the minor street approach from the others. This example
132
also has dotted lane extension pavement markings to guide turning into the appropriate receiving
lane. Specific lane guidance, similar to that provided at US-281 and Evans Road, may reduce
initial driver confusion and downstream lane changes, but may also reduce lane balance. This
could result in a small loss of capacity compared to less specific lane guidance.
Exhibit 8-13. Overhead lane use signs provided on minor street (Evans Road) approaching
major street (US-281 in San Antonio, TX).
133
Exhibit 8-14. RCUT intersection with traffic island separating minor street right turn
movements from minor street through and left turn movements.(2)
The overhead lane use signs are shown in Exhibit 8-15. A RCUT intersection in North Carolina
on US-15/501 and Erwin Road and Europa Drive in Chapel Hill also used overhead signing for
the major street, as shown in Exhibit 8-15. The RCUT intersection does not have major street
left-turn crossovers (major street left-turning vehicles must drive beyond the main intersection
and use the U-turn crossover). This unusual turning pattern justified the expense of large
overhead signs mounted on trusses spanning the street. Aside from the special cases cited here,
most signalized RCUT intersections in the United States do not use overhead signs.
134
Exhibit 8-15. Overhead guide signs at the RCUT intersection on US-15/501 in Chapel Hill,
NC.(27)
Stop-Controlled
The principles behind signing a stop-controlled RCUT intersection are similar to those for a
signal-controlled RCUT intersection. In some ways the issues are more simple for the stop-
controlled case because the demands are lighter and minor street and crossovers are typically
single-lane approaches. Exhibit 8-16 shows a signing and marking plan for a stop-controlled
RCUT intersection developed by NCDOT. The plan in Exhibit 8-16 does not call for guide signs
because the minor street is a low-volume street primarily serving local drivers. Exhibit 8-16 also
does not show stop or yield signs for the U-turn crossovers; in Maryland there are also U-turn
crossovers with no stop or yield signs. Other agencies routinely use stop or yield signs to control
U-turn crossovers. MDOT has used either stop signs or yield signs in U-turn crossovers while
Louisiana has used yield signs. Yield signs reduce the need to stop, which reduces delay.
135
Exhibit 8-16. Stop-controlled RCUT intersection signing guidance from NCDOT

practice.(40)
Merge-Controlled
The signing plan for a merge-controlled RCUT intersection will be similar to a stop-controlled
RCUT intersection. Exhibit 8-17 shows signing at a merge-controlled RCUT intersection in
Maryland. The minor street approach and left-turn crossovers have yield signs. Exhibit 8-17 also
shows flashing yellow beacons above the intersection for the major street to provide more
warning to drivers. Speed limits of 55 mph or above on the major street, and the fact that the
major street at these installations are in fact rural expressways, may mean that green guide signs
prior to the U-turn crossovers, as shown previously in Exhibit 8-12, can help drivers navigate
more easily.
136
Exhibit 8-17. Signing at a merge-controlled RCUT intersection in Emmitsburg,

Maryland.(3)
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
Pavement markings are an integral part of the information system at a RCUT intersection. On
minor street approaches, each lane could have right-turn arrow markings, repeated several times,
supplemented with the word “ONLY.” Left-turn arrows or left and through arrows could be
placed near the stop bar the markings, as appropriate. In left-turn crossovers, each lane could
have left-turn arrow markings, repeated several times, supplemented with the word “ONLY.” On
the minor street approaches and in the crossovers, the arrows could be supplemented with route
numbers or street names.
The MUTCD does not provide guidance for pavement markings at RCUT intersections.
However, MDOT has developed pavement marking standards for U-turn crossovers at MUT
intersections in Michigan that could be used at the U-turn portion of a RCUT intersection.(28)
Exhibits 8-18 and 8-19, developed by MDOT, provide typical pavement marking for U-turn
crossovers with single and dual U-turn lanes, respectively. The pavement marking concepts from
the figures follow the general pavement marking concepts in the MUTCD. While not specifically
shown in Exhibits 8-18 and 8-19, stop bars could be placed across the lane(s) of the U-turn
crossover. The MUTCD requires stop bars to be placed no more than 30 feet or less than 4 feet
from the nearest edge of the pavement.
In the deceleration and storage lanes leading to U-turn crossovers, each lane could have U-turn
arrow markings, repeated several times, supplemented with the word “ONLY.”
137
Exhibit 8-18. Typical pavement marking at a directional crossover.(28)
Exhibit 8-19. Pavement markings at a directional crossover with dual lanes.(28)
LIGHTING
Lighting standards and specifications outlined in AASHTO’s Street Lighting Design Guide,
FHWA’s Lighting Handbook, and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
(IESNA) publications including American National Standard Practice for Street Lighting can be
used to determine optimal lighting for RCUT intersections.(41,42,43)
Based on national lighting guidance, agencies establish street lighting design guidelines along
their facilities based on the road functional classification and pedestrian conflict area
classifications. Intersection lighting is typically 1.5 times the street lighting along the
approaches, or the street lighting of the two crossing streets are added together to determine the
lighting guidelines for the intersection.
Generally, signalized RCUT intersections are constructed on streets with high traffic volumes
likely meeting the corridor volume criteria for lighting. It is desirable to light the main and
crossover intersections according to the determined intersection light levels. Depending on the
intersection spacing, the light levels for the road segments between the intersections may be
reduced to street segment light levels. If there is no lighting along the approaches, then transition
lighting coming from dark into light and vice versa may enhance user experience and
138
performance. Even with sufficient lighting provided for the overall intersection, additional
supplemental lighting could be added in the median to illuminate the pedestrian refuge area.
Lighting at a stop- or merged-controlled RCUT intersection will follow similar lighting criteria
as conventional intersections. These types of RCUT intersections are more likely to be located
on a street without continuous lighting.
139
140
CHAPTER 9 – CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

This chapter provides an overview of the general considerations of constructing and maintaining
a RCUT intersection. It also discusses law enforcement considerations. While there are
differences in constructing, maintaining, and providing law enforcement at a RCUT intersection
compared to a conventional intersection, the differences is likely do not overshadow the safety
and operational benefits discussed in previous chapters.
CONSTRUCTION
Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio,

Tennessee, and Texas have constructed RCUT intersections and could serve as resources for
construction planning guidance. As with any new type of street construction, additional
communication and coordination with construction contractors may streamline project
implementation. Understanding lessons learned from agencies having developed RCUT
intersections may reduce construction delays.
Construction Staging
This section provides insights about maintaining traffic while constructing an RCUT intersection
under two conditions. The first condition is when widening a street. The second condition is
when converting an existing conventional intersection to a RCUT intersection.
The general construction sequence and traffic shifts for a project widening a street can include:
1. Building the lanes that carry one direction of travel on new alignment. This is illustrated
in stage 1 of Exhibit 9-1 with the new lanes being built for the eastbound direction of
travel.
2. Shifting the existing traffic to the new eastbound lanes. The intersection would be shifted
as well and would continue to operate conventionally. Stage 2 of Exhibit 9-1 shows this
shift.
3. Constructing portions of the lanes that will serve the westbound direction of the arterial,
the U-turn crossovers, and the portions of the left-turn crossovers that do not overlap the
existing minor street. This step is illustrated in stage 2 of Exhibit 9-1.
4. Shifting westbound traffic onto their lanes, allowing eastbound traffic to use all of their
lanes, shifting minor street through traffic and all left-turning traffic to the U-turn
crossovers, and closing the existing intersection to through movements from the side
street. This is shown in stage 3 of Exhibit 9-1.
5. Finishing the left-turn crossovers within the center of vacated intersection, as illustrated
in stage 3 of Exhibit 9-1.
6. Shifting traffic to the permanent RCUT intersection configuration following completion

of the left-turn crossovers, as illustrated in the bottom graphic of Exhibit 9-1.
141
Exhibit 9-1. Construction staging when widening the street when converting two-lane road
to multilane RCUT intersection.(3)
The general sequencing for converting an existing conventional intersection to a RCUT

intersection is shown in Exhibit 9-2 and described as follows:
1. Constructing portions of the U-turn crossovers and the portions of the left-turn crossovers
that do not overlap the existing minor street. This is shown as stage 1 in Exhibit 9-2.
142
2. Shifting minor street through traffic and all left-turning traffic to the U-turn crossovers
and closing the conventional intersection, as shown in stage 2 of Exhibit 9-2.
3. Completing the left-turn crossovers while vacating the center of the intersection. This is
shown as stage 3 in Exhibit 9-2.
4. Shifting traffic to the permanent RCUT intersection configuration following completion

of the left-turn crossovers. This is shown in the bottom graphic of Exhibit 9-2.
143
Exhibit 9-2. Construction staging for converting a conventional intersection to a RCUT

intersection.(3)
Work Zone Traffic Control
Work zone traffic control to construct a RCUT intersection can use typical traffic control
devices. Part 6 of the MUTCD addresses temporary signals, signs, and markings.(7) MUTCD
guidance can be adapted to RCUT intersection construction.
144
A RCUT intersection construction project may need more specialized work zone traffic control
compared to conventional intersection construction when all left-turns and minor street through
movements are using the U-turn crossovers (stage 3 in Exhibits 9-1 and 9-2). Temporary guide
signing will likely be needed to direct motorists because major street left turns are rerouted from
their traditional location (at a conventional intersection or at a RCUT intersection) and because it
is the first time the RCUT traffic pattern is imposed on minor street drivers. Temporary
changeable message signs on the minor street approach, on the major street approach to the main
intersection, and at the U-turn crossovers may be beneficial at RCUT intersection work zones
during stage 3.
COSTS
A RCUT intersection will likely be more expensive to construct than a conventional intersection.
This is likely attributable to right-of-way needs, extra signals and controllers, and extra
pavement. Planning and design costs may initially be higher for the first few RCUT intersections
compared to a conventional intersection, in part because of extra public outreach, digital
renderings, and traffic operations microsimulation video clips. As RCUT intersections become
more common in an area, special efforts and costs will likely be reduced.
Exhibit 9-3 provides a range of locations and approximate costs for a variety of RCUT
intersection projects. Actual project costs will vary depending on each project’s location and
unique contextual design environment.
145
Exhibit 9-3. Summary of costs associated with RCUT intersections.
Location and features Open to Traffic Cost Image
US 15/501, Chapel
Hill, NC
Widened street from
4 to 6 lanes 2006 $5 million
Relocated frontage
road
0.4 mile corridor
US 17 near
Wilmington, NC
3 signalized RCUT
intersections (only 1 2006 $2 million
pictured at right)
0.6 mile corridor
US 301 and MD 313,

Kent County, MD
Stop signs on minor
street approach
2005 $618,000
Crossovers 1400 feet
from main
intersection
The following discussion provides a theoretical cost estimate of a signalized RCUT intersection
compared to four conventional intersections.(3) This exercise is meant to provide a relative cost
comparison between a potential RCUT and alternative conventional intersection forms. The
comparison assumes no special grading or construction features are required. It also assumes the
mobilization, overhead lighting, pavement marking, and drainage costs were not significantly
different between the two types of intersections. Unit cost prices were obtained from the 2006 RS
Means Heavy Construction Cost Book.(44)
146
Four kinds of conventional intersections, shown in Exhibit 9-5, were assumed as alternatives to
the RCUT intersection treatment. Four signal mast arms would be needed at the main
intersections of all alternatives, and two more mast arms would be needed at each crossover of
the RCUT intersection:
1. Major street with wide median and four-lane side street
2. Major street with wide median and two-lane side street
3. Major street with narrow median and four-lane side street
4. Major street with narrow median and two-lane side street
The comparison RCUT intersection alternative has dual-lane crossovers and is shown in Exhibit
9-4; this is the same configuration depicted previously in Chapter 7. Exhibit 9-5 shows the
conventional intersection configurations used for the cost comparison.
Exhibit 9-4. RCUT intersection used in theoretical cost comparison.(3)
147
Exhibit 9-5. Conventional intersection alternatives used for cost comparison.(3)
The RCUT costs estimates range from 18- to 34-percent more than a conventional intersection.
Exhibit 9-6 shows the RCUT intersection requires additional right-of-way to varying degrees
when compared to the conventional intersection. Compared to a conventional intersection with a
wide median for the major street, the significant addition for the RCUT intersection is at the
loons. On the other hand, if the conventional intersection major street has a narrow median, the
right-of-way amount for the RCUT intersection would be greater.
148
a. Footprint comparison of a RCUT b. Footprint comparison of a RCUT

intersection versus a conventional intersection intersection versus a conventional intersection
with a wide median and a four-lane side street with a wide median and a two-lane side street
c. Footprint comparison of a RCUT d. Footprint comparison of a RCUT

intersection versus a conventional intersection intersection versus a conventional intersection
with a narrow median and a four-lane side with a narrow median and a two-lane side
street street
Exhibit 9-6. Footprint comparisons of a RCUT intersection versus conventional

intersections.
MAINTENANCE
Maintaining a RCUT intersection is similar to a conventional intersection. Maintaining pavement

and striping of the U-turn crossover lanes is similar to left-turn lane maintenance at a
conventional intersection, although it can be more challenging due to the confined nature of the
channelized area. In both cases, maintenance of left-turn lanes requires temporarily closing the
lane and detouring traffic. Like for conventional streets, conducting maintenance activities
149
during off-peak times can minimize traffic disruptions. In addition, this process generally follows
the appropriate work zone guidelines as for all conventional intersections. Where RCUT
intersections are part of a continuous corridor, maintenance can be done at one crossover while
vehicles can use the next primary intersection. Maintaining signals and lighting at RCUT
intersections is also similar to conventional intersection signal maintenance, although there are
generally more signals and lighting to maintain. In most cases, RCUT intersections provide the
advantage of being able to locate utility vehicles in the median to work on overhead signal and
lighting fixtures, where utility vehicles at conventional intersections may have to block travel
lanes or locate on private property to perform maintenance functions.
A RCUT intersection likely needs a larger median and/or right-of-way than a comparable
conventional intersection, which may increase maintenance costs. Wider RCUT intersection
medians create opportunities for landscaping. This could more expensive than at a conventional
intersection but offers intangible benefits to road users and nearby land users.
Snow Removal
Snow removal for a RCUT intersection is accomplished similar to a conventional intersection.

Through lanes are plowed as part of the corridor and snow is systematically pushed to the outside
of the street. Snow removal for the U-turn crossover is similar to a conventional left-turn lane.
These are typically plowed after the through lanes, and snow is pushed through the crossover to
the opposite side of the street. The same technique is used for when a loon is part of the RCUT
intersection. Snow is pushed through the U-turn crossover to the opposite side of the loon.
LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS
There are unique law enforcement needs at a RCUT intersection. Drivers travelling through a
RCUT intersection on the major street operate no differently than at a conventional intersection.
However, traffic on the minor street has no choice but to turn right.
Wrong-way movements and red-light-running at the crossovers has been observed at RCUT
intersections in North Carolina.(3) Enhanced enforcement during the periods after the RCUT
intersections are initially opened to traffic could help drivers become familiar with intended
operations and help reduce prohibited maneuvers. As the novelty of the new intersection
operations subsides, the need for extra enforcement will likely diminish.
Drivers at rural RCUT intersections in North Carolina have been observed making direct left
turns from the minor streets by traveling over the traffic islands.(3) This could be a specific and
unique law enforcement need at RCUT intersections compared to conventional intersection
forms. NCDOT specifies curbs be included on the traffic islands at rural RCUT intersections to
discourage this violation. Delineators and object markers could also be used on the traffic
islands.
The area within a loon must be kept clear of parked or stopped vehicles. “No parking or
standing” signs prominently displayed and the presence of law enforcement could reduce parked
or stopped vehicles. Establishing a policy of towing vehicles parked in loons will be a unique
enforcement need not found at conventional intersection forms.
150
Progression speeds and large progression bands may result in self-enforcing speeds in RCUT
corridors compared to conventional arterial corridors.(3) In a signalized RCUT corridor, with the
progression provided, drivers should learn to travel within the progression speed. This could
potentially reduce speed enforcement needs in signalized RCUT corridors.
151
152
REFERENCES
1. Kramer, R.P. New Combinations of Old Techniques to Rejuvenate Jammed Suburban
Arterials, Strategies to Alleviate Traffic Congestion,” Conference Proceedings, pp. 139–148,
Institute of Transportation Engineers: Washington, DC., 1987.
2. Bing Maps. http://www.bing.com
3. FHWA. Alternative Intersection/Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR), Report No.
FHWA-HRT-09-060. Washington, DC: USDOT, 2010.
4. North Carolina Department of Transportation. Superstreet Intersection brochure webpage.
http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/PoplarTentRoad/download/SuperstreetBrochure201301.pdf.
5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). A Policy on
the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2011.
6. Transportation Research Board (TRB). Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Washington, DC:
TRB, National Research Council (NRC), 2010.
7. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), 2009.
8. AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual (HSM), 1st Edition. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2010.
9. Cunningham, C.M., Miller, M., Findley, D., Schroeder, B., Katz, D., Foyle, R., Smith, S. and
D. Carter, Economic Effects of Access Management Techniques in North Carolina.
FHWA/NC/2009-12, 2010.
10. Haley, R., Ott, S, Hummer, J.E., Cunningham, C.M., Foyle, R., and B.J. Schroeder.
Operational Effects of Signalized Superstreets in North Carolina, Journal of the Transportation
Research Board – TRR Issue 2223, TRB, Washington, D.C, 2011.
11. Hummer, J.E., R.L. Haley, S.E. Ott, R.S. Foyle, and C.M. Cunningham, "Superstreet
Benefits and Capacities," Final Report, FHWA/NC/2009-06, NC Department of Transportation,
Raleigh, December 2010.
12. Inman, V.W. and R.P. Haas, “Field Evaluation of a Restricted Crossing U-turn Intersection,”
FHWA-HRT-11-067, June 2012.
13. Ott, S.E., R.L. Haley, J.E. Hummer, R.S. Foyle, and C.M. Cunningham, “Safety Effects of
Unsignalized Superstreets in North Carolina,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Volume 45.
2012.
14. Edara, P., C. Sun, and S. Breslow, “Evaluation of J-turn Intersection Design Performance in
Missouri,” report cmr 14-005, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, December
2013.
15. North Carolina Department of Transportation. Superstreet Intersection informational web
page. http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/PoplarTentRoad/download/SuperstreetGraphic.pdf.
153
16. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Reduced Conflict Intersection video webpage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5pBnuu1Cno.
17. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Reduced Conflict Intersection video with truck
drivers webpage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WebW5JZNrT8&feature=youtu.be&t=4m50s. Video
permission from Missouri Department of Transportation.
18. FHWA, USDOT FHWA Information Videos, web page.
https://www.youtube.com/user/USDOTFHWA
19. FHWA, Safety Program Informational Brochures, web page. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov.
20. ADA.gov. “Information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm
21. Ray, B., et al., NCHRP 15-34A: Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, Contractor Final Report. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, 2014.
22. The United States Access Board, Accessible Public Rights of Way webpage.
http://www.access-board.gov/
23. FHWA and AASHTO. Results of Joint AASHTO/FHWA Context Sensitive Solutions
Strategic Planning Process, Summary Report. Raleigh, NC.: Center for Transportation and the
Environment, North Carolina State University, 2007.
24. Hummer, J.E., A.M. Holzem, N.M. Rouphail, C.M. Cunningham, S.W. O’Brien, B.J.
Schroeder, K. Salamati, and R.S. Foyle, “Pedestrian and bicycle Accommodations on
Superstreets,” North Carolina Department of Transportation, Final Report, Project: 2012 – 13,
January 2014.
25. Google Inc. Google Earth. Accessed July 2014
26. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access.
USDOT: Washington, DC, 2001.
27. North Carolina Department of Transportation. Photo Credit.
28. Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). Geometric Design Guide 670, Lansing,
MI: MDOT, 1993.
29. FHWA. Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
30. Rodegerdts, L. A., Nevers, B., and Robinson, B., "Signalized Intersections: Informational
Guide." FHWA-HRT-04-091, (2004)
31. Federal Highway Administration. A Guide to Developing Quality Crash Modification

Factors webpage. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/resources/fhwasa10032/.
154
32. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Traffic Analysis Toolbox.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/04038/index.cfm
33. Kramer, R. “Superstreet Design Made Easy.” Presentation to NCSITE Signal Systems Users
Group, July 2, 2012.
34. Kim, T. Edara, P., and Bared, J.G. (2006). “Traffic Efficiency of Two Non-Traditional
Intersections; Super Street and Through-About,” Presented at 7th Conference on Access
Management, Park City, Utah.
35. The Texas Highway Man. San Antonio Area Roads and More: Superstreets webpage,
http://www.texashighwayman.com/superstreets.shtml. 1-10-2014.
36. Federal Highway Administration, University of Central Florida. CAP-X webpage.
http://tsi.cecs.ucf.edu/index.php/cap-x/release-info
37. North Carolina Department of Transportation. (2005). Street Design Manual Part I, Section
4, Rev. 4, Chapter 9, Street Design Branch. Obtained from:
www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/altern/value/manuals/RDM2001/part1/chapter9/pt1ch9.pdf
38. Hummer, et al., “Taking Advantage of the Flexibility Offered by Unconventional Designs,”
ITE Journal, September 2012.
39. Sisiopiku, V. and Aylsworth-Bonzelet, L. (2003). “Application of Loons at Directional
Crossovers,” Presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
40. North Carolina Department of Transportation. (2007). Typical for Super Street Signing.
Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch.
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/congestion/docs/RCUT.pdf.
41. AASHTO. Roadway Lighting Design Guide. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2005.
42. FHWA. Street Lighting Handbook. Washington, DC: USDOT, 1978.

43. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). Recommended Practices for
Roadway Lighting. New York, NY: IESNA, 2000.
44. Spencer, E.R. RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data 2006.
155
156
Appendix A CATALOG OF ALL KNOWN INSTALLATIONS IN THE

UNITED STATES
Exhibit A-1 presents location information for all known installations of RCUT intersections in
the United States.
Exhibit A-1. Known installations of RCUT intersections in the United States
Intersection Location Type Built

Plum Road & US 231 Dothan, AL Signal 2009
Retail Drive & US 231 Dothan, AL Signal 2009
Northwest of Plum Road & US 231 Dothan, AL Stop 2009
Rock Bridge Road & US 231 Dothan, AL Stop 2009
Buyers Drive & US 231 Dothan, AL Stop 2009
Veterans Boulevard Corridor Kenner, LA Stop or Merge 2005
US 61 & Leblanc’s Food Store Gonzales, LA Stop or Merge 2007
LA-8/LA-28 & LA-117 Leesville, LA Stop or merge 2011
Loyola Drive & 31st Street Kenner, LA Stop or Merge
US-15 north of Frederick Maryland Merge
US-301 west of Delaware Maryland Merge
Big Beaver & Lakeview Drive Troy, MI Signal 1990s
Long Lake & Corporate/Investment Drive Troy, MI Signal 1990s
County Road 24 Willmar, MN Stop
US 169 & County Road 3 Belle Plaine, MN Stop
Highway 36 and Keats Avenue Lake Elmo, MN Merge
US 10 and County Road 8 Becker, MN Stop
US 169 and 173rd Street Jordan, MN Stop
US 212 and Highway 284 Cologne, MN Stop
Highway 65 and 169th Avenue Ham Lake, MN Stop
US 53 and County Road 52 Cotton, MN Stop
US 52 and County Road 66 Vermillion, MN Stop 2014
US 169 and Highway 22 St. Peter, MN Stop 2014
US 169 and St. Julien Street St. Peter, MN Stop 2014
US-63 at Deer Park Road Jefferson City, MO Stop
US-54 at Honey Creek Road Jefferson City, MO Stop
US-54 at Route-E Jefferson City, MO Stop
MO-13 at Old MO-13 Jefferson City, MO Stop
Route-M at Lemay Ferry Road Jefferson City, MO Stop
US 17 & Lanvale Road Leland, NC Signal 2007
US 17 & Brunswick Forest Parkway Leland, NC Signal 2007
US 17 & Grandiflora Drive/Gate Drive Leland, NC Signal 2007
US 17 & Gregory Road Leland, NC Signal 2007
157
Intersection Location Type Built

US 17 & Waterford Way/Ploof Road Leland, NC Signal 2007
US 17 & Hospital Drive Supply, NC Signal
US 17 & Old Ocean Highway Supply, NC Signal
US 17 & Medical Center Drive Supply, NC Stop
US 17 & Mt Pisgah Road Supply, NC Stop
Carolina Beach Road (US 421) & Retail Center Wilmington, NC Signal
US 15/501 Chapel Hill, NC Signal
NC 55 & West Holly Springs Road Holly Springs, NC Signal 2013
NC 55 & Green Oaks Parkway Holly Springs, NC Signal 2013
NC 55 & New Hill Road Holly Springs, NC Signal 2013
Ohio 4 & Symmes Road Hamilton, OH Signal
Ohio 4 & Tylersville Road Hamilton, OH Signal
Ohio 4 & Hamilton Mason Road Hamilton, OH Signal
US-281 & Evans Road San Antonio, TX Signal 2010
Stone Oak Parkway/TPC Parkway San Antonio, TX Signal 2010
North Northwind Drive/Marshall Road San Antonio, TX Signal 2011
Loop-1604 & New Guilbeau/Shaenfield San Antonio, TX Signal 2011
TX-71 at FM-973/Fallwell Lane Austin, TX Signal 2014
158
Appendix B SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY

DETAILS
This appendix provides step-by-step examples for performing operational analysis at a RCUT
intersection.
A step-by-step procedure for calculating the RCUT capacity is shown in Exhibit B-1.
• Start with the ideal capacity of 1900 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl)
• Adjust for lost time at 8% of the cycle, 1900 * .92 = 1750 pcphpl
• Adjust for trucks at 5% of the vehicle population, 1750 * 0.95 = 1660 vehicles per
hour per lane (vphpl)
• Split the cycle so that the U-turn crossover receives one-third of the time, 1660 *
0.333 = 553 vphpl
• Adjust for U-turns using a factor of 0.8 (as discussed in Chapter 6), 553 * 0.8 =
442 vphpl
• Total demand in dual lane U-turn crossover = 442 * 2 = 884 vph
• Assume that the minor street carries as many right turns as half the left plus
through demand, so total minor street approach demand = 884 + 884/2 = 1330 vph
• Assume a 55/45 directional split on the minor street, outbound direction = 1330 *
(45/55) = 1090 vph
• Total minor street peak demand = 1330 + 1090 = 2420 vph
• Adjust for 0.92 peak hour factor, 2420 * 0.92 = 2230 vph
• Adjust for 9% of daily traffic in the peak hour = 2230 / 0.09 = 24,800 vehicles per
day (vpd)
A demand of 25,000 vpd is characteristic of a moderately busy four-lane roadway. A

RCUT intersection can be expected to serve volume on any two-lane minor street and
light or moderate volume on four-lane minor streets. A similar calculation shows that the
main street demand at capacity, with four lanes in each direction, is 82,000 vpd. If green
time for the major street is increased to 85 percent, the major street demand at capacity—
with four lanes in each direction—is about 105,000 vpd.
Exhibit B-1. RCUT capacity derivation.
159
A step-by-step procedure for performing a critical lane analysis at an intersection with two, three,
or four approaches is shown in Exhibit B-2. The procedure uses flow rates (demands) during the
peak 15 minutes expressed as vehicles per hour.
1. Sketch the intersection geometry, including the numbers of lanes on each approach.
2. Assign demands to the appropriate approaches and lanes. Account for all flows.
Assume a reasonable distribution of demand across multiple lanes.
3. Adjust turning demands for the relative inefficiency of the movements. Analysts can
use default turn adjustment factors of 0.95 for a left turn, 0.85 for a right turn, and 0.8
for a U-turn in the absence of local factors.
4. Add the highest EB left-turn lane demand to the highest WB through or right-turn (if
conflicting with left turn) lane demand.
5. Add the highest WB left-turn lane demand to the highest EB through or right-turn (if
6. Keep the higher of the result from step 4 or the result from step 5.
7. Add the highest NB left-turn lane demand to the highest SB through or right-turn (if
8. Add the highest SB left-turn lane demand to the highest NB through or right-turn (if
9. Keep the higher of the result from step 7 or the result from step 8.
10. Add the results from steps 6 and 9 to get the critical lane demand.
11. Compute capacity. Analysts can use default values of 1,600 vphpl for four basic
phases, 1,650 for three basic phases, or 1,700 for two basic phases in the absence of
local values. The number of non-zero numbers added to get step 9 is the number of
basic phases at the signal.
12. Compute the critical v/c ratio as the result from step 10 divided by the capacity from
step 11.
13. Identify the governing (highest) v/c for an intersection or interchange with multiple
signals.
The default capacity values shown in step 11 are based on assumptions like those made in
Chapter 5.
Exhibit B-2. Critical lane analysis procedure for signalized RCUT intersection.
160
Exhibit B-3 shows an example of the d/c critical lane calculation for the northern U-turn
crossover at the RCUT depicted below. Demands in vehicles per 15 minutes are expressed as
vehicles per hour.
1. 1.Volume diagram will be added here in Final RCUT Guide
2. The U-turn crossover demand = WBL + WBT = 130 vphpl. Assume that SB traffic is
evenly distributed between the two through lanes, providing (60 + 1900 + 50)/ 2 =
1005 vphpl.
3. Adjust turning demands for the U-turn crossover as 130 / 0.8 = 162 vphpl.
4. At the U-turn crossover there is no EB left turn demand, so the result from this step is
162 vphpl.
5. At the U-turn crossover there is no WB left-turn or EB through or right-turn demand.
6. The higher of the result from step 4 or the result from step 5 is 162 vphpl.
7. There is no NB left-turn demand, so the result from this step is 1,005 vphpl.
8. There is no SB left-turn or NB through or right-turn demand.
9. The higher of the result from step 7 or the result from step 8 is 1,005 vphpl.
10. The critical lane demand is 162 + 1,005 = 1,167 vphpl.
11. Since we added two numbers to achieve the result in Step 10, there are two basic
phases at this signal and the capacity is 1,700 vphpl.
12. The critical v/c ratio is 1,167 / 1,700 = 0.69.
13. Similar calculations for the other three signals show critical lane demands of 0.68 for
the SB main intersection, 0.41 for the NB U-turn crossover, and 0.24 for the NB main
intersection, so the SB U-turn crossover is the critical point at the RCUT during the
peak period.
Exhibit B-3. Example v/c critical lane calculation for signalized RCUT.
161
An interim step-by-step procedure for the HCM analysis of a stop-controlled RCUT, until
publication of the next edition of the HCM, is presented in Exhibit B-4.
1. Given the turning movement demand estimate, redistribute the demands across the RCUT as
shown earlier in this chapter. For the remainder of this procedure, work with the redistributed
demands.
2. Calculate control delays for the major street left-turn movements, which are made the same
way as at a conventional intersection, using the LOS procedure in Chapter 19 of the 2010
HCM.
3. Calculate control delays for the minor street right turns at the main junctions, which include
the minor street left-turn, through, and right-turn flows. These right turns are made the same
way as at a conventional intersection, so the analyst can use the LOS procedure in Chapter 19
of the 2010 HCM. During the procedure, calculate the 95th percentile queue lengths in each
storage bay and if spillback occurs consider using microscopic simulation. Use the calculated
control delay to determine LOS for the minor street right turn.
4. Calculate control delays at each of the U-turn crossovers. The U-turn movement at the
crossover is operationally analogous to a minor street right turn at a conventional intersection,
so use Chapter 19 right turn parameters for the critical gap and other factors. During the
procedure, calculate the 95th percentile queue lengths in each storage bay and if spillback
occurs consider using microscopic simulation.
5. Calculate the travel times for vehicles moving from the main junction to the U-turn
crossover and back.
• For the movement from the main junction to the U-turn crossover, use the estimated
free-flow speed multiplied by the distance from the junction to the crossover.
• For a minor street through vehicle making the movement from the U-turn crossover
back to the main junction, use the estimated free-flow speed multiplied by the distance
from the junction to the crossover.
• For a minor street left-turn vehicle making the movement from the U-turn crossover
back to the main junction, use the estimated free-flow speed multiplied by the distance
from the junction to the crossover plus five seconds (to account for deceleration and
acceleration at the main junction).
6. Estimate the extra travel time for the minor street left turn and through vehicles by adding
the control delay from step 3, the control delay from step 4, and the travel times from step 5.
7. Apply a LOS scale to the extra travel times from step 6 if desired.
Exhibit B-4. Interim HCM procedure of stop-controlled RCUT intersection.
162
An interim step-by-step procedure for the operational analysis of a signalized RCUT, until
publication of the next edition of the HCM, is presented in Exhibit B-5.
1. Given the turning movement demand estimate, redistribute the demands across the
RCUT as shown earlier in the chapter. For the remainder of this procedure, work with the
redistributed demands.
2. Calculate control delays for all approaches to the four signals, using the “incremental
queue analysis” delay estimation methodology from Chapter 18 of the 2010 HCM(12). Use
the appropriate saturation flow adjustment factor for U-turn crossovers. For multi-lane
minor street approaches and U-turn crossovers, use appropriate lane utilization factors.
Mimic LTOR and RTOR operations, where applicable, by analyzing the approaches as if
they had protected-permissive signals, with the appropriate critical gap and follow-up
times.
3. Calculate queue lengths in each crossover storage bay and compare to actual storage
bay lengths. If the 95-percent queue length exceeds the storage bay provided, and if
spillback occurs, consider using microscopic simulation.
4. Calculate the travel times for vehicles moving from the main junction to the U-turn
crossover and back using the estimated free-flow speed multiplied by the distance from
the junction to the crossover.
5. Estimate the overall control delays for minor street right turns from the control delay
results of step 2.
6. Estimate the overall control delays for major street left turns, through movements, and
right turns by adding the control delay from the U-turn crossover signal and the control
delay from the signal at the main junction.
7. Estimate the extra travel time for the minor street left turn and through vehicles by
adding the control delays from step 2 from each of the three signals those vehicles
traverse and the travel times from step 4.
8. Apply a LOS scale to the overall control delays and extra travel times from steps 5
through 7 if desired.
Exhibit B-5. Interim HCM procedure of signalized RCUT intersection.
163
164
Appendix C MARKETING AND OUTREACH MATERIALS

This appendix provides some examples of RCUT Public Outreach Material Examples.
FHWA has created alternative intersection and interchange informational videos and video case
studies, which can be viewed on the FHWA YouTube channel
(https://www.youtube.com/user/USDOTFHWA). Exhibit C-1 is an example of the type of
information provided in the video for the Restricted Crossing U-Turn intersection.
Exhibit C-1. FHWA Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection Informational video.
165
In addition, FHWA has developed alternative intersection brochures that can be found on the
FHWA website ( http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov). An example of the Restricted Crossing U-Turn
intersection brochure is shown to the right.
Exhibit C-2. FHWA Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection Brochure.
Several examples from state and local agencies are provided below, although various others are
available online for additional information and guidance.
EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS
Several agencies have developed educational videos as part their outreach with RCUTs.
Examples weblinks are provided below for access to these videos.
• Lousiana DOT RCUT (j-turn) Comparative Videos – There are five videos associated
with this link. http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Pages/Videos.aspx#
• Minnesota DOT RCUT - http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadwork/rci.html
Ohio DOT RCUT (superstreet) - http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D08/Pages/SR-4-

Bypass-Superstreet.aspx and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4iFLgAzXAM
• Texas DOT Visualization - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7PiJ0QJqMY
166
BROCHURES AND FACT SHEETS
• Exhibit C-3 illustrates an informational website on RCUTs from the MnDOT.
• Exhibit C-4 illustrates a fact sheet on how to navigate a RCUT from the MnDOT.
• Exhibit C-5 illustrates page one of a two-page brochure on RCUTs from the NCDOT.
• Exhibit C-6 illustrates page one of a two-page brochure on RCUTs from the NCDOT.
• Exhibit C-7 illustrates a RCUT informational graphic from the NCDOT.
• Exhibit C-8 illustrates page one of a two-page brochure for access management elements
of a RCUT project from the Louisiana DOT.
• Exhibit C-9 illustrates page two of a two-page brochure for access management elements
of a RCUT project from the Louisiana DOT.
• Exhibit C-10 illustrates page one of a two-page brochure for public outeach on a RCUT
project from the Louisiana DOT.
• Exhibit C-11 illustrates page two of a two-page brochure for public outeach on a RCUT
• Exhibit C-12 illustrates page one of a two-page brochure for a RCUT in Ohio.
• Exhibit C-13 illustrates page two of a two-page brochure for a RCUT in Ohio.
167
Exhibit C-3. Informational website on RCUTs from the MnDOT.
Exhibit C-4. Fact sheet on how to navigate a RCUT from the MnDOT.
168
Exhibit C-5. Page one of a two-page brochure on RCUTs from the NCDOT.
Exhibit C-6. Page two of a two-page brochure on RCUTs from the NCDOT.
169
Exhibit C-7. RCUT informational graphic from the NCDOT.
170
Exhibit C-8. Page one of a two-page brochure for access management elements of a RCUT
Exhibit C-9. Page two of a two-page brochure for access management elements of a RCUT
171
Exhibit C-10. Page one of a two-page brochure for public outeach on a RCUT project from
the Louisiana DOT.
Exhibit C-11. Page two of a two-page brochure for public outeach on a RCUT project from
the Louisiana DOT.
172
Exhibit C-12. Page one of a two-page brochure for a RCUT in Ohio.
173
Exhibit C-13. Page two of a two-page brochure for a RCUT in Ohio.
174
175
Front and back cover photos property of Federal Highway Administration
safety.fhwa.dot.gov
Publication Number FHWA-SA-14-070
176

Fhwasa 14070

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fhwasa 14070

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fhwasa 14070

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational

Publication No. FHWA-SA-14-070 August 2014

U.S. Department of Transportation

An electronic version of this document is available on the Office of Safety website at

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

6. Performing Organization Code

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

15. Supplementary Notes

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized

CHAPTER 1— INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 6 — OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 83

Exhibit 1-1. Example of a RCUT intersection with signals............................................................ 5

Exhibit 4-2. Vehicular conflict points at a four-approach conventional intersection. .................. 52

Exhibit 9-2. Construction staging for converting a conventional intersection to a RCUT

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

• Comparing engineering and economic analysis results of practical alternatives that

ORGANIZATION OF THE GUIDELINES

Chapter 2: Policy and Planning—This chapter provides guidance on when to consider

Chapter 3: Multimodal Considerations—This chapter provides an overview of multimodal

Chapter 4: Safety—This chapter summarizes the safety performance at RCUT intersections

Chapter 5: Operational Characteristics—This chapter provides information on the unique

Chapter 8: Signal, Signing, Marking, and Lighting—This chapter presents information

Chapter 9: Construction and Maintenance—This chapter focuses on the constructability and

• A - Catalog of all known installations in the United States

• B - Supplemental operational and safety details

• C - Marketing and outreach materials

• D - Supplemental construction and design details

SCOPE OF THE GUIDE

RCUT INTERSECTION OVERVIEW

There are three main types of RCUT intersections, including:

• Signalized – A signalized RCUT intersection can provide favorable progression along an

• Stop-controlled – A stop-controlled RCUT intersection is sometimes used as a safety

• Merge- or yield-controlled – A merge-controlled RCUT intersection can allow a rural

Exhibit 1-1. Example of a RCUT intersection with signals.

Exhibit 1-2. Example of a RCUT intersection with stop-control.

Exhibit 1-3. Example of a RCUT intersection with merges.

Independently of Kramer, the Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA) began

Exhibit 1-4. Locations of RCUT Intersections.

Exhibit 1-7. Merge-controlled RCUT intersection on US-15 in Emmitsburg, MD.(3)

Exhibit 1-8. RCUT intersection on US-15/501 in Chapel Hill, NC with no left-turn

Exhibit 1-9. Loon implemented on RCUT intersection in Wilmington, NC.(3)

Exhibit 1-11. Three-legged RCUT intersection on US-17 at Brunswick Forest Parkway in

Exhibit 1-12. RCUT corridor on US-17 in Leland, NC.(4)

• A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (American Association of State

• Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)(6)

• Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)(7)

• Highway Safety Manual (HSM)(8)

• Economic Effects of Access Management Techniques in North Carolina by Cunningham,

CHAPTER 2— POLICY AND PLANNING

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS AND

Serving Pedestrians and Bicycles

Traffic Volume Relationships

Exhibit 2-1 conceptually depicts the relationship of conventional intersections, alternative

Exhibit 2-2. Superstreet intersection public brochure from NCDOT.(4)