The accommodation of left turns at signalized intersections plays a significant role in the overall operational efficiency of urban traffic networks. Allowing left turns in traditional ways (such as implementing protected, permitted, and protected–permitted phasing schemes) reduces available intersection capacity but provides vehicles the most direct routing options to reach their destinations. Prohibiting left turns allows simpler phasing plans but requires vehicles to travel longer distances. This paper uses macroscopic performance measures to quantify and compare the efficiency of urban grid networks when various left-turn treatments, including left-turn prohibitions, are implemented. The findings reveal that prohibiting left turns generally increases a network’s maximum trip completion rate, especially when trips are not very short; however, left-turn prohibitions reduce efficiency in very light or heavy traffic conditions. A dynamic strategy is proposed: left turns are allowed only during light traffic or heavy congestion and are prohibited for moderate congestion levels near capacity. This strategy allows the network to operate at the highest efficiency possible for any traffic accumulation. This strategy is identified and tested with analytical and simulation investigations of idealized grid networks. The results provide insight into how more realistic networks might be managed to maximize efficiency by changing only how left turns are treated at signalized intersections.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RoessR. P., PrassasE. S., and McShaneW. R.. Traffic Engineering, 4th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2010.
2.
CottrellB. H.Jr.Guidelines for Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Signal Phasing. Transportation Research Record, No. 1069, 1986, pp. 54–61.
3.
Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
4.
MesserC. J., and FambroD. B.. Effects of Signal Phasing and Length of Left-Turn Bay on Capacity. Transportation Research Record, No. 644, 1977, pp. 95–101.
5.
NewellG. F.The Effect of Left Turns on the Capacity of a Traffic Intersection. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1959, pp. 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/103121.
6.
FambroD. B., MesserC. J., and AndersenD. A.. Estimation of Unprotected Left-Turn Capacity at Signalized Intersections. Transportation Research Record, No. 644, 1977, pp. 113–119.
7.
HaddadJ., and GeroliminisN.. Effect of Left Turns for Arterials with Queue Spillbacks. Presented at 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2013.
8.
ChowdhuryM.S.An Evaluation of New Jersey Jug-Handle Intersection (NJJI) With and Without Pre-Signals. First Congress of Transportation and Development Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va., 2011.
9.
HummerJ. E.Unconventional Left-Turn Alternatives for Urban and Suburban Arterials—Part One. ITE Journal, Vol. 68, No. 9, 1998, pp. 26–29.
10.
HughesW., JagannathanR., SenguptaD., and HummerJ. E.. Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR). Report FHWA-HRT-09-060.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009.
11.
BerkowitzC., BragdonC., and MierF.. Continuous Flow Intersection: A Public Private Partnership. Vehicle Navigation and Information Systems Conference, Vol. 7, 1996, pp. 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1109/VNIS.1996.1623758.
12.
ReidJ. D., and HummerJ. E.. Travel Time Comparisons Between Seven Unconventional Arterial Intersection Designs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1751, 2007, pp. 56–66. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3141/1751-07.
13.
XuanY., GayahV. V., CassidyM. J., and DaganzoC. F.. Presignal Used to Increase Bus- and Car-Carrying Capacity at Intersections. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2315, 2012, pp. 191–196. https://doi.org/10.3141/2315-20.
14.
XuanY., DaganzoC. F., and CassidyM. J.. Increasing the Capacity of Signalized Intersections with Separate Left Turn Phases. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 45, No. 5, 2011, pp. 769–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2011.02.009.
15.
ChanC.-Y.Defining Safety Performance Measures of Driver-Assistance Systems for Intersection Left-Turn Conflicts. In Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, N.J., 2006, pp. 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2006.1689600.
16.
HajbabaieA., MedinaJ. C., and BenekohalR. F.. Effects of ITS-Based Left Turn Policies on Network Performance. In Proceeding of the 13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, N.J., 2010, pp. 80–84. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2010.5625269.
17.
ChowdhuryM., DerovN., TanP., and SadekA.. Prohibiting Left-Turn Movements at Mid-Block Unsignalized Driveways: Simulation Analysis. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 4, 2005, pp. 279–285. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2005)131:4(279).
18.
BaredJ. G., and EvangelosK.. Median U-Turn Design as Alternative Treatment for Left Turns at Signalized Intersections. ITE Journal, Vol. 72, No. 2, 2002, pp. 50–54.
19.
DorothyP. W., MaleckT. L., and NolfS. E.. Operational Aspects of Michigan Design for Divided Highways. Transportation Research Record, No. 1579, 2007, pp. 18–26. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3141/1579-03.
20.
GayahV. V., and DaganzoC. F.. Analytical Capacity Comparison of One-Way and Two-Way Signalized Street Networks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2301, 2012, pp. 76–85. https://doi.org/10.3141/2301-09.
21.
OrtigosaJ., MenendezM., and GayahV. V.. Analysis of Network Exit Functions for Various Urban Grid Network Configurations. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2491, 2015, pp. 12–21. https://doi.org/10.3141/2491-02.
22.
GeroliminisN., and DaganzoC. F.. Existence of Urban-Scale Macroscopic Fundamental Diagrams: Some Experimental Findings. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 42, No. 9, 2008, pp. 759–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2008.02.002.
23.
DaganzoC. F., GayahV. V., and GonzalesE. J.. The Potential of Parsimonious Models for Understanding Large Scale Transportation Systems and Answering Big Picture Questions. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, Vol. 1, No. 1–2, 2012, pp. 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13676-012-0003-z.
24.
BuissonC., and LadierC.. Exploring the Impact of Homogeneity of Traffic Measurements on the Existence of Macroscopic Fundamental Diagrams. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2124, 2009, pp. 127–136. https://doi.org/10.3141/2124-12.
25.
DaganzoC. F., and GeroliminisN.. An Analytical Approximation for the Macroscopic Fundamental Diagram of Urban Traffic. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 42, No. 9, 2008, pp. 771–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2008.06.008.
26.
LeclercqL., and GeroliminisN.. Estimating MFDs in Simple Networks with Route Choice. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 57, 2013, pp. 468–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2013.05.005.
27.
GiraultJ.-T., GayahV. V., GulerS. I., and MenendezM.. An Exploratory Analysis of Signal Coordination Impacts on the Macroscopic Fundamental Diagram. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2560, 2016, pp. 36–46. https://doi.org/10.3141/2560-05.
28.
GayahV. V., and DaganzoC. F.. Clockwise Hysteresis Loops in the Macroscopic Fundamental Diagram: An Effect of Network Instability. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2011, pp. 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2010.11.006.
29.
DaganzoC. F., GayahV. V., and GonzalesE. J.. Macroscopic Relations of Urban Traffic Variables: Bifurcations, Multivaluedness and Instability. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2011, pp. 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2010.06.006.
30.
GayahV. V., GaoX., and NagleA. S.. On the Impacts of Locally Adaptive Signal Control on Urban Network Stability and the Macroscopic Fundamental Diagram. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 70, 2014, pp. 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2014.09.010.
31.
SaberiM., MahmassaniH. S., and ZockaieA.. Network Capacity, Traffic Instability, and Adaptive Driving: Findings from Simulated Urban Network Experiments. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, Vol. 3, No. 3–4, 2014, pp. 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13676-013-0040-2.
32.
EdieL.C.Discussion of Traffic Stream Measurements and Definitions. Port of New York Authority, New York, 1963.
33.
GayahV. V., and DaganzoC. F.. Effects of Turning Maneuvers and Route Choice on a Simple Network. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2249, 2011, pp. 15–19. https://doi.org/10.3141/2249-03.
34.
MazloumianA., GeroliminisN., and HelbingD.. The Spatial Variability of Vehicle Densities as Determinant of Urban Network Capacity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 368, No. 1928, 2010, pp. 4627–4647.
35.
DaganzoC. F.Public Transportation Systems: Basic Principles of System Design, Operations Planning and Real-Time Control. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 2010.
