1111\\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II 1\\1 

11111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III 

111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIII 
PROTECTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICr 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

'I{OI)ll( U In ; NTIS, I .!j. \)q lllr'nICnI (I CU IlII,, Ct 

"~lltll,. 1 ·dUlk J InlOrll,a,iou !)H' i, t 

' l,ri,,!:'i ... ,I, "r::I ~ HI(,I 

NOTICE 

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and 

accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of 

the Department ofTransportation. 

The metric units reported are those used in common practice by the persons interviewed. They 

have not been converted to pure SI units because in some cases, the level of precision implied 

would have been changed. 

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers' names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the 

document. 

The publication of this document was sponsored by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration 

under contract number DTFH61-99-C00005. awarded to American Trade Initiatives, Inc. Any 

opinions, options, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Government, the authors' parent 

institutions, or American Trade Initiatives, lnc. 

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation . 
T ec h· mca IR ~or tD oCUllIen tar IOn p age 

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

FHW A-PL-04-004 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

Signalized Intersection Safety In Europe December 2003 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) Gene Fong, James Kopf, Philip Clark, Rick Collins, Richard Cunard, 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

Ken Kobetsky, Nazir Lalani, Fred Ranck, Robert Seyfried, Kevin Slack, James 

Sparks, Rudolph Umbs, Stephen Van Winkle 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.(TRAlS) 

American Trade Initiatives 

P.O. Box 8228 

Alexandria, V A 22306-8228 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-99-C-0005 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Office of International Programs 

Office of Policy 

Federal Highway Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

FHW A COTR: Hana Maier, Office of International Programs 

16. Abstract 

More than a third of the intersection-related fatal crashes in the United States occur at signalized intersections. The Federal 

Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program sponsored a scanning study of Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom 

to review innovative safety practices in planning, designing, operating, and maintaining signalized intersections. 

The delegation observed that highway safety improvements are a priority in the European countries visited, with an 

emphasis on reducing fatalities. Programs for intersection safety focus on reducing vehicle speed through innovative 

methods, using computerized signal timing optimization programs, and providing road users with consistent information. 

The scanning team's recommendations for U.S. implementation include developing a model photo enforcement program 

to reduce red-light running, enhancing dilemma-zone detection at high-speed rural intersections, and promoting 

roundabouts as alternatives to signalized intersections. The team also recommends controlling vehicle speed through 

intersections with such techniques as speed tables, pavement markings, and changeable message signs. 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

Signalized intersection, traffic control device, dilemma No restrictions. This document is available to the public from 

zone, actuated signal, roundabout, automated photo the 

enforcement, speed table, PUFFIN crossing, geometric Office of International Programs 

design, pedestrian safety FHW A-HPIP, Room 3325 

US Dept. of Transportation 

Washington, DC 20590 

international@fhwa.dot.gov 

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 120. Security Classif. (of this page) I 21. No. of Pages I 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 124 Free 

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

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SAFETY 

IN EUROPE 

PREPARED BY THE INTERNATIONAL SCANNING STUDY TEAM: 

Gene Fong 

FHWA 

Co-Chair 

James Kopf 

Mississippi DOT 

Co-Chair 

Philip Clark 

New York State DOT 

Rick Collins 

Texas DOT 

Richard Cunard 

Transportation Research 

Board 

Ken Kobetsky 

AASHTO 

Nazir Lalani 

Ventura County, California, 

Transportation Department 

Fred Ranck 

FHWA 

Robert Seyfried 

Northwestern University 

Center for Public Safety 

and 

American Trade Initiatives, Inc. 

& 

LGB & Associates, Inc. 

for the 

Federal Highway Administration 

U.s. Department of Transportation 

and 

Kevin Slack 

CH2M Hill 

Report Facilitator 

James Sparks 

City of Phoenix, Arizona 

Rudolph Umbs 

FHWA 

Stephen Van Winkle 

City of Peoria, Illinois 

American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials 

and 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

{Panel 20-36J 

of the Transportation Research Board 

DECEMBER 2003 
ii 

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 

EXCHANGE PROGRAM 

The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) International Technology Exchange 

Program accesses and evaluates innovative foreign technologies and practices that 

could significantly benefit US. highway transportation systems. This approach 

allows for advanced technology to be adapted and put into practice much more 

efficiently without spending scarce research funds to recreate advances already 

developed by other countries. 

The main channel for accessing foreign in~ovations is the International Technology 

Scanning Program. The program is undertaken jointly with the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and its 

Special Committee on International Activity Coordination in cooperation with the 

Transportation Research Board's National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program Project 20-36 "Highway Research and Technology - International 

Information Sharing," the private sector, and academia. 

FHW A and AASHTO jointly determine priority topics for teams of US. experts to 

study. Teams in the specific areas being investigated are formed and sent to 

countries where significant advances and innovations have been made in 

technology, management practices, organizational structure, program delivery, and 

financing. Scan teams usually include representatives from FHWA, State 

departments of transportation, local governments, transportation trade and 

research groups, the private sector, and academia. 

Mter a scan is completed, team members evaluate findings and develop 

comprehensive reports, including recommendations for further research and pilot 

projects to verify the value of adapting innovations for U S. use. Scan reports, as 

well as the results of pilot programs and research, are circulated throughout the 

country to State and local transportation officials and the private sector. Since 

1990, FHWA has organized more than 50 international scans and disseminated 

findings nationwide on topics such as pavements, bridge construction and 

maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, organizational management, 

winter road maintenance, safety, intelligent transportation systems, planning and 

policy. 

The International Technology Scanning Program has resulted in significant 

improvements and savings in road program technologies and practices throughout 

the United States. In some cases, scan studies have facilitated joint research and 

technology-sharing projects with international counterparts, further conserving 

resources and advancing the state of the art. Scan studies have also exposed 

transportation professionals to remarkable advancements and inspired 

implementation of hundreds of innovations. The result: large savings of research 

dollars and time, as well as significant improvements in the nation's transportation 

system. 

For a complete list of International Technology Scanning Program topics and to order 

free copies of the reports, please see the list contained in this publication, as well as 

Web site: www.international.fhwa.dot.gov or e-mail: international@fhwa.dot.gov 
FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE REPORTS 

International Technology Scanning Program: 

Bringing Global Innovations to U.S. Highways 

Safety 

Signalized Intersection Safety in Europe (2003) 

Managing and Organizing Comprehensive Highway Safety in Europe (2003) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Technology and Practice in Europe (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe (1999) 

Road Safety Audits - Final Report and Case Studies (1997) 

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: Europe and Australia (1996) 

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand (1995) 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany, and the Netherlands (1994) 

Planning and Environment 

European Right-of-Way and Utilities Best Practices (2002) 

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways (2002) 

Sustainable Transportation Practices in Europe (2001) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, and Technology (1994) 

Policy and Information 

European Practices in Transportation Workforce Development (2003) 

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs and Services (1999) 

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad (1994) 

International Guide to Highway Transportation Information (1994) 

Operations 

Freight Transportation: The Latin American Market (2003) 

Intelligent Transportation Systems and Winter Operations in Japan (2003) 

Traveler Information Systems in Europe (2003) 

Meeting 21st Century Challenges of System Perfonnance Through Better Operations (2003) 

Freight Transportation: The European Market (2002) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in European Work Zones (2000) 

European Winter Service Technology (1998) 

European Traffic Monitoring (1997) 

Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems (1997) 

Snowbreak Forest Book - Highway Snowstonn Countermeasure Manual (Translated 

from Japanese) (1996) 

Winter Maintenance Technology and Practices - Learning from Abroad (1995) 

Advanced Transportation Technology (1994) 

I nfrastructu re-Genera I 

Contract Administration: Technology and Practice in Europe (2002) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2001) 

International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality Enhancement (1994) 

Infrastructure-Pavements 

Pavement Preservation Technology in France, South Africa, and Australia (2002) 

Recycled Materials In European Highway Environments (2000) 

South African Pavement and Other Highway Technologies and Practices (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

European Concrete Highways (1992) 

European Asphalt Technology (1990) 

iii 
iv 

Infrasfrucfure-Bridges 

Performance of Concrete Segmental and Cable-Stayed Bridges in Europe (2001) 

Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe and Japan (2001) 

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures (1999) 

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe (1999) 

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan (1997) 

Asian Bridge Structures (1997) 

Bridge Maintenance Coatings (1997) 

Northumberland Strait Crossing Project (1996) 

European Bridge Structures (1995) 

Geotechnology - Soil Nailing (1992) 

All publications are available on the Internet at 

www.international.thwa.dot.gov 
CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. IX 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ ix 

Areas of Interest ......................................................................................................................... ix 

General Findings and Observations ....................................................................................... ix 

Team Recommendations ......................................................................................................... xiii 

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 

Background .................................................................................................................................. 1 

Study Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 1 

Scan Approach and Planning ................................................................................................... 1 

CHAPTER TWO: GENERAL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS ......................................... 7 

Sweden ........................................................................................................................................ 7 

Germany ...................................................................................................................................... 9 

The Netherlands ....................................................................................................................... 12 

United Kingdom ....................................................................................................................... 15 

CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL 

DEVICES ....................................................................................................................... 18 

Sweden ...................................................................................................................................... 18 

Germany ................................................................................................................................... 20 

The Netherlands ...................................................................................................................... 24 

United Kingdom ...................................................................................................................... 28 

CHAPTER FOUR: INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ........................................ 33 

Sweden ..................................................................................................................................... 33 

Germany ................................................................................................................................... 38 

The Netherlands ...................................................................................................................... 42 

United Kingdom ...................................................................................................................... 53 

CHAPTER FIVE: INNOVATIVE GEOMETRIC DESIGNS .................................................... 59 

Sweden ..................................................................................................................................... 59 

Germany ................................................................................................................................... 59 

The Netherlands ....................................................................................................................... 61 

United Kingdom ....................................................................................................................... 67 

CHAPTER SIX: PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION ....... 70 

Sweden ...................................................................................................................................... 70 

Germany .................................................................................................................................... 70 

The Netherlands ....................................................................................................................... 70 

United Kingdom ....................................................................................................................... 71 

v 
CHAPTER SEVEN: LOW-COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ............................................. 73 

Sweden ...................................................................................................................................... 73 

Germany .................................................................................................................................... 73 

The Netherlands ....................................................................................................................... 74 

United Kingdom ....................................................................................................................... 75 

CHAPTER EIGHT: RESEARCH ON SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SAFETY ....................... 77 

Sweden ...................................................................................................................................... 77 

Germany .................................................................................................................................... 77 

The Netherlands ....................................................................................................................... 78 

United Kingdom ....................................................................................................................... 78 

CHAPTER NINE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS ..................... 80 

Primary Recommendations .................................................................................................... 80 

Additional Recommendations ............................................................................................... 82 

APPENDIX A: TEAM MEMBERS ................................................................................... 84 

APPENDIX B: AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 91 

APPENDIX C: HOST COUNTRY CONTACTS ................................................................ 97 

ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................ 104 

TABLES 

1. Scan Team Itinerary ................................................................................................................. 5 

2. Additional Recommendations ........................................................................................... 83 

FIGURES 

1-1. Map of Europe .................................................................................................................. 2 

1-2. Scan team members ........................................................................................................ 3 

1-3. Jake Almborg of American Trade Initiatives .................................................................. 3 

2-1. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic at signalized intersection in Stockholm, Sweden ....... 8 

2-2. Pedestrian and bicycle crossings in Germany ............................................................ 10 

2'-3. Responsibilities of Germany's accident commissions ................................................. 11 

2-4. The Netherlands' primary principles to achieve sustainable safety ......................... 13 

2-5. Vehicle simulator to test extended amber timing in the United Kingdom .............. 17 

3-1. Signalized intersection in Stockholm, Sweden ............................................................ 19 

3-2. Signalized intersection layout in Frankfurt, Germany ................................................ 21 

3-3. Audible pedestrian signal head in Germany ............................................................. 22 

3-4. Distribution of signal cycle lengths used in the Netherlands .................................. 25 

3-5. Nearside signals in the Netherlands .......................................................................... 26 

vi 
3-6. Diagram in controller cabinet at a four-leg intersection in the Netherlands .......... 27 

3-7. Actuated signal layout for intersections with approach speeds under 35 miles per 

hour ...................................... , .......................................................................................... 29 

3-8. Layout of speed discrimination and extension configuration for speeds over 45 

miles per hour ........... ~ .................................................................................................... 30 

3-9. Microprocessor optimized vehicle actuation (MOVA) traffic model. ......................... 31 

3-10. Features of a fully signalized roundabout in the United Kingdom ........................ 32 

4-1. Detector layout and relationship for LHOVRA system .............................................. 33 

4-2. Summary of before-and-after studies of implementation of LHOVRA system ...... 34 

4-3. Report summarizing conversion to LED lighting in Stockholm, Sweden ................. 35 

4-4. Pedestrian push button equipped with acoustic locator tone in Sweden .............. 37 

4-5. Virtually raised crosswalks in Sweden ........................................................................ 38 

4-6. Traffic signal with back plate in Germany .................................................................. 40 

4-7. Supplemental signal warning right-turning motorists about pedestrians ............. 41 

4-8. Pole-mounted audible signal in Germany ................................................................. 42 

4-9. "Signal ahead" warning sign in the Netherlands ..................................................... 43 

4-10. Signal poles with high-contrast stripes ...................................................................... 44 

4-11. Large back plate bordered by white stripe ................................................................ 45 

4-12. Colored pavement used to distinguish bike lanes in the Netherlands .................. 45 

4-13. Photo enforcement camera for red-light running in the Netherlands ................... 46 

4-14. Photo enforcement warning signs in the Netherlands ............................................ .47 

4-15. Effectiveness of photo enforcement in Utrecht, Netherlands .................................. .47 

4-16. Variable message signs on approaches to high-speed intersections in the 

Netherlands ................................................................................................................... 48 

4-17. Advance warning signs and speed tables at intersections in the Netherlands ... 49 

4-18. Nearside bicycle Signals in the Netherlands .............................................................. 50 

4-19. Supplemental Signing identifying bicycle and pedestrian crossings ...................... 50 

4-20. Countdown indicator for bicycle crossing ................................................................... 51 

4-21. Pedestrian countdown indicator on push button .................................................... 52 

4-22. Zigzag pavement markings to warn motorists of a pedestrian crossing ............. 54 

4-23. PUFFIN crossing in the United Kingdom .................................................................... 55 

4-24.Schematic layout of a PUFFIN crossing in the United Kingdom .............................. 55 

4-25. Schematic layout for a staggered PUFFIN crossing in the United Kingdom ......... 56 

4-26. Yellow crosshatched intersection in the United Kingdom ........................................ 57 

4-27. Restricted-turn sign ....................................................................................................... 58 

5-1. Pedestrian refuge island in Germany ......................................................................... 60 

5-2. Staggered pedestrian crossing in Germany .............................................................. 60 

5-3. Dog bone roundabout in the Netherlands ............................................................... 63 

vii 
5-4. Turbo roundabout configuration in the Netherlands ............................................... 64 

5-5. Comparison of conflict points between traditional and turbo roundabouts ........ 65 

5-6. Delineated bicycle and pedestrian paths at roundabouts in the Netherlands .... 66 

5-7. Speed table in right-turn lane ....................................................................................... 67 

5-8. Schematic layout of a through-about intersection ................................................... 68 

5-9. Schematic layout of a double through-about intersection ...................................... 68 

5-10. Schematic of a high-capacity intersection ................................................................. 69 

6-1. MMP GIS-based software to target high-accident locations .................................. 71 

6-2. MAAP stick diagram used to graphically summarize accident statistics ................ 72 

viii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

About 25 percent of fatal crashes in the United States are intersection related. Of 

these, more than one-third occur at signalized intersections. Given this fact, 

increasing safety at signalized intersections is a priority for the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Institute of Transportation Engineers 

(lTE), and many State departments of transportation (DOTs). Indeed, FHWA has 

identified intersection safety as one of three priority areas for attention, and 

AASHTO's Strategic Highway Safety Plan includes improving the design and 

operation of highway intersections as one of its 22 key emphasis areas. 

To this end-improving signalized intersection safety-FHWA and AASHTO 

sponsored a scanning study in May 2002 to focus on innovative signalized 

intersection safety practices in Europe. The scanning team visited four countries: 

Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The objective of the 

study was to identifY safety practices and evaluate their applicability to the United 

States. Through meetings with representatives from each country, site visits, and 

field observations, the team identified programs and strategies that could work in 

the United States and potential barriers to their success. This report presents the 

scan team's observations, findings, and recommendations. 

AREAS OF INTEREST 

To provide the European hosts with an understanding of the scanning study's 

objectives and team members' interests in signalized intersections, the team 

identified six major areas of interest and developed questions accordingly: 

• Selecting, designing, installing, operating, and maintaining traffic control 

devices 

• Innovative traffic control devices 

• Innovative geometric designs 

• Processes and procedures for identifying problems and evaluating and selecting 

countermeasures 

• Low-cost safety improvements 

• Research projects focusing on safety 

The team sent the questions to the host countries' officials in advance so they could 

conduct research. 

GENERAL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS 

Sweden 

Overall traffic safety in Sweden is directed by a national policy called ''Vision 

Zero," which has a goal of 50 percent reduction in highway fatalities. The Vision 

Zero concept is rooted in the belief that preventing highway fatalities is the 

ix 
x 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

responsibility of all agencies and entities involved in transportation, including 

engineers, highway officials, police, and others. 

Safety-particularly of pedestrians and bicyclists-is of primary importance, while 

vehicle mobility is secondary. Traffic safety efforts focus on eliminating fatalities 

and irreversible-injury accidents and protecting vulnerable road users instead of 

just reducing overall accident rates. The focus is on reducing crash severity, not 

frequency. On the basis of this principle, the Swedish National Road 

Administration (SNRA) converted some signalized intersections to roundabouts, 

expecting that though the frequency of accidents may increase, the severity of 

those accidents may decrease, and sought to reduce intersection speed, especially 

where pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles share the same space. 

An intersection safety technique of note is a system called LHOVRA, in which a 

series of detectors line an intersection's approach. The detectors determine vehicle 

type and speed at various points along the approach and adjust the signal timing 

by increasing the yellow change and all red clearance intervals to minimize the 

number of vehicles caught in the dilemma zone. In other words, the strategy looks 

for an opportunity to transition when the dilemma zone is unoccupied. LHOVRA is 

most effective at high-speed rural intersections, particularly where heavy truck 

traffic is a safety concern. SNRA has completed before-and-after studies at 

intersections where LHOVRA has been implemented, and the results are 

promising. The studies showed that LHOVRA reduced conflicts by one third and 

cut red-light running from 4 percent of drivers to 1 percent. 

Germany 

Highway safety improvements are a priority in Germany and, as a result, the 

number of highway fatalities since the 1990 reunification has decreased 

dramatically. Safety priorities in Germany are similar to those in Sweden. Goals 

include the following: 

• Safety with an emphasis on reducing the severity rather than the number of 

crashes 

• Mobility throughout the network, including transit 

• Intersection and roadway traffic flow and operations 

Traffic safety in Germany is a coordinated effort among local and national 

organizations. The country has about 500 federal and local accident commissions 

(called KEBU in Frankfurt) made up of local traffic authorities, civil engineering 

departments at universities, police, and traffic security wardens. These 

commissions are responsible for identifying high-accident locations, completing 

studies, implementing solutions, and monitoring the solutions for effectiveness. 

Like other European countries, Germany places a high priority on bicycle and 

pedestrian traffic safety. In some cases, pedestrians and bicyclists are given 

priority over motorists. 

Germany has successfully applied photo enforcement techniques to slow traffic and 

reduce red-light running. German officials identified two key conditions for 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

successful application: First, the public must be aware that photo enforcement 

measures are being used. Second, disobeying the posted speed or running a red 

light must carry a substantial penalty. German speed-enforcement cameras are 

highly visible, signs warn of photo enforcement, and public messages are broadcast 

to make motorists aware that the equipment is being used. Germany's fme 

structure varies for red-light running in a photo-enforced intersection, depending 

on how late the motorist enters the intersection. If the motorist is only one second 

late, he is fined $175 (considered low). Progressively later times mean 

progressively larger fines. Preliminary observations and studies of photo 

enforcement suggest a dramatic decrease in both the number and severity of 

accidents. 

Other intersection-safety strategies include using highly visible signal back plates, 

changeable-message signs, audible crossing signals, and flashing warning lights to 

identify high-accident locations. 

The Netherlands 

National safety goals guide the Netherlands' approach to intersection safety. The 

National Traffic and Transport Plan has set goals of a 30 percent reduction in 

fatalities and a 25 percent reduction in serious injuries by 2010. The plan is based 

on three principles: First, the form of a traffic system should be designed to follow 

the intended function and prevent unintended uses. Second, the system should be 

homogeneous. And third, the system should be predictable even to unfamiliar road 

users. 

As in other European countries visited, heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic is 

common at most signalized intersections in the Netherlands. The Dutch use special 

advanced indicators to warn pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists of potential 

conflict situations. A noteworthy practice in the Netherlands, unlike in the United 

States, is to operate signals at a local, vehicle-actuated level. This limits the 

maximum signal cycle lengths and accommodates pedestrians, bicycles, and public 

transport. Occasionally, motorized traffic congestion issues are treated as 

secondary. Signal synchronization is easily compromised if demand exists for 

bicycles, pedestrians, or public transport on other approaches to the signal. 

The Dutch program for intersection safety focuses on reducing vehicle speed and 

providing road users with clear, consistent information. Speed is controlled by 

several methods, including geometric design, speed-warning signs, speed tables, 

and an extensive and conspicuous use of photo enforcement. 

The Dutch spend a sizable amount of money on traffic control, much more than the 

United States and the other three countries visited spend. They have three 

Freeway Management Centers in the Randstad that monitor freeways in 

Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht, with detectors in and variable 

message signs over each lane nearly every quarter of a mile. Nearly every spot near 

complex freeway interchanges is viewable by cameras, and each variable message 

sign can be controlled remotely. Two other Freeway Management Centers are 

located elsewhere in the country. The countrywide Traffic Information Center and 

Freeway Incident Management Center is located in Utrecht. In contrast, because of 

xi 
xii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

the local approach to traffic control, major cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam do 

not employ an urban traffic management center. 

The Dutch promote safety and focus on skilled driving from the start by setting the 

following requirements for obtaining a diver's license: 

• An average of 30 hours of hands-on training, with lessons costing the equivalent 

of U.S. $30 per hour. 

• A 50-question written exam on information taken from a 500-page driver's 

manual. 

• A 35-minute driving test that costs the equivalent of U.S. $163 to take. The test 

has a 70-percent failure rate, and applicants must take another 10 lessons 

before retaking the test. 

The Dutch, like the Swedes and Germans, prefer roundabouts to signals. If an 

intersection is already signalized, they look first at converting it to a roundabout. 

To better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists, roundabouts are designed with 

a single lane around the center island and the approaches are not flared. Vehicles 

approach at 90 degrees to the roundabout so they will slow down to 15 miles per 

hour or less, and a center refuge island is installed to allow pedestrians and 

bicyclists to cross the roadway in separate halves. In many cases, roundabouts are 

not able to deal with the heavy traffic streams. 

Enforcement tolerance is set to 7 kilometers per hour for speed limits below 100 

kilometers per hour, and 8 kilometers per hour at higher speeds. In urban areas 

with a speed limit of 50 kilometers per hour, a tolerance of 14 percent is used. On 

motorways with a speed limit of 120 kilometers per hour, speeding up to 6.7 

percent is tolerated with no penalties. 

United Kingdom 

The United Kingdom's national safety plan, "Tomorrow's Roads-Safer for 

Everyone," calls for a 40 percent reduction in total roadway fatalities and serious 

injuries, a 50 percent reduction in the number of children killed or seriously 

injured, and a 10 percent reduction in the slight-casualty rate. As in the other 

countries visited, the emphasis in the United Kingdom is on reducing accidents 

with serious consequences. National authorities are implementing the plan in 

partnership with local authorities, police, health services, industry, government 

departments, and road users. 

The United Kingdom, like the United States, faces significant traffic congestion in 

metropolitan areas. It faces the challenge of maintaining a delicate balance among 

safety, mobility, and congestion in the design and operation of signalized 

intersections. The British have developed and implemented a number of 

computerized signal-timing-optimization software packages, such as 

microprocessor '" optimized vehicle actuation (MOVA) and optimized signal capacity 

and delay (OSCADY), to increase intersection capacity, reduce delay and queuing, 

and improve safety. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Pedestrian safety at signalized intersections is a high priority. To this end, a 

number of specialized pedestrian crossings such as PUFFIN (pedestrian userfriendly intelligent) and TOUCAN ("two can" cross) have been developed. And 

technologies such as passive infrared and microwave detection optimize both 

motorized and nonmotorized traffic operations at signalized intersections. 

The United Kingdom uses photo enforcement extensively. At one field site 25 miles 

outside of London, the scan team was told that a motorist could encounter 16 

cameras while driving from the site into London, each camera capable of issuing a 

violation. Theoretically, one speeding driver could receive 16 citations from a single 

trip. 

The United Kingdom also has a point system, with 12 points in three years 

resulting in banning of a driver. Speed camera violations usually result in three 

points, though exceptional speed may result in more. Red-light camera violations 

result in three points. 

The United Kingdom uses a uniform three-second yellow clearance at signals and 

displays a "starting yellow" of two seconds. The starting yellow comes on 

simultaneously with the red at the end of the red to indicate that the right-of-way 

is about to change. Conventional wisdom holds that the starting yellow helps 

drivers begin moving promptly on the green signal, maximizing junction capacity. 

Because the time is part of the safety inter-green time, omitting a starting yellow 

would increase the all-red time. The actual benefits of the starting yellow are being 

researched. 

While not directly related to signals, the United Kingdom is using painted offset 

crosswalks in lieu of signals to force gaps in traffic. The offset crosswalk is 

designed to enable and force pedestrians to cross a two-way street one-half at a 

time, reducing the required gap and decision making in half. Since under some 

conditions signalization increases crashes, this strategy holds substantial promise. 

TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS 

On the basis of observations and findings in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, 

and the United Kingdom, the scan team developed five primary recommendations 

and several secondary ones. The primary recommendations include the following: 

1. Develop a model photo enforcement program to reduce red-light running and 

control speed at high-accident signalized intersections. 

2. Enhance dilemma-zone detection at high-speed rural intersections using 

MOVA, LHOVRA, and similar technologies. 

3. Control vehicle speed through intersections using a combination of practices 

such as speed tables, pavement markings, automated photo enforcement, and 

changeable-message signs. 

4. Promote roundabouts as alternatives to signalized intersections where traffic 

volumes allow as a way to manage the severity of collisions (taking into 

xiii 
xiv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

consideration that bicyclists are more vulnerable at roundabouts and that 

roundabouts make providing controlled pedestrian crossings more difficult). 

5. Develop guidelines for improving pedestrian safety at signalized intersections 

using strategies such as PUFFIN and TOUCAN crossings, countdown 

indicators, and audible pedestrian signals. 

Several scan team members also identified practices and programs that relate to 

their respective areas of expertise. These practices form the basis of the team's 

secondary recommendations, including introducing wider pavement markings, 

requiring a standard interval for all amber signals, and using countdown indicators 

for pedestrians and bicyclists. 
BACKGROUND 

CHAPTER ONE 

INTRODUCTION 

About 25 percent of fatal crashes in the United States are intersection related, and 

more than one-third of these fatal crashes occur at signalized intersections. In U.S. 

cities, about a third of fatal crashes are related to intersections, while about 14 

percent OCCill' at signals. This is because a large proportion of fatal crashes in cities 

involve pedestrians. Accordingly, safety at signalized intersections is a top priority 

for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers CITE), and a number of State departments of 

transportation (DOTs). In fact, one of the 22 emphasis areas of the AASHTO 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan is improving the design and operation of highway 

intersections. This emphasis area includes four specific strategies. Implementation 

of the plan calls for an effort to determine the most promising countermeasures, 

including experimental or innovative countermeaSill'es. Similarly, FHWA has 

identified intersection safety as one of three priority areas. This priority is 

reflected in FHWA safety policies, programs, and research. And ITE has developed 

a Safety Action Plan that includes an aspect titled "Intersection Crashes." ITE has 

identified 10 strategies that call fOl~ among other things, promotion of best 

practices and new technologies for improving intersection safety. 

To this end-improving intersection safety-FHWA and AASHTO sponsored a 

European scanning study to focus on innovative safety practices in planning, 

designing, operating, and maintaining signalized intersections and junctions. 

Dill'ing the May 10-25, 2002, study, the scanning team visited Sweden, Germany, the 

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. 

STUDY OBJECTIVES 

The primary objective of the study was to identify and evaluate promising and 

readily implementable intersection safety solutions and programs to use in the 

United States. The team met with representatives of the fow' countries to discuss 

intersection safety strategies and progranls that, if implemented in the United 

States, would improve safety at signalized intersections. Through discussions and 

site visits, the team also identified potential barriers to or special needs of 

implementation in the United States. The team also observed safety improvements 

and gathered information about site-specific studies and examples of signalized 

intersection safety improvements. 

SCAN APPROACH AND PLANNING 

FHWA and AASHTO identified the need to address safety issues related to 

signalized intersections in the United States and jointly sponsored a team of 

experts to identify readily implementable best practices used in Ew-ope. The team 

conducted a literatw-e search and prepared a desk scan report to identify 

cOLmtries addressing intersection safety with innovative techniques. Based on the 

desk scan results, the team visited four countries. The scan started in Stockholm, 
2 

CHAPTER ONE 

Sweden, and continued to Germany, the Nethm'lands, and the United Kingdom 

(Figure loll. 

Scan Team 

Figure 1-1 Map of 

Europe. 

The scalUling team's 13 members included representatives from FHWA, AASHTO, 

State DOTs, municipal transportation agencies, wuversities, and the private and 

nonprofit sectors. Co-chairs Gene K. Fong, director of FHW A's Field Services- East, 

and James H. Kopf, chief engineer and deputy executive director of the Mississippi 

DOT, led the team. Other members were Philip Clark, deputy chief engineer and 

director of design lor the New York State DOT: Rick Collins, director of the Texas 

DOT Traffic Engineering Section; Richard A. Cunard, engineer of traffic operations 

for the Transportation Research Board (TRB); Ken F. Kobetsky, program director 

for engineering for AASHTO; Nazir Lalatu. principal engineer for the Ventura 

County, California, Transportation Department and past international president of 

ITE; Fred N. Ranck, safety and geometrics engineer for FHWA's Midwestern 

Resource Center; Robert K. Seyfried, director of the Transportation Engineering 

Division of the Northwestern University Center for Public Safety; James W. Sparks, 

traffic engineer for the City of Phoenix, Arizona: Rudolph M. Umbs, chief highway 

safety engineer in FHWA's O!Ti.ce of Safety Design; Steve N. Van Winkle, director of 
INTRODUCTION 

public works for the City of Peoria, illinois; and Kevin 1. Slack, senior 

transportation engineer and vice president at CH2M HILL, who served as the 

team's report facilitator (Figure 1-2). 

Figure 1-2. Scan team 

members lIeft to 

righll Jim Sparks, 

Rudy Umbs, Gene 

Fong, Nazir Lalani, 

Ken Kobetsky, Fred 

Ranck, Bob Seyfried. 

Richard Cunard, Rick 

Collins, Kevin Slack, 

Jim Kopl. Steve Van 

Winkle, and Phil 

Clark. 

Figure 1-3. Jake Almborg of 

American Trade Initiatives, 

Inc. organized the study and 

logistics with the host 

countries. 

3 
4 

CHAPTER ONE 

Amplifying Questions 

To provide the European bosts with an understanding of the scanning study's 

objectives and interests, the team developed questions that focused on six major 

areas of interest, listed below. The complete set of questions is in Appendix B. 

The scanning team was divided into six subgroups according to the areas of 

interest listed below. Each subgroup was responsible for documenting observations 

and findings in its respective area of interest: 

• Selection, design, installation, operation, and maintenance of tra[(ic control 

devices at signalized intersections (Steve Van Winkle. team leader) 

• Innovative traffic control devices at signalized intersections fRick Collins, team 

leader) 

• Innovative geometric designs for signalized intersections (Phil Clark, team 

leader) 

• Processes and procedures for identi(ying salety problems at signalized 

intersections and evaluating and selecting countermeasures (Fred Ranck, team 

leader) 

• Low-cost safety improvements for signalized intersections mob Seyfried, team 

leader) 

• Research projects focusing on safety issnes (Rich Cunard, team leader) 

Team Itinerary 

Figure 1-4 summarizes the scan team's itinerary from May 12 to 25, 2002. During 

the scanning study, the team met with signalized intersection safety experts 

representing national and local transportation agencies, research organizations, 

signal man ufacturers, and universities in the host countries. A list of 

representatives from the host countries is in Appendix C. Meetings with the host 

agencies were a combination of workshops and site visits to observe intersection 

operations in the field. 

In addition to attenclillg host-cOlmtry meetings and site visits, the team met 

several limes dW'ing the scanning study. At its first meeting, the team confirmed 

assignments and reviewed the study objectives, amplifYing questions, and host 

agency agendas. The team met again halfway through the trip to cliscuss lindings 

and observations 1'1'0111 Sweden and Germany, the first two COWl tries visited. The 

team met on the last day of the study to summarize findings, develop prelinl:inary 

recommendations, and establish the implementation team. 

Report Organization 

This report summarizes the scan team's observations, findings, and 

recommendations. During the study, the team had the opportunity to interact with 

many experienced officials who provided valuable insight on signalized 

intersection safety from the perspective of their respective organizations. In 
INTRODUCTION 

addition, the team observed firsthand various innovative practices and 

technologies in the field. 

TABLE 1. Scan Team Itinerary 

Location Group Purpose Date 

Stockholm, Sweden Scan team organizational meeting May 12 

Stockholm, Sweden Swedish National Road Administration (SNRA) and May 13 

Peek Traffic 

Stockholm, Sweden SNRA, City of Stockholm Traffic Service Department, May 14 

site visits 

Munich, Germany Siemens Traffic Control Facilities May 15 

Frankfurt am Main, Site visits May 16 

Germany 

Bergisch Galdbalt, Federal Highway Research Institute (BAST) May 17 

Germany 

The Hague, Team meeting-review meetings in Sweden and May 18 

Netherlands Germany 

The Hague, Team meeting-review meetings in Sweden and May 19 

Netherlands Germany, prepare for Netherlands and United 

Kingdom visits 

Utrecht, Dutch Ministry of Transport's Transport Research May 20 

Netherlands Center (AWL site visits 

Delft, Netherlands AW, Ministry of Justice, Province Zuid-Holland, May 21 

consultants' presentations 

Rotterdam, Presentations and site visits May 22 

Netherlands 

London, United Department of Transport and Transport for London May 23 

Kingdom 

Crowthorne, Transport Research Laboratory and site visits May 24 

United Kingdom 

London, United Final team meeting and preliminary May 25 

Kingdom recommendations 

5 
6 

CHAPTER ONE 

The report is organized around the six areas of interest described above. The next 

seven chapters summarize the general findings and observations by country for 

each major area of interest. The final chapter summarizes the team's primary and 

additional recommendations. The primary recommendations focus on 

implementable strategies to address safety at signalized intersections. In addition, 

a number of scan team members identified practices and programs that relate to 

their respective areas of expertise. 
CHAPTER TWO 

GENERAL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS 

In identiiYing implementable safety solutions, it is important to understand and 

acknowledge the cultural differences between the countries visited and the United 

States. In many cases, specific solutions and practices succeed io Europe because of 

approaches to public safety, legal issues, public funding, public education, respect 

for authority, etc. The team identified practices that were ionovative and unique, 

but that would have limited application io the United States because of basic 

cultural differences. A good example is traffic signal synchronization. In the United 

States, signal synchronization is important not just for signal safety and efficiency 

reasons, but also for ail· quality and fuel conservation concerns. European countries 

do not have environmentally declared nonattainment areas where signal 

synchronization is required. For that reason, European traffic engineers have 

substantially more flexibility than U.S. traffic engineers to use unusual signal 

phasing and flexible signal cycles. 

The following summarizes the general, overarcmng beliefs and practices that shape 

iotersection safety solutions and programs io the countries the team visited. 

SWEDEN 

Traffic safety in Sweden is directed by a national po]jcy called "Vision Zero." An 

ioterim goal of Vision Zero, begun io 1996, is to reduce mghway fatalities by 50 

percent by 2007. Previously, primary responsibility for avoidiog traffic accidents 

was placed on the iodividual road user. The Vision Zero concept is rooted in the 

belief that highway fatalities are unacceptable and ru·e the responsibility of all 

agencies and entities iovolved in transporting people and goods, iocluding 

engineers, planners, local and national mghway agencies, automobile 

manufactw·ers, policy makers, police agencies, etc. Vision Zero is beiog realized io a 

variety of ways io agencies throughout Sweden. 

Most traffic signals io Sweden ru·e located io the Stockholm region of the Swedish 

National Road Administration (SNRA). As in much of the United States, traffic in 

this region is iocreasing at a much faster pace than the population, and SNRA is 

not able to expand the transportation network swiftly enough to meet the demand. 

Traffic problems are aggravated by the fact that so much water divides land areas 

(i.e., the expense of bridging roadways apparently limits the number of available 

conidors to move traffic to much fewer than are available in U. S. cities). The result 

is an increase in congestion and associated driver behavior, such as aggressive 

driving and red-light runniog. The first priority remains safety, particularly for 

vulnerable road users (pedestrians and bicyclists). When faced with the mobi]jtyversus-safety issue, safety is pru·amount. Turning right on red, for example, is 

prohibited in Sweden. 

Traffic safety efforts focus on e]jminating fatalities and irreversible injury 

accidents and protecting vulnerable road users rather than reducing overall 

accident rates. The primary focus is on crash severity, not frequency. Tms is an 

7 
8 

CHAPTER TWO 

important consideration, particularly at signalized intersections with heavy 

pedestrian and bicycle traffic (see Figure 2-1). On the basis of this principle, SNRA 

has converted signalized intersections to roundabouts, recognizing that the 

frequency of total accidents may increase, but the severity of those accidents may 

be greatly reduced. Following the same principle, the overall approach to 

intersection safety is to reduce speed, especially where pedestrians, bicycles, and 

vehicles share the same space. 

The following are statistics on signalized intersections in Sweden: 

Figure 2-1 

Pedestnan and 

bicycle Irafflc 01 

Signalized 

intersection in 

Siockhoim. 

Sweden 

• Sweden has about 3,000 signalized intersections, with SNRA responsible for 

about 600 intersections and cities and local jurisdictions responsible for the 

rest. 

• AbouL two-thirds of police-reported accidents (fatalities, injuries, and damageonly accidenLs) at signalized i.ntersections are related to either red-light 

running or rear-end crashes. Protected left-turn phasing is used extensive'ly in 

Sweden and is required for all intersections with approach speeds equal to or 

greater than 70 kilometers per hour. 

• Safety improvements are funded at the national level through appropriations 

from Parliament and the Ministry. SNRA then works with local agencies to 

implement safety improvements on a systematic and project-specific basis. 

• Tort liability is not a primary concern in Sweden. 
GENERAL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS 

• SNRA has the responsibility to organize municipalities, police, and other 

organizations to improve roadway safety. 

• Traffic signals are viewed less as safety improvements than as capacity devices. 

Though tort liability is not a primary issue in Sweden, the country is beginning to 

see an increase in the number of traffic-related lawsuits. Tort liability's limited 

effect (real or perceived) allows SNRA and local transportation agencies the 

opportunity and flexibility to test innovative ideas and solutions with limited 

restrictions and risks. 

GERMANY 

Highway safety improvements are a priority in Germany and, as a result, the 

country has experienced a large reduction in highway fatalities since reunification 

in 1990. The team observed the following safety priorities in Germany, which are 

similar to Swedish approaches but differ by placing a high priority on efficiency 

and overall traffic-flow quality: 

• Safety of motorized and norunotorized vehicular traffic with an emphasis on 

reducing the consequences of crashes rather than the overall number 

• Mobility throughout the network, including transit 

• Intersection/roadway traffic flow and operations 

In Germany, traffic signals are generally the responsibility of local street traffic 

authorities, whose duties typically include planning, locating, constructing, signing, 

and marking signalized intersections. 

German law requires traffic engineers to follow standards and codes in designing 

and operating traffic signals, including rigorous signal timing and clearance 

calculations for all modes of traffic. Failure to follow these standards can result in 

criminal and civil liability on the part of the owning agency or engineer of record. 

German law, however, limits tort liability related to innovative traffic control 

devices by making it illegal for one to enter an intersection until it is clear. To 

avoid tort liability issues with innovative control devices, operators of signal 

systems must meet extensive clearance calculations and other required safety 

criteria (performance criteria). 

Like other European countries, Germany places a high priority on bicycle and 

pedestrian traffic safety and protection of vulnerable road users. In some cases, 

pedestrians and bicyclists are given priority over motorized vehicle traffic. 

Extensive intersection pavement markings m'e used to identify bicycle and 

pedestrian crossings within intersections (Figure 2-2). 

9 
-

10 

CHAPTER TWO 

Figure 2-2 

Pedestrian and 

bicycle crossings 

in Germany. 

Frankfurt, Germany, has 764 signals, all of which operate on lO-volt power with 

halogen signal locations. Experience has shown a gain in energy savings equivalent 

to using light-emitting diode (LED) technology, and lO-volt power is safer for 

employees to operate. 

German officials do a substantial amount of simulation, both to optimize signal 

timing and to demonstrate to the public how signal work. Officials made a point of 

saying they do not allow "apple pie" simulation to sell a project and that the 

simulation is vital to accurately portray real traffic flow. They indicated the 

simulation process is considered a "contract" with their constituents. 

Germany installs red-light enforcement cameras without warning signs. 

Additionally, extra camera locations and wiring at alternate locations are installed 

so that the cameras can be rotated among locations. Penalties for violating the redlight law are severe and are graduated based on how extensively the motorist 

violated the law (i.e., how many seconds into the red he entered the intersection). 

Traffic safety in Germany is clearly a coordinated effort among local and national 

organizations. The German governmenL has assembled about 500 accident 

commissions at the federal and local levels (the commission in Frankfurt is called 

KEBUl. These commissions combine engineering, law enforcement, and other 

authorities, including local traffic authorities, civil engineering departments at 

universities, and traffic security wardens (similar to the U.S. National Safety 

Council). Depending on the nature of the afety problems, other organizations such 

as cyclist groups or pllblic transit authorities participate in the commissions. These 

commissions are responsible for identifying high-accident locations, completing 

engineering studies, implementing solutions, and monitoring the solutions for 
GENERAL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS 

effectiveness (Figure 2-3). In addition, the commissions provide general traffic 

safety training to school children and the general public. 

Figure 2-3. Responsibilities of Germany's 

accident commissions. 

w 

o 

::i 

o 

0.. 

>= t:: 

a: 

§ 

- accident-type maps 

- accident Us:ts 

.. accident magram 

- accident severity 

.. road design 

- traffic engineering 

- traffic control + 

.. traffic law 

~ Accident Commission " 

Accident ana4rysis, site inspection 

" Z··" :J .' 

-I 

o 

a: 

!z 

o 

(.) 

~fB'\\n I 0 ~fV7 lost/lut lOr ~L!:U~ ®If\:; StraBenverkehrKOIn 

11 
12 

CHAPTER TWO 

The performance of these commissions varies throughout the country. Developing a 

successful commission can be a lengthy process and is highly dependent on having 

a qualified person or group in a leadership position. To address these issues, the 

Germans have developed a three-day training course for local commissions. 

German experience has shown that the most effective commissions are those with 

the highest degree of training and technical knowledge. 

Funding for the safety commissions and the improvements they recommend comes 

from general federal transportation funding sources. The level of priority and the 

amount Qf money directed to safety improvements is left up to the commissions 

and local authorities (projects and funding are not earmarked solely for safety 

priorities). 

Though Germany uses roundabouts for speed control, officials said a significant 

disadvantage of roundabouts is that they take control away from engineers. The 

geometric design and yield to the roundabout rule prevail, and it is not possible to 

give priority to buses or bicycles. 

THE NETHERLANDS 

The Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management (RWS) is the 

national road authority in the Netherlands. RWS provides some funding for 

intersection safety improvement, but decisions on how to best direct funds to meet 

specific needs are determined largely by local agencies. 

The Netherlands has about 5,300 signalized intersections. Eighty-one percent are 

located in urban areas and 19 percent in nonurban areas. Seventy-seven percent of 

the signals are actuated. In 2001, 1,085 traffic fatalities were reported, about 11 

percent at signalized intersections. In that year, 18,510 people were hospitalized as 

a result of traffic accidents. 1 The number of fatalities in 1972 was 3,250, and since 

then both fatalities and hospitalizations have been decreasing an average of 4 

percent a year. 

The Netherlands has national safety goals guiding its approach to intersection 

safety. The National Traffic and Transport Plan has set goals of a 30 percent 

reduction in fatalities and a 25 percent reduction in serious injuries by 2010. The 

program is based on developing sustainable safety solutions and is built on three 

primary principles (Figure 2-4). First, the form of the system should be designed to 

follow the intended function and prevent unintended uses. Second, the system 

should be homogeneous. The Dutch believe that a highly homogeneous system 

improves safety, and they try to prevent major variations in vehicle speed, 

direction, and mass on their higher-speed facilities. Finally, the system should be 

predictable even to users unfamiliar with the road. 
function: 

form: 

use: 

GENERAL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS 

Principles of Sustainable Safety 

use of the road as intended by the road authority 

the physical design and layout of the infrastructure 

actual use of the infrastructure and behaviour of the road user 

Figure 2-4. The Netherlands' primary principles to achieve sustainable safety. 

In December 2001, the Ministry of Transport's Transport Research Centre (AVV) 

published the second edition of its report "Sustainable Safety: A Preventable Road 

Safety Strategy for the Future." This report is available in English and presents the 

principles of sustainable safety, phase implementation plans, and specific 

implementation measures. 2 

The Dutch have developed regional traffic enforcement task forces that target five 

safety areas: speeding, red-light running, driving under the influence, safety belt 

use, and moped helmet use. All 26 police regions have task forces that work with 

national enforcement officers who rotate around the country. The general speedlimit tolerance level is 10 percent with both cameras and police officers. 

Enforcement locations are determined by reviewing accident and violation 

statistics. The revenue generated by these task forces goes to the national 

government's treasury department, and the money is reinvested in sustaining the 

programs. 

The Dutch spend considerable effort and resources on engaging the public in 

developing and maintaining a safe and sustainable transportation system. A 

nongovernmental association known as 3VO is at the forefront of public awareness 

efforts and campaigns. The association's mission is to provide never-fading 

attention to traffic safety, start at the lowest level (interact with civilians), share 

knowledge with others, and work with as many allies as possible. The association 

13 
14 

CHAPTER TWO 

recently changed its approach from pointing the finger at problem areas to 

disseminating safety messages with an emphasis on solutions and interaction. 

Like other European countries visited, heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic is 

common at most signalized intersections in the Netherlands. The Dutch have 

developed and deployed special signal indicators to warn pedestrians, bicyclists, 

and motorists of potential conflict situations. A noteworthy practice in the 

Netherlands is to limit maximum signal cycle lengths to better accommodate 

pedestrians, bicycles, and public transport vehicles. Under certain political 

conditions, motorized traffic congestion issues are treated as secondary. This 

approach is in contrast to typical practice in the United States, where intersections 

are timed, phased, and operated to minimize delay to motorists. 

The Dutch promote safety and focus on skilled driving from the start by requiring 

the following for obtaining a driver's license: 

• An average of 30 hours of hands-on training, with lessons costing US. $30 an 

hour. 

• A 50-question written exam on information taken from a 500-page driver's 

manual. 

• A 35-minute driving test at a cost of US. $163. The failure rate is 70 percent, and 

an additional 10 lessons are required before retaking the test. 

The Dutch program for intersection safety focuses on reducing speed and 

providing road users with clear, consistent information. Speed is controlled by 

several methods, including geometric design, speed-warning signs, speed tables, 

and an extensive use of the latest technology, including conspicuous automated 

photo enforcement. 

If traffic volumes allow, the Dutch make extensive use of roundabouts that are 

conservative in design (one-lane roundabouts with sharp entrance angles to assure 

vehicle speed reduction are preferred). 

To measure speeds, the Dutch have made substantial investments in detection. 

Their limited-access freeways (equivalent to the US. Interstate system) have 

speed/volume detection in each lane every quarter mile. One signalized 

intersection the team visited had as many as 78 detectors to sense vehicle speed 

and traffic volume and revise signal timing. 

The Dutch extensively use oversized signal indications and back plates for 

conspicuity (much more so than any of the other countries visited). Their largest 

signal indications are equivalent to 12-inch heads used in the United States, but 

the back plates are substantially larger than any in the United States. The back 

plates are oval, with the border painted white for contrast. 

A significant portion of the intersection safety program in the Netherlands focuses 

on pedestrians and bicyclists, who suffer severe consequences when involved in 

accidents at signalized intersections. 
GENERAL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS 

Tort liability is not a major concern in the Netherlands, but the rising number of 

civil lawsuits creates concern. 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Institutional structure in the United Kingdom is similar to that in the United 

States. The central government sets overall policy and legislates countrywide 

standards to achieve uniformity. The central government also allocates funding and 

provides advice and guidance to local agencies through the traffic management 

department. Local governments implement national policies and make local traffic 

regulation orders (e.g., access control measures) to best meet their goals and needs. 

England has 149 local highway authorities with a broad range of objectives, 

including reducing congestion, promoting modal shift, and improving road safety, 

air quality, and the quality of local space. 

A number of mechanisms are in place to help accomplish those objectives: 

• White papers 

• A 10-year plan 

• National air quality strategy 

• Local transport plans 

• Legislation 

• Commitments to select committees and commissions 

The United Kingdom's national safety plan, "Tomorrow's Roads-Safer for 

Everyone," calls for a 40 percent reduction in total roadway fatalities and serious 

injuries, a 50 percent reduction in the number of children killed or seriously 

injured, and a 10 percent reduction in the slight-casualty rate. As with the other 

countries visited, the emphasis is on accidents with serious consequences. The plan 

is being implemented in partnership with local authorities, police, health services, 

commerce and industry, other government departments, and road users. 

The Highways Agency is responsible for the 10,000 kilometers of the national 

system. The United Kingdom has about 350,000 kilometers of local roads. The 

Highways Agency is responsible for more than 1,700 signalized intersections (plus 

860 signalized pedestrian crossings), while local agencies are responsible for more 

than 12,000 signalized intersections (plus 13,800 pedestrian crossings). 

The United Kingdom, like the United States, faces significant traffic congestion in 

metropolitan areas. It faces the challenge of maintaining a delicate balance among 

safety, mobility, and congestion in the design and operation of signalized 

intersections. The British have developed and implemented several computerized 

signal-timing optimization software packages, such as microprocessor optimized 

vehicle actuation (MOVA) and optimized signal capacity and delay (OSCADY), to 

increase intersection capacity, reduce delay and queuing, and improve safety. 

15 
16 

CHAPTER TWO 

Pedestrian safety and the effect of pedestrian traffic on motorized traffic are also 

high priorities in the United Kingdom. A number of specialized pedestrian 

crossings have been developed, including the PUFFIN (pedestrian user-friendly 

intelligent) and TOUCAN ("two can" cross) crossings, to improve pedestrian and 

bicyclist safety and operations at signalized intersections. Leading-edge 

technologies (including passive infrared and microwave detection) optimize both 

motorized and nonmotorized traffic operations at signalized intersections. The 

PUFFIN crossing has pedestrian detection and can forego the pedestrian phase if 

detection shows the pedestrian has changed his mind or crossed the street on the 

"don't walk" sign, and can extend the ''walk'' time if a pedestrian lingers in the 

street. 

It has been demonstrated in the United States that care is needed in marking 

crosswalks because they may actually encourage pedestrians to relax their guard 

while crossing, so crossing technology favoring pedestrians might have downsides. 

During a briefing on traffic in highly congested parts of London, officials reported 

that up to 29 percent of the crashes at signals involve pedestrians. 

Transport for London (TFL) is responsible for traffic management in the greater 

London area. It owns and operates about 4,500 traffic signals and 600 enforcement 

cameras. Over the past two years, TFL has developed a Road Safety Unit, which 

emphasizes enforcement and education. As with the safety commissions and task 

forces in the other countries visited, the unit is made up of representatives from 

multiple agencies. The team visited the London Traffic Control Centre and was 

surprised to hear that although traffic engineers are accountable for all signal 

timing, if the centre detects the need for changes on the basis of the extensive 

camera system, officials must call Scotland Yard to make the changes. (Traffic 

management and police-related functions, however, are becoming more integrated). 

Like other countries visited, tort liability has not been an issue in the United 

Kingdom, but lawsuits are becoming more prevalent and transportation officials 

must follow standards and rigid engineering practices to avoid civil liability. 

Typically, local agencies work with the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) to 

research and test new ideas before they are implemented. TRL has developed a 

sophisticated vehicle simulator (Figure 2-5) that allows engineers to test signal 

operations and design plans in a laboratory setting before full-scale 

implementation, reducing risk and limiting liability associated with new ideas. 

Several lawsuits related to the use of red-light cameras have been unsuccessful. 
Figure 2-5. 

Vehicle 

simulator 

to test 

extended 

amber 

timing in 

the United 

Kingdom. 

GENERAL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS 

17 
18 

CHAPTER THREE 

DESIGN, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF 

TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

Traffic signal cycle aspects differ from country to country in Europe. Germany and 

the United Kingdom use a "start-up yellow" interval before the beginning of a 

green indication. This short interval displays the yellow and red indications at the 

same time to let the motorist know the green phase is coming. Sweden also uses a 

start-up yellow before the beginning of a green indication and a "return to green 

during yellow" as one of the options of the LHOVRA technique. Because this is a 

significant difference from U.S. practice, some European practices on phase change 

intervals cannot be directly transferred to the United States. 

SWEDEN 

Traffic signals are installed on a case-by-case basis after engineering studies using 

a three-to-five-year analysis period. 

Design and operation of traffic signals in Sweden are based on a code of statutes. 

Adherence to these codes is an absolute requirement. They address vehicular, 

pedestrian, and other types of signals; where signals should be placed; number of 

signals per approach; safety timing of the signals; and phasing of the signals. 

SignaEzed intersection design specifications are defined in three primary 

documents: 

• "Code of Road" 

• "Code of Road Design" 

• "Code of Construction Specifications for Traffic Signals" 

One design approach to improve intersection safety in Sweden is to require 

specific geometric and operational intersection features based solely on design 

speed. The philosophy is to minimize conflicts (vehicle-vehicle and vehiclepedestrian) as approach speeds increase. For example, the codes dictate that 

signalized iDtersectioDs with posted speeds of 70 kilometers per hour (about 43 

miles per hour) or more must have protected left-turn lanes with protected 

phasing. Left tmns are prohibited from roadways with speed limits in excess of 70 

kilometers per hour. 

When high-accident locations have been identified, progressive solutions are 

developed on the basis of engineering studies that evaluate safety among vehicles, 

pedestrians, and bicyclists; mobility (delay); and traffic demand. In some cases, 

where accident severity is high, Sweden has removed traffic signals aDd replaced 

them with roundabouts, recognizing that overall accident rates may increase and 

line-of-sight may be degraded, but the rate of severe (fatal and injurious) accidents 

will decrease. Replacing signals with roundabouts seems to be motivated by 

political and police pressure. In urban areas, unsignalized roundabouts can have a 
DESIGN, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE 

negative systemwide effect because it is difficult to control and manage platooning 

and traffic progression. 

Ll some cases, the Swedes have installed traffic signals at roundabouts, but 

signalizing roundabouts is not a preferred approach and is done on a limited basis 

to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety (Figw'e 3-1). 

Figure 3-1. Signalized intersection in Stockholm, Sweden. 

Sweden clearly places intersection safety above operational considerations and 

capacity. The following are examples: 

• The maximum signal cycle length used in Sweden is 100 seconds. This practice 

is driven not by capacity, but by pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Relatively short 

signal cycle lengths reduce the likelihood a bicyclist or a pedestrian will cross 

against the red signal, particularly during the long winter months. 

• Sweden does not allow right turns on red. This limits capacity but improves 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety. 

• In general, red clearance intervals are not used because they increase delay for 

pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Most traffic signals in Sweden are treated as isolated intersections without 

interconnections. Master signal systems are used, but the primary focus is 

monitoring signal timillg to make capacity adjustments. 

19 
20 

CHAPTER THREE 

GERMANY 

In Germany, the design and construction of signals and guidelines on their 

placement are found in federal standards, laws, and regulations. These guidelines 

(including detailed timing calculations at signalized intersections) must be 

followed and correctly applied, or the owning agency or responsible engineer may 

face criminal or civil liability. 

The following is a list of standards used to plan, design, and operate traffic signals 

in Germany: 

• HAV-sign installation 

• R-FGU-pedestrian design 

• RMS-pavement markings 

• Risla-traffic signals (timing and controller programming) 

• DIN VDE 0832-technical specifications for safety related to electronics and 

maintenance intervals 

• BO-Straub-special aspects of trolley traffic signals 

• EAHV-geometric standards for intersection design 

These standards set rigorous clearance and signal-timing calculations that must be 

completed and documented for all modes of traffic at each signalized intersection. 

Figure 3-2 shows an intersection in Frankfw't and summarizes the results of the 

timing calculations. The different colors represent the pbase change intervals 

evaluated. Pedestrian crossing paths are shown in yellow, motorized vehicle paths 

are shown in red and green, and tbe trolley path is shown in blue. Yellow change 

and red clearance intervals are varied, depending on the approach speed and tbe 

conOict calculations for all traffic modes. Frankfurt has an extensive trolley system 

that also mLlst be considered in pbase change calculations. If an accident occurs 

and the signal timing is in question, the courts refer to these timing tables to help 

assess driver liability and to determine if a violation occurred' 
Figure 3-2. 

Signalized 

intersection 

layout in 

Frankfurt, 

Germany. 

DESIGN, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE 

Moinler landstraBe 

-

~ -....... ---... -- _ ._ 00: 

Pedestrian-crossing inclications in Germany are placed on the near side of the 

crossing and are supplemented by a "please wait" indication on the far side to 

inclicate that the pedestrian button has been activated. The nearside inclication is 

either red or green (Figure 3-3). During the red phase, the "please wait" inclication 

on the far side of the crossing is lit. This combination of crossing signals appears to 

be less confusing to pedestrians than the use of farside signals with a flashing 

green man, and results in fewer pedestrians crossing during the red phase. 

21 
22 

CHAPTER THREE 

Figure 3-3 

Audible 

pedestrian 

signal head 

in Germany 

Like Sweden, Germany uses shorter cycle lengths at signalized intersections 

primadly to accommodate heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The maximum cycle 

length used is 120 seconds. Frankfurt routinely uses 90-second cycle lengths fin' its 

coordinated traffic signals. The use of short cycle lengths is also driven by the 

desire to minimize wait times for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Frankfurt has successfully restricted intersection operations at a number of sites 

to address safety concerns and conflicts with left-turning traffic, whether they are 

vehicle-vehicle or pedestrian/bicycle-vehicle. In certain circumstances, Frankfurt 

traffic engineers have prohibited left turns and instead installed special signs 

directing motorists to make a series of right turns. Officials stressed that this is 

not a traditional treatment and that the site conditions and traffic demand must be 

suitable for tbis technique to succeed. 

The location of pedestrian crossings, particularly mid block crossings. can pose 

special safety concerns. Frankfurt uses the results of signal-timing calculations and 

progression analyses to identify the optimum location for midblock pedestrian 

crossings. Doing so helps place pedestrian crossings in locations that minimize the 

disruption Lo traffic progression and maximize the amount of green time available 

for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross a street. Surprisingly, the Germans believe 

that pedestrian crossings must be signalized if a roadway has morc than two lanes 

to be cro~~ed. Pedestrian crossings at intersections that cross more than two lanes 

must have a protected pedestrian-only phase. 
DESIGN, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE 

As in the United States, Germany has safety problems at high-speed rural 

intersections. To address the issue, the Germans do not place traffic signals at 

intersections with approach speed limits greater than 70 kilometers per hour. On 

facilities with higher speed limits, either the crossings are grade separated or the 

speed limit is lowered before intersections. Lowering the speed limit requires 

effective enforcement, and in many cases photo enforcement techniques have been 

used to successfully control approach speeds. Photo enforcement techniques are 

discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, which addresses innovative traffic control 

devices. 

Intersection maintenance is an important safety issue in Germany. Frankfurt has a 

formal maintenance procedure. A detailed matrix table listing items such as 

relamping, housing cleaning, etc., is developed. In addition, the maintenance 

frequency is established and logged for each signal or system. For example, the city 

recently converted some signals to a lO-volt halogen system. Officials concluded 

that it provides the same energy savings as 20-watt bulbs at half the price of 

LEDs.4 

Germany uses preemption systems for buses, trolleys, and emergency vehicles. 

Preemption techniques rely on several technologies, including switches in trolley 

rails, coil devices triggered by trams and buses, loop detectors in bus lanes, and 

microwave detectors and radio signals for buses. With the exception of emergency 

vehicles, signal preemption is considered a transit improvement, not a safety 

improvement. 

The Germans are completing a safety audit process intended for use in planning, 

designing, constructing, and operating signalized intersections. The audit process 

can be applied to existing high-accident intersections to help identify appropriate 

countermeasures, but the real focus of the program is addressing safety issues in 

the design phase. They have developed a training program and courses for 

professionals to become certified as road safety auditors. The program is scheduled 

to begin by the end of 2002. 

Roundabouts typically are not signalized in Germany. Signalizing roundabouts is 

considered a last resort and is considered only in special circumstances to improve 

traffic flow, accommodate special pedestrian conditions, accommodate the trolley 

system, etc. 

In Germany, right turns on red are permitted only if the following criteria are met: 

• Motorized traffic has clear lines of sight to all bicycle or pedestrian crossings. 

• Signals are present to control pedestrian crossings. 

• Conflicting pedestrians do not cross more than two lanes. 

• No bicycle traffic is present. 

• No more than two serious accidents have occurred at the intersection in the 

past three years. 

23 
24 

CHAPTER THREE 

THE NETHERLANDS 

In the Netherlands, selection, design, installation, operation, and maintenance of 

traffic control devices for signalized intersections are outlined in a number of 

publications developed under the sponsorship of CROW (Information and 

Technology Centre for Transport and Infrastructure). CROW is a national, 

independent, nonprofit partnership among the national government, provinces, 

local authorities, contractors, consultants, public transport companies, and 

research and education groups. 

CROW's national standards are described in a number of handbooks addressing 

signalized intersection design and operation and sustainable safety:5 

• "Recommendations for Traffic Provisions in Built-up Areas"-ASVV 

• "Handbook on Road Design" 

• "Handbook on Roundabouts" 

• "Handbook on Traffic Control Systems" 

• "Handbook on Marking and Signposting" 

The ASVV includes several chapters on signalized intersections, including criteria 

for installing and removing signals at intersections, design processes for control 

systems, and design suggestions for signalized intersections. The guidelines 

suggest that solving traffic flow and road safety problems with traffic control 

systems should be considered only as a last resort and that limited reconstruction 

is often a better solution. The ASVV provides guidance on removing a traffic signal 

if traffic conditions change, making the signal undesirable by volume and time-loss 

criteria. 

Crossing against the red signal is the primary cause of serious pedestrian and 

bicyclist accidents at signalized intersections. The Dutch, like the Germans and 

Swedes, use short cycle lengths to minimize pedestrian imd bicyclist wait times 

and decrease the likelihood of their crossing during the red phase. Sixty percent of 

Dutch signals use a 90-second-maximum cycle, and 90 percent are shorter than 180 

seconds (Figure 3-4). When actuated signals are used, the real maximum cycle time 

is considerably less. 
Figure 3-4. 

Distribution of 

signol cycle 

lengths used 

in the 

Netherlonds. 

DESIGN, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE 

Seventy-seven percent of the intersections in the Netherlands are vehicle actuated, 

and about 30 percent of all signals are operated on a coordinated network. If traffic 

signals are less than 400 meters apart, the goal is to coordinate their operation, a 

practice that, wIllIe providing safety benefits, appears to be driven more by 

capacity and traffic flow. 

The use of permitted and protected phasing is not mandated in design standards 

and guidelines. A survey of traffic jurisdictions, municipalities, and provinces found 

that about 30 percent never allow secondary conflicts (permitted phasing) between 

motorist and nonmotorist traffic. About 65 percent of survey respondents indicated 

they would allow secondary conflicts, depending on the situation. The guidelines 

(not mandated) are designed to provide protected phasing only for facilities with 

speed limits greater than 50 kilometers per hour. 

A limited number of traffic signals in the Netherlands are set to dwell in the allred mode when traffic is not present at an intersection. This practice means that 

approaching traffic sees a red signal and slows down. The practice is consistent 

with the overall safety practice and philosophy of reducing speed in potential 

conflict areas. In one instance, the Dutch installed speed detection linked with a 

changeable message sign that tells drivers that they must "slow down to receive 

the green light." If they do not, the signal holds the red light. 

In rural areas, where allowable speeds are as high as 80 kilometers per hom, tbe 

Dutch use loop detectors before intersections to adjust signal timings wjth the goal 

of minimizing tbe number of times motorists are caught in the dilemma zone. This 

application is equivalent to some features of the LHOVRA technique lIsed in 

Sweden at isolated (nonsynclu'onized) signals at high-speed rural intersections. 

25 
26 

CHAPTER THREE 

Legally, all signal bcads in the Netherlands arc placed beforc connict points (i. e., 

few farsid e signals existl. This way, users have a better wlderstancung of the 

intersection and the cross-slreet trafIic cannot see the indication of' the conflicting 

signal (Figure 3-5), This practice requires additional clearance times, as the stop 

line has to be situated farther [rom the intersection, but officials believe safety 

considerations outweigh capacity issues. This effect is minimized by the location of 

a bicycle lane in front of the stop line and by tbc clearance time needed for 

pedestrian and bicycle phases. 

Figures 3-5 

Nearside 

signals in the 

Netherlands. 

LED signals are used in the Netherlands, and a special code of practice addresses 

lamp monitoring and graduaL failure. The Dutch have fOWld that LED lights have a 

significant positivc impact on signal visibility. 

Signal control plans, which are driven by the goal to provide simple, 

understandable operations, include the following techniques: 

• Use short cycle lengths. 

• Avoid unnecessary waiting for motorized and nonmotorized traffic. 

• Provide adequate green timos, based on speed and traiIic conditions, for traffic 

to clear the intersection. 

• Modif'y gl·cen times on the basis of traffic demands. 

Meeting these requirements necessitates actuated traffic control systems with an 

extensive network of loop detectors and powerful signal controll er's capable of 

two-way (i,e .. uploading and downloading) COll111.llullcation (Figw·e 3-6). Several 

four-way intel'sections the team visited required more than 60 loop detectOJ's, 
Figure 3-6. 

Diagram in 

controller 

cabinet at a 

four-leg 

intersection in 

the 

Netherlands. 

.. 

.. . 

. 

DESIGN, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE 

II 

I 

, " 

. " 

.. 

II 

I I 

: • , • • l • • , 

· • . • , • • . : • 

,. r 

t: 

... 

• • 

•• 

-

.-

27 
28 

CHAPTER THREE 

Because public transport has been a priority in the Netherlands since the early 

1970s, the green phase for public transport is hastened 01' extended over 

non prioritized control. About 50 percent of transportation authorities aUow 

extensive priority for public transport. In only 21 percent of cases is priority to 

public transport not given at all. The amount of priority given is hardly related to 

the punctuality of the specific tram or bus. In most cases, the technique applied 

reli es on local selective detection, like vehicle tagging, but new techniques based 

on ractio and global positioning systems (GPS) are emerging." 

UNITED KINGDOM 

The u.K. Highways Agency, WIder agreement with the Depaltment of Transport, 

provides design guidance for signal-controlled intersections in two primary 

documents: "Design Standards for Signal Controlled JWlctions" (document TD501 

99) and "Layout of Large Signal Controlled Junctions" (document TD89/02). These 

documents outline the design principles and practices lor at-grade intersections 

and roundabouts, including visibility requirements, lane widths, nonmotorized-user 

provisions, and signal equipment provisions. 

Most UK. traffic signals are actuated 01' linked. Vehicle-actuation equipment relies 

on buried inductive loops or aboveground detectors, such as microwave and video. 

Standard vehicle-actuated SigllalS include three loops (placed at 12, 24, and 39 

meters) per appl'Oach and work well at speeds up to about 50 kilometers per hour 

(35 miles pel' hom) (Figure 3-7). 
Figure 3-7. 

Actuated 

signal layout 

for 

intersections 

with 

approach 

speeds 

under 35 

miles per 

hour. 

I 

DESIGN, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE 

I 

At intersections wjth speeds above 50 kilometers per hour, special controller 

equipment and additional loop detectors are used to cater to drivers in the 

dilemma zone. 

Through speed discrimination and extension (SDE), special consideration is given 

to designing signal timing that avoids transitioning the signal when traffic is in the 

I 

29 
30 

CHAPTER THREE 

dilemma zone (the area in which 10 to 90 percent of dl;vcrs stop when the signal 

changes to amber) and minimizing red-Light running, particularly at higher-speed 

rural locations (Figlll'c 3-8). The goal is to meafiurc the occupancy of the dilemma 

zone. If it is occupied when the side street calls, the side street is not given a green 

signal until the vehicles have cleared the intersection. The system times out at a 

maximum green time, but only if' it has already failed to terminate early because 

the dilemma zone continues to be occupied. 

Figure 3-8 Layaut af speed discrimination and extension configuration for speeds over 45 

miles per hour 
DESIGN, OPERA TlON, AND MAINTENANCE 

Amber time in the United Kingdom is three seconds plus or minus a quarter of a 

second. Research studies indicate that increasing the amber time would increase 

the number of accidents. Similar research looked at providing a waming that the 

green phase is ending (green indicator flash for two seconds before yellow). This 

practice also was found to have a negative impact on intersection safety. 

Linked traffic systems in the United Kingdom typically rely on the TRANSYT 

signal coordination computer program to coordinate the system. The split-cycle 

offset optimization technique (SCOOT) program was recently introduced and is a 

method of using on-street information provided by loop detectors to automatically 

update offsets and splits based on cunent traffic conditions. Forty percent of 

London's signals are controlled by SCOOT, and changes to timing plans can be 

made from a control center.' The use of the various linked signal system packages 

is driven primarily by capacity and delay considerations, and not much research 

has been done to determine measurable safety results. 

Other optimization packages, such as microprocessor optimized vehicle actuation 

(MOVA), are used routinely in the United Kingdom to improve intersection 

efficiency (Figure 3-9). MOVA's features include the following: 

• Holds the green for traffic flowing at saturation rate. 

• Detects accurately the end of saturation flow. 

• Decides after saturation flow ends whether to end or continue green. 

• Makes maximum green times no longer critical. 

• Detects oversaturation lane by lane. 

• S\vitches to capacity-maximizing control when overloaded. 

~ ~ __ _ 

ZWt Figure 3-9. Microprocessor 

optimized 

vehicle 

octuation 

(MOVAI traffic 

model. 

l 140m detector 

Vehicle 

counted 

100m detector 

Vehicle 

leaving 

loop 

.. Cruise speed - 1 box lIn second 

U83!i9 

31 
32 

CHAPTER THREE 

Implementation of MOVA technology has resulted in substantial delay savings, 

depending on site and traffic conditions, and this remains tbe case with more than 

500 MOVA-controlled intersections in the United Kingdom. Initially, MOVA was 

shown to impl"Ove intersection safety by reducing incidents of red-light running at 

high-speed sites by 50,000 per year and reducing injury accidents at four highspeed siLes by 30 percent. Later results have not been as favorable, with safety 

remaining Wlchanged at 31 high-speed sites recently tudied" Further research 

into MOVA safety results is under way. 

The United Kingdom built many of its roundabouts at freeway interchanges many 

years ago. Traffic has grown to the point that ramp metering, although still at the 

pilot stage, is used to prevent traffLc backing up onto high-speed motorways. Since 

many roundabouts were built on structure, they CaJUlot be enlarged, and 

signalization has been the only way to give priority to the ofI~ramps to prevent 

backups on the mainline. u.K. roundabouts are sometimes signalized to improve 

capacity aJld safety conditions, particularly at locations with heavy traffic or 

unbalanced traffic volumes along approaches. Though signalizing a roundabout is 

typically a last-resort solution. doing so can increase capacity, manage approach 

queues, and reduce speeds. The decision to signalize a roundabout is typically 

based on engineering studies and research rather than on guidelines (Figure 3-10). 

MOVA and SCOOT signal-timing and operational techniques have been 

successfully applied at roundabouts throughout the United Kingdom " 

Figure 3-10 

Fealures of a 

fully 

signalized 

roundaboul 

in Ihe Uniled 

Kingdom. 
CHAPTER FOUR 

INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

SWEDEN 

Sweden uses a number of innovative traffic control devices to improve safety at 

signalized intersections. Some measures have been in place for some time and have 

been shown to be effective, while others are new and considered experimental. 

lHOVRA System 

Perhaps the most intriguing and comprehensive intersection safety technique 

being used by the Swedes is a system called LHOVRA.lO The LHOVRA system 

consists of a series of detectors placed along the approach to an intersection. The 

detectors determine vehicle type and speed at various locations along the 

approach and adjust the signal timing by increasing the yellow change and all red 

clearance intervals to minimize the number of vehicles caught in the dilemma zone 

(Figure 4-1). LHOVRA was originally designed to accommodate heavy trucks, but 

the system appears to be flexible and can be programmed to optimize several 

features. 

Relation between detectors and LHOVRA-function 

Fvrddian ~,.. .. ~. 

..... , ·~""nrr t l Truck Priority 

• H i H H Major Road Priority 

0 • • 0 I • 0 Incident Reduction • • • 

V : ! • V f V Variable GreenlYellow I • , t 

It I : i I • Reduction of Red Ught Infrigements I 

A : • A A A Green-Yellow-Red-Green Cycles • I 

• • 

• • • • 

Distances are related to 70 km/h and scalable to any speed. 

Figure 4-1. Detector layout and relationship for LHOVRA system. 

33 
34 

CHAPTER FOUR 

The LHOVRA system has been successfully implemented and is most effective at 

high-speed rural intersections, particularly where heavy truck traffic is a safety 

concern. SNRA has completed before-and-after studies at intersections where 

LHOVRA has been implemented, and the results are promising. Figure 4-2 

summarizes before-and-after studies in which incident reduction (the 0 function in 

LHOVRA) was the primary goal. 

Type of conflicts*) and the number 

with the O-function 

*lwith conflict technique analysis methodology 

Before LHOVRA 

--

Trod. signals With LHOVRA 

Rear-end conflicts 30 7 

Miscellaneous 4 3 

Total 34 10 

Figure 4-2. Summary of before-and-after studies of implementation of LHOYRA system. 

A number of issues should be considered before the LHOVRA system is 

implemented, and a location study must be completed to ensure that the 

technology will function properly and improve intersection safety performance. It 

is possible for the technology to be used improperly by road users (motorists and 

pedestrians).n A comprehensive report on developing and implementing LHOVRA 

is available through SNRA, "Signal Control Strategy for Isolated Intersections" 

(publication 1991:51E). For more information, contact Alf Peterson, SNRA. See 

Appendix C for contact information. 

Conversion of Signals from Incandescent Bulb to LED 

Stockholm recently converted all of its signals (more than 10,500 heads and 27,000 

lenses) to LED. It is the largest city in the world to have made the complete 

conversion, and it did so in response to the national government's offer of large 

grants for energy conservation. The conversion to LED, driven by the need to 
INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

conserve energy, cost the equivalent of U.S. $5.3 million (almost all paid by the 

national government) and is estimated to save about U.S. $870,000 a year in energy 

costs. The LEDs have an estimated life of 10 years, and the investment is expected 

to be paid off in six years. While no data on the safety advantages is available yet, 

LED lighting improves visibility and public response has been positive.'2 

Figure 4-3. 

Report 

summarizing 

conversion to 

LED lighting 

in Stockholm, 

Sweden. 

Replacing existmg technology with something 

new needn't take a leap of faIth. Faced WIth 

the choice of using mcandescent bulbs and 

newer light-€mlttmg diodes (LEOs), the City 

of Stockholm conduaed a Slx·month rest. 

The results came out firmly In favour of LEOs 

A 

Bilaga 2 

reference 

LEDs show major savings 

StocithOIm Tmtlc Coni"" System (199&) 

AI'IIlUaI p,....,enta11'1e Ma.nteoance(US$} ~ $1 .800,000 

Annual ()peJa1Jllg Maintenance iUS$) .. S 600.000 

AnnuaITotaf Mairltenanoe fUSS) =$2.400.000 

530 tnIIfflc SIgnal COtltroBel'8 In 12 diffefeot rI'IOdM 

6000mnts 

4 ODO pedestl1ll1 push bultOlll 

2500 loop cflHectors 

10 &II) ~ t'INds 

27 000 ~I bulbi! 

I II l'IfI~. Ih~ .. Jr}' 01 St\,..kh(llm ".l( 

,:um.mg 11\<: hr., mill\lr i:umpeJI1 

lICIt-. 10 l1uk(' all lII·depth ;\".lh~l\ 

IIllh U~ of euet'J(\' .\nd I,d.t ~Oll~ 

m'p" 10 mlU.:l" 0\"('1"311 ('ocr!,) ron· 

\lm1rl1fl!l· hn(lmlo!, w;a~ .. 10 1.""111 puwC'r 

u....a~ '\ r.ar1dh bn:omlllg b."h :tn enY,-

wnlneltlJlillltl .. fj";tn<"1,,11m~rall\'(', On 

,he noulu)::}' (rom. the .... t.'enh,)u'l(' ~W$ 

emitted J\ a h~-rn,.ju"'llIl Clk:'lt~ ~1.m" 

"unlr"uon .. re c:wJlOg tht hmh'~ 01tlf)C: 

b~-er. On ,he: I'i.un..",ll trOIll .... Jloh· 

\trnl'J'It'J mUlu";lrul ~I")"'~mmtnh C'o"Cf'" 

\\ht-fC'- Jnd Iho~ III S .... t'\kn Jrc: no 

~\.:crllon - hil\"(' bc-m unJt'r prc:uUI'\" 10 

~'IIIIt' nwre tftic.t:nt and rniucc Upt"fiH 

10M I-u\I(I;<:I' \\-nh ,he"l' Il>we~ 111 mll1d. a 

lIulI1hcr IIf pruitt!") wt'1'C' ~ludied t(l.f their .... 

35 
36 

CHAPTER FOUR 

Handheld Transponders 

Stockholm is experimenting with handheld transponders that extend green signals 

at signalized crossings for pedestrians. When the transponder is held up to a polemounted sensor, the green period is extended, allowing a group of children, for 

example, Lo cross the street completely. Transponder use is limited to kindergarten 

teachers and crossing guards in selected school zones with large numbers of 

students. Responses from test groups have been positive, but the city is concerned 

about receiving a flood of requests from other special-user groups interested in 

seeing the technology implemented on a broader basis. Use beyond school zones 

would have a significant negative impact on traffic flow synchronization and 

intersection operations. 13 

Portable Variable-Message Signs 

Sweden is also experimenting with portable variable-message signs in school 

zones. When a motorist approaches the school zone traveling at a speed greater 

than the posted limit, the sign lights up with a message that indicates the motorist 

is speeding in a school zone. 

Audible Crossing Indicators 

Many pedestrian crossings in Stockholm are equipped with acoustic indicators. The 

devices serve two purposes. Fi.rst, they reinforce the visual crosswalk indicators by 

emitting a fast ticking sound during the green pedestrian phase, an even-faster 

ticking during the pedestrian-clearance phase, and a slow ticking during the red 

pedestrian phase. Since the same ticking sounds are used on both streets, it is 

essential that the speakers emitting the sound be ainled directly at the pedestrians 

waiting at each crosswalk. The team believes this is a particularly effective 

approach (superior to the chirping sounds used in the United States). Second, they 

provide clear "walk" and "don't-walk" indications for the visually impaired. Some 

pedestrian-crossing push buttons are equipped with a special locator tone that 

helps the visually impaired locate the button (Figw'e 4-4). 
Figure 4-4. 

Pedestrian 

push button 

equipped 

with acoustic 

locator tone 

in Sweden. 

Raised Crossings 

INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

Sweden has also implemented the use of raised and "virtually" raised pedestrian 

crossings to slow vehicles approaching a crossing. Raised crossings have been 

somewhat successful in reducing vehicle speed and increasing the likelihood a 

motorist will yield the right-of-way. Surveys show that pedestrians generally favor 

the raised walk. One exception is the visually impaired, for whom detecting a 

raised crossing is difficult. 

Virtually raised pedestrian crosswalks are painted on the roadway surface and 

give the optical illusion of a raised surface (Figure 4-5). This approach is most 

effective and appropriate in locations where the majority of motorists are 

unfamiliar drivers. 

37 
38 

CHAPTER FOUR 

Figure 4-5. Virtually raised crosswalks in Sweden. 

GERMANY 

Photo Enforcement Equipment 

Automated enforcement techniques have been shown to be ellective in Germany. 

The Germans use photo enforccment to control speed on roadway segments and 

high-speed intersection approaches. As discllssed in Chapter 3, Germany does not 

signalize intersections with approach speeds greater than 70 kilometers per hour. 

For situations in whicb signals are required on higher-speed roadways, the speed 

limit is reduced before the intersection. This practice i effective, however, only if 

motori ts obey the reduced-speed limits. 

To address this need, Germany has succestifully applied photo enforcement 

techniques to slow trafiic and reduce red-light running. Officials identified two 

keys to successful application. First, the public must be aware that the cameras are 

in place. Second, a substantial penalty must be associated with disobeying the 

posted speed or running a red light. German speed-enforcement cameras a re 

highly visible, signs warn of photo enforcement, and public messages arc broadcast 

to make motorists aware that the equipment is being used. The Germans are 

titudying Lhe efTectiveness of the cameras, but based on preliminary observations 

and before-and-after studies at several intersections, the reduction in the number 

and severity of accidents has been dramatic. Officials noted that ill some cases, 
INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

though, the number of less-severe rear-end accidents has increased because 

motorists are not willing to chance running a red light by speeding through an 

intersection. Photo enforcement has also been shown to reduce vehicle speed on 

roadway segments with high-speed-accident problems. Problems with photo 

enforcement have included vandalism and equipment tampering at some locations. 

Based on the resnlts to date, the Germans want to expand the use of photo 

enforcement as part of their safety program, hut the cost of camera equipment and 

the labor required to process photographs and issue citations has limited the 

number of locations that can be equipped. (Officials noted that initially can1eras 

can generate substantial revenue, but once the public becomes aware of them, the 

number of violations drops dramatically, resulting in less revenue.) To broaden the 

use of photo enforcement and control costs, the Germans are evaluating rotating 

cameras among multiple sites. The approach is to construct the photo enforcement 

infrastructure (including the highly visible pole-mounted camera box, signs, etc.) at 

multiple locations and move a camera randomly from site to site. They anticipate 

that a single camera could control traffic at 15 locations. 

Portable Radar and Message Signs 

The Germans also use portable radar and message signs before intersections with 

speed-related accident problems. A portable radar detector records motorists' 

speeds, and if they are traveling above the posted limit, a message that tells them 

they are traveling too fast is activated. TillS technology has been shown to reduce 

speeds by 5 to 8 kilometers per hour. 

Signal Back Plates 

At intersections where signal visibility has been determined to be a contributing 

factor to high numbers of accidents, back plates are sometimes used to enhance the 

visibility of the traffic signals (Figure 4-6). 

39 
CHAPTER FOUR 

40 

Figure 4-6. Traffic 

signal with back plate 

in Germany. 
INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

Yellow Flashers 

Special care is taken to protect pedestrians at locations with a sight obstruction 

between motor vehicle traffic and a pedestrian crossing or where a pedestrian 

crossing phase conflicts with a motorized vehicle phase (Figure 4-7). For example, if 

an obstruction exists in the sight triangle of an intersection and a right-turning 

vehicle cannot see the pedestrian crosswalk, a yellow flasher warns the motorist of 

the possibility of pedestrian traffic around the corner. 

Figure 4-7. 

Supplemental 

signal 

warning rightturning 

motorists 

about 

pedestrians. 

Audible Crossing Indicators 

Audible pedestrian signals are used to supplement signal indicators. The audible 

signals are designed with a variable-volume feature controlled by the sUlTounding 

traffic noise. As the level of traffic noise increases, so does the volume of the 

audible crossing signal (Figure 4-8). 

41 
42 

CHAPTER FOUR 

THE NETHERLANDS 

Figure 4-8 

Pole-mounted 

audible signal 

in Germany. 

Thc use of traffic control devices in the Netherlands is focused largely on the 

desire to control traffic speed. The Dutch strive to provide visible and easily 

understood traffic signal controls by doing the following: 

• Post "signal ahead" warning signs before high-speed intersections (Figure 4 9). 

• Paint signal poles with high-contrast black and white stripes (Figurc 4-10). 

• Consistently use large black back plates bordered by a white tripe (Figure 4-

11). 

• Use colored pavement to distinguish bike lanes from motorized vehicle lanes 

(Figure 4-12). 
Figure 4-9. 

"Signal 

ahead" 

warning sign 

in the 

Netherlands. 

INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

43 
CHAPTER FOUR 

( 

Figure 4-10. Signal poles wilh high-contrast stripes. 

44 
Figure 4-11 . 

Large backplate 

bordered by 

while stripe. 

INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

Figure 4-12. Colored pavement used to distinguish bike 

lanes in the Netherlands. 

45 
46 

CHAPTER FOUR 

Officials recognize, however, that optical messaging alone is not enough to 

eliminate accidents at signalized intersections and that they must lower speeds to 

reduce the scvcrity of accidents. 

Photo Enforcement Equipment 

Photo enforcement to reduce speed and red-light running is used extensively in 

the Netherlands and has been shown to be effective. The program's success is based 

largely on visibility and public awareness. In Rotterdam, cameras are marked with 

red and blue stripes and are clearly visible to the public (FigW'e 4-13). In addition, 

many intersections with photo enforcement equipment are clearly signed in 

advance (Figure 4-13). Like the Germans, the Dutch rotate one camera among 

multiple sites. The Netherlands has 600 to 700 camera posts, witb an average ratio 

of one camera for every four posts. Wet fum technology is used to photograph 

violators. Digital camera technology has been tested, but the lack of secure data 

lines between the camera installations and police agencies coupled with fue size 

requirements of digital images have made digital imaging prohibitive [or now. 

Figure 4-13 Photo enforcement camera 

for red-light running In the Netherlands 
Figure 4-14. 

Photo 

enforcement 

warning 

signs in the 

Netherlands. 

INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

Studies have shown photo enforcement programs to be extremely effective. After 

about six months of enforcement, the number of violations drops to nearly zero 

(Figure 4-15). In cases where the public realizes that a camera is not always in use, 

the number of violations tends to increase. When such an increase is recognized, 

the enforcement time at that particular location is increased, and violation rates 

drop again. 

.,. 

... 

oro 

'" 

• ! .. 

• = L , .. ~ 

• &"" Figure 4-15. " 

Effectiveness '" 

of photo ,1M) 

enforcement .. in Utrecht, 

Netherlands. , 

1\ 

" • \ /\ 

n 

, " ... 

V \ 

n 

n n II n 

" 

Red Ught Vio la1ions. RlC E lIIopalaan. Uaecht Nl 

-

b U 0 U o U I] 0 1fT n n n []) # .. .. .. 2 

'''' 

Veat. Wed! 

If , Q I, 13 2." • 

D 0 

" " 

47 

n 

, • 

• o 

"" ! o 

5 

& 

n § 

~ 

2 • 

, • 

.. 
48 

CHAPTER FOUR 

To change motorists' behavior, the Dutch have invested considerable time and 

money in a public awareness campaign aimed in part at photo enforcement goals 

but morc broadly at overall road-user safety.'" 

The Dutch have not yet concluded studies that confirm the safety effectiveness of 

the photo enforcement program. The program is viewed as having two phases: the 

first to change dliver behavior and the second to evaluate the impact on safety. 

Because the Dutch started the program in 1999 and they believe it takes about two 

years to change motorist behavior, t hey arc just beginning to research the safety 

effects of photo enforcement. 

Variable-Message Signs 

The Dutch use variable-message signs before high-speed (50 kilometers per hour or 

greater) intersections to warn motorists that they are traveling above the posted 

speed limit (Figure 4-16). Often these signs are used in conjunction with clearly 

marked and signed speed tables located just beyond the stop bar (Figure 4-17l. 

Speed tables, carefully designed so that traffic traveling at or below the speed limit 

passes over them comfortably, are not safety hazards for traflic traveling over the 

speed limit. Speed tables are more comfortable than speed bumps for long vehicles 

(buses, trailers) in particular, but the speed reduction of heavy traffic still 

renlains. I!'") 

Figure 4-16. Variable 

message signs on 

approaches to hlghspeed intersections in 

the Netherlands. 
Figure 4-17. Advance 

warning signs and 

speed tables at 

intersections in the 

Netherlands. 

INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

Bicycles are used extensively as r egular transportation in the Netherlands, and 

bicyclists' impact on intersection safety and operation is a primary consideration. 

The Dutch strive to eliminate conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized 

traffic (e.g., protected-only phasing) and to reduce wait times for nonmotorized 

traffic. Most serious pedestrian and bicyclist accidents are a result of crossing 

against a red signal. To minimize the likelihood of nonmotorized traffic crossing 

against the red phase, the Dutch have implemented several strategies: 

• Short cycle lengths to minimize wait time for nonmotorized traffic 

• Nearside bicycle and pedestrian signals (Figure 4-18) 

• Supplementary signing to warn motorists of a pedestrian crossing (Figure 4-19) 

• LED lights in the pavement" 

• Countdown clocks 

• Egg timer countdown indicators 

• Grade-separated crossings 

49 
CHAPTER FOUR 

50 

Figure 4-19. Supplemental signing 

Identifying bicycle and pedestrian 

crossings. 

A -_I-I 

Figure 4-18. 

Nearside 

bicycle 

signals In the 

Netherlands. 
INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

Countdown Timers 

Countdown timers appear to be an effective way of providing positive 

reinforcement to nonmotorized traffic that the pedestrian timing button has been 

activated and the signal is operating properly. Several devices are used to convey 

this message to pedestrians and bicyclists. One is a round countdown signal with 

31 lights mounted next to the bicycle indicator (Figure 4-20). At the beginning of 

the red phase, all 31 lights on the signal are lit. As the green phase approaches, the 

lights darken one by one to let the cyclist know how much longer until the green 

phase is activated. A similar indicator surrounds the pedestrian push button 

(Figure 4-21). The yellow lights surrounding the push button are darkened to let 

pedestrians know when the wait is ending. 

Figure 4-20. 

Countdown 

indicator for 

bicycle 

crossing. 

51 
52 

CHAPTER FOUR 

Figure 4-21. Pedestrian 

countdown indicator on 

push button. 

Most signals in the Netherlands are traffic actuated, and the signal timings vary 

for each cycle. The rate at which the individual lights go dark varies and is 

synclu'onized to the signal timing and operation. The timer starts by calculating the 

maximum wait times. If a signal group does not get a call for green, the timer 

accelerates, and when the last light goes out, the signal turns greeu. Studies have 

shown the following: 

• Red-light running by bicyclists has dropped 25 to 30 percent. 

• Sixty percent of users believe the wait time is shorter. 

• Eighty-six percent of users understand the meaning of the wait-time indicator. 

• Seventy-eight percent of users find the information useful. 

Other timers being tested are a digital homglass timer on the pedestrian signal 

pole and pavement lights installed in the crosswalk. 

Bicycle Turn Lanes 

At signalized intersections, separate lanes are striped for left- and right-tul'l1ing 

bicyclists. Signs are posted to alert drivers to the presence of turning bicycles 

(Figmes 4-12 and 4-20). 
INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Photo Enforcement Equipment 

Enforcement cameras were first introduced in the United Kingdom in 1991. A 

number of research studies have proven their effectiveness in reducing traffic 

acciden ts. 17 

An August 2001 study and report prepared for the Department of Transport 

examined the effectiveness of the cameras and the issue of cost recovery on a pilot 

basis.'s The study found that sites with cameras had an average of 35 percent fewer 

accidents and 47 percent fewer fatalities and serious injuries. A nwnbel' of sites 

indicated that camera enforcement was particularly successful in reducing 

accidents between vehicles and vulnerable road users (i .e., pedestrians, 

particularly children). The study included a public opinion poll that found that the 

public was generally supportive and that the nun1ber of requests for additional 

cameras substantially exceeded the number of complaints about their operation. 

The use of speed and red light cameras in the Ullited Kingdom is covered by cost 

recovery partnerships in which fine income is retained to fund installing, 

maintaining, and operating cameras and processing sanctions (fixed penalty 

notices). To qualify for a cost recovery partnership, cameras must be sited 

according to rules, which include requirements that cameras have a highly visible 

yellow reflective cover and that the routes on which they operate be signed. 

The following is a summary of the rules and framework for pilot study locations: 

• Pilot projects should be coordinated among the local highway authorities, 

cow·ts, and police. 

• Only the cost of the enforcing speed and red-light cameras should be 

considered an allowable expense. 

• No organization should be allowed to make a profit from photo enforcement 

(i.e., any surplus or fine income over costs incurred should be returned to the 

treasury). 

• All cameras should be located in high-accident locations with a history of 

speed-related crashes. 

• Speed surveys should be conducted before camera installation to prove that 

speeding is a problem at each site. 

• At the end of the year, partnerships should be subject to a full audit by the 

district auditor, and failure to receive a clean audit would result in removal of 

the privilege to retain the funds. 

Pavement Edge Markings 

Pedestrian and bicycle safety is a significant issue at signalized intersections. To 

increase driver awareness on the approaches to a pedestrian crossing, straight 

pavement edge markings change to zigzag lines (Figure 4-22). In addition, the UK. 

highway code forbids drivers from parking or passing another vehicle within the 

53 
54 

CHAPTER FOUR 

zigzag zone (typically 16 meters plus the crossing width plus 16 meters) to address 

sight distance being blocked and to prevent one driver from passing another that 

may have stopped to yield to a pedestrian. 

PUFFIN Crossings 

Figure 4-22 Zigzag 

pavement markings 10 

warn molorisls of a 

pedestrian crossing 

The United Kingdom has developed a number of innovative ignalized pedestrian 

crossings that rely on the late t detector technology to improve safety and traffic 

operations. The PUFFIN crossing uses pedestrian detectors to automatically vary 

the length of the pedestrian pha e, giving pedestrians the ti me needed to CrOSS 

(Figures 4-23 and 4-24). 
Figure 4-23. 

PUFFIN 

crossing in 

the Uniled 

Kingdom. 

INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

Figure 4-24. Schematic layout of a PUFFIN crossing in the United Kingdom. 

55 
CHAPTER FOUR 

Pedestrian poles placed on the near side of the road replace farside signals. On 

receiving a pedestrian call irom a push button, the controJler checks the cW'bside 

presence detector. If a pedestrian is present, the pedestrian phase is called and a 

light is illuminated. informing the pedestrian of the call. If the output of the 

curbside presence detector disappears (the pedestrian has crossed on red) the 

pedestrian phase call is canceled. When the pedestrian phase is started, the green 

walking man appears on a nearside signal. Pedestrians within the crosswalk arc 

mon.itored by the crossing detcctors and given sufficient Lime to cross the roadway. 

After the green man is extingnished, the red man is illuminated, signaling to 

pedestrians that they should not begin crossing. Maximum allowable crossing 

times are preset for each site. If the maximum allowable crossing times are 

exceeded, vehicular traffic is given a red/amber, then green signal. On divided 

roadways with a median, PUFFINs are often operated as two separate crossings 

with a staggered median that forces pedestrians to turn and face oncoming 

vehicular traffic (Figure 4-25). 

EDGE OF CARRIAGEWAY 

56 

Some benefits of PUFFIN crossings include the following: 

• Pedestrian signals are simplified (no flashing green man). 

Figure 4-25. 

Schematic 

layout for a 

staggered 

PUFFIN 

crossing in 

the United 

Kingdom. 

• Vehicle delays are reduced (if the pedestrian crosses during the red phase after 

having pushed the pedestrian button, the pedestrian calt is canceled>. 

• Visibility problems are eliminated (nearside signals are used). 
INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

PUFFIN technology is also being applied to shared bicycle-pedestrian crossings 

(e.g., TOUCAN) and equestrian crossings. 

Yellow Box Junctions 

High-volume, congested intersections are striped with yellow crosshatches (Figure 

4-26). Drivers can be cited for entering the intersection and stopping in the 

crosshatched area because the exit lanes are blocked by stationary vehicles, 

although under some circumstances (crosshatched area is blocked by opposing 

vehicles turning right) drivers are allowed to enter the area. 

Figure 4-26. 

Yellow 

crosshatched 

intersection in 

the United t-'''''' 

Kingdom. 

Guide Signs at Res1ricted Turns 

Signs are posted before locations where turns are restricted to tell drivers how to 

use other routes to reach their intended destination (Figure 4-27). 

57 
CHAPTER FOUR 

Bell Green 

82110 

58 

Figure 4-27 

Reslricledturn sign 
SWEDEN 

CHAPTER FIVE 

INNOVATIVE GEOMETRIC DESIGNS 

The Swedish intersection safety program is focused more on controlling driver 

behavior through the use of technology such as LHOVRA than tlu'ough design, but 

a number of safety-driven intersection design practices, many of which are dictated 

through design codes and statutes, do exist: 

• At speeds greater than 70 kilometers per hour, exclusive turn lanes and 

protected phasing must be provided. At speeds between 50 and 70 kilometers 

per hour, shared lane use and permitted phasing is optional. 

• At speeds equal to or greater than 90 kilometers per hour, acceleration lanes 

are provided for free-flow right turns. 

• At intersections where pedestrian activity is heavy, a tight turning radius is 

used to slow motorists through the turn. 

GERMANY 

Raised Medians 

The team identified several geometric design practices intended to enhance 

pedestrian safety at signalized intersections. If a pedestrian crossing crosses more 

than two lanes, then a protective raised median is provided to function as a 

"refuge" area (Figure 5 1). The median must be at least 2 meters wide. This practice 

applies to both signalized and unsignalized intersections. In addition, pedestrian 

crossings are sometimes staggered within the median area to force pedestrians to 

turn and face oncoming traffic before continuing across the street (Figure 5-2). 

59 
CHAPTER FIVE 

60 

Figure 5-l. 

Pedestrian 

refuge island 

in Germany. 

Figure 5-2 

Staggered 

pedestrian 

crossing in 

Germany. 
INNOVATIVE GEOMETRIC DESIGNS 

Separate Stop tines for Motor Vehicles and Bicycles 

Bicyclist visibility and safety is enhanced through placement of separate stop lines 

for motorists and bicyclists. Where a bike lane runs parallel to a signalized 

intersection's approach lane, the stop line for the bicycle lane is placed closer to 

the intersection, and motorized vehicle traffic is forced to stop behind the bicyclist. 

This design practice enhances bicyclists' visibility and particularly helps reduce 

conflicts between right-turning vehicles and bicycles. 

Bollards 

Germany also uses special bollards, or series of short posts set at regular intervals, 

to delineate pavement areas to prohibit vehicles from parking too close to 

intersections and blocking the view of a pedestrian or bicyclist crossing the 

intersecting street. 

Left-Tum Lanes 

For safety reasons, left-turn lanes with protected phasing are used at high-volume 

and high-speed locations. According to several members of the host delegation, the 

use of two phased signals (particularly in rural areas) without left-turn lanes 

provides little or no safety benefit over an unsignalized intersection, so the use of 

left-turn lanes with protected phasing is highly encouraged. If dual left-turn lanes 

are used, then a protected phase must be provided for the motorized traffic and for 

the conflicting pedestrian-bicycle traffic. 

Roundabouts 

Roundabouts are used on a limited basis as an alternative to signalized 

inter~ections. Single-lane roundabouts are preferred, and multilane approaches 

and configurations are strongly discouraged. The Germans have found that 

roundabouts tend to reduce overall intersection delay and are most effective when 

approach volumes are balanced among all approaches. The Germans have 

developed a mini-roundabout for use in low-speed urban conditions. The inner 

radius is 13 to 25 meters and it has a single 4-to-4.5-meter lane. A raised (no more 

than 10 centimeter) island with a 4-meter radius is constructed in the center of the 

mini-roundabout. Mini-roundabouts have been shown to reduce accidents by 60 

percent over the use of signalized intersections. 

Nearside Signals 

Nearside signals are preferred to minimize the number of vehicles stopping beyond 

the stop-bar and blocking pedestrian/bicycle crossings. 

THE NETHERLANDS 

Roundabouts 

Where practical and feasible, the Dutch have converted signalized intersections to 

roundabouts (about 6 percent in the last three to four years). A conversion to 

roundabouts is considered when serious signalized intersection accidents cannot 

be controlled by other means. They have successfully used both single-lane and 

61 
62 

CHAPTER FIVE 

dual-lane roundabouts, and studies have shown a 60 percent increase in 

intersection safety performance. 

The Dutch have developed computer programs to predict capacities, queue lengths, 

and delays at roundabouts, comparable to the ARCADY software program used in 

the United Kingdom. The Dutch recognize that a single roundabout design will not 

fit all situations. To achieve the best results, they have developed and implemented 

several different roundabout designs to address variable conditions. 

The dog bone roundabout configuration is successful at diamond-interchange 

intersections. In Figure 5-3, the interior of the roundabout is closed, and parallel 

roadways are used between the ramp terminals. The team visited a dog bone 

roundabout in operation. The interchange, located in an industrial area, carried a 

significant volume of heavy truck traffic. Based on field observations, this 

configuration operated very well. 
Figure 5-3. 

Dog bone 

roundabout 

in the 

Netherlands. 

INNOVATIVE GEOMETRIC DESIGNS 

63 
64 

CHAPTER FIVE 

The tw·bo roundabout, a moclification of a standard dual-lane roundabout, is used 

in the Netherlands to eliminate weaving conflicts found in standard multilane 

rowldabouts (FigW"e 5-4). This low-speed configuration a lso has been fowld to allow 

a higher capacity than the standard two-lane roundabout. While a standard 

roundabout has 16 potential conflict points, the turbo roundabout has 10. In either 

case, the conflict points are low speed, and the resulting accidents are typically 

less severe than those at signalized intersections (Figure 5-5). 

Figure 5-4 

Turbo 

roundabout 

configuration 

in the 

Netherlands. 
Figures 5-5. Comparison of conflict pOints 

between troditionol and turbo roundabouts. 

Turbo 

INNOVATIVE GEOMETRIC DESIGNS 

Traditional 

Roundabouts limit the ability to control traffic flow and maintain platoons in a 

network. Typically, upstream and downstreanl signals are used to control and 

meter traffic flow and improve the efficiency of the roundabout and the overall 

traffic network. Pedestrian and bicycle safety issues at roundabouts are addressed 

by providing clearly delineated bicycle and pedestrian crossings (Figure 5-6). 

65 
66 

CHAPTER FIVE 

Speed Tables 

Figure 5-6 

Delineated 

bicycle and 

pedestrian 

paths at 

roundabouts 

in the 

Netherlands. 

A method to control speed at higher-speed signaDzed intersections is the use of 

speed tables placed just inside the stop bar. Speed table are designed to be 

comfortably traversecl at the posted speed limit. If a vehicle is traveling above the 

speed Limit, the driver fee ls the etlect of the "bLunp." The team saw an interesting 

version of this approach at a signalized intersection where only the right turn lane 

had a speed table. The purpose was to slow vehicles turning right to improve safety 

for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the intersected street (Figure 5 7). 
Figures 5-7. 

Speed table 

in right-turn 

lone. 

UNITED KINGDOM 

INNOVATIVE GEOMETRIC DESIGNS 

Primary guidelines for geometric design at intersections are in two documents 

prepared by the UK. Highways Agency: "Design Standards for Signal Controlled 

Junctions" (document TD 50/99) and "Layout of Large Signal Controlled Junctions" 

(document TD89/02 ). 

ARCADY 

Roundabouts are used extensively in the United Kingdom. Urban and suburban 

roundabouts that canoy high traffic volumes are commonly signalized to improve 

safety, capacity, and flow. TRL has developed a software program, known as 

ARCADY, to predict capacities, queue lengths, and delays at roundabouts. 

ARCADY is used as an aid in designing new roundabouts, as well as in assessing 

the effects of modifYing existing designs. ARCADY is also capable of accident 

prediction for various types of roundabout designs. 

The British have developed several complex signalized roundabouts. One design, 

called a through-about or hamburger, takes tbe major through movement through 

the center of the roundabout and eliminates that heavy movement from the 

circulatory roadway (Figure 5-8). All turners use the roundabout, and signals 

eparate them from through traffic when they reach that point. 

67 
68 

CHAPTER FIVE 

I 

I 

I 

I 

\ 

I 

I 

----------- -

--' 

Figure 5-8. Schematic layaut of a throughabout intersection. 

Another design, known as the double through-about or the hot cross bun, takes 

both through movements through the center of the roundabout, while turns remain 

on the roundabout's circular portion (Figure 5-9). These designs primarily address 

capacity increases. Anecdotal evidence suggests that they do not affect safety 

significantly, and it is clear that these designs are operationally complicated and 

require significant design study before they are implemented. Clearly, as these 

roundabout designs become more complex, it becomes imperative that their traffic 

signals remain properly synchronized. 

Figure 5-9. Schematic layout of a double 

through-about intersection. 
INNOVATIVE GEOMETRIC DESIGNS 

A first-of-its-kind, high-capacity intersection is scheduled to begin constmction in 

the United Kingdom in 2002 (Figure 5-10). The design displaces right turns 

(equivalent to left turns in the United States) to cross the conflicting through 

movement far before the intersection, allowing intersection control to be simplified 

from four phases to two. Intersection simulations indicate that the design will 

improve efficiency by 20 to 30 percent. Five of these intersections have been built 

in Mexico, and one has been constructed in Quebec. 

Figure 5-10. Schematic of a 

high-capacity intersection. 

69 
70 

SWEDEN 

CHAPTER SIX 

PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES FOR 

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 

SNRA, local transportation agencies, and police collaborate on reviewing accident 

statistics to identify problems at, study, and develop solutions for high-accident 

locations. 

GERMANY 

In Germany, high-crash locations are identified by traffic safety commissions 

(known as the KEBU iJ] Frankfurt), which typically use the frequency and type of 

accidents at an intersection to identifY a high-crash location, or "black spot." 

Threshold values for the nwnber of crashes of a similar type must be met before a 

location can be considered a high-crash site. In Frankfurt. an intersection with five 

or more accidents of the same type in one year is considered a black spot and must 

be addressed by the traffic safety commission. Frankfurt does not consider 

exposure (accident rates) in black spot identification, but some cities in Germany 

are beginning to rely on accident rates to help identify black spots. 

The federal government provides funds for training opportnnities and design/ 

countermeasure guidelines for traffic safety commissions. Site-specilic safety 

solutions and countermeasures are developed on the basis of site-specific 

engineering studies. Traffic safety commissions are responsible for monitoring and 

ensuring the effectiveness of salety improvements. 

THE NETHERLANDS 

Safety goals in the Netherlands are established at a national level and driven by 

the principles of sustainable safety. The national government covers 50 percent of 

the cost of safety efforts at provincial, metropolitan, and local levels. 

Development of sustainable safety goals and principles has led the Dutch to adopt 

a systematic approach to roadway safety. The three primary principles of 

sustainable safety are functional use, homogeneous use, and predictable use. In 

1997, the Dutch began implementing phase I of the sustainable safety planclassifying their entire roadway network. The network was divided into three 

types: national and regional freeways, regional and district distributors, and urban 

and rw'al access roads. Once a road has been identified by type, officials make sure 

it meets its classification requirements. This systematic approach to making form 

follow function has provided safety improvements on roadways and at signalized 

intersections. 

Specific intersection-related safety problems are identified through a review of 

accident records in coordination with local law enforcement agencies. In addition, 

the Dutch use their extensive network of loop detectors to help target potential 

speed-related and red-light-running safety problems. Once an accident problem is 

identified, an engineering study is performed to evaluate appropriate safety 
PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES 

improvements. Guidance on specific safety strategies is provided in the suite of 

handbooks prepared by CROW. A wide array of traffic safety improvements is 

typically considered, but the primary focus is to reduce severity of accidents 

through the speed reduction measures identified in previous chapters. 

UNITED KINGDOM 

As in other countries the team visited, responsibility for identifYing black spots in 

the United Kingdom lies primarily with local highway authorities working in 

conjunction with police agencies. TRL developed software to help identify black 

spots and overall trends in rughway safety. The microprocessor accident analysis 

package (MAAP) is built on a relational database that can be customized for a 

user's particular needs. The tool includes geograpruc information system (GIS) 

software to help target high-accident locations and provides the user with a range 

of tools for identifYing and analyzing problems and isolating common features 

among accidents (Figure 6-1). One program feature the team found particularly 

useful is the stick diagram, a tabular diagram that provides a graphical summary of 

accident statistics at a given location (Figure 6_2).'9 The diagram lists all 

significant characteristics of each crash (night-day, wet-dry, hour of crash, etc.), 

allowing analysts to identify crash-causing trends easily. 

VVofst AII~s 

Figure 6-1. MAAP GIS-based software 

to target high-aCCident locations. 

b)' SCORE 

. )9 1013'3 (1) 

. 25 10 19 U) § 5 10 25 (21) 

CIl lo 15 (''') 

01010 " (21) 

71 
72 

CHAPTER SIX 

!;!fNL 

Figure 6-2. 

MAAP stick 

diagram used 

to graphically 

summarize 

accident 

statistics. 

TRL has developed a software package that can be used to evaluate safety tradeoffs in the design and operation of signalized intersections. The software can be 

applied to new designs and used to evaluate current conditions and proposed 

improvements. Optimized signal capacity and delay (oSCADY) software is used 

primarily for capacity calculations, queue lengths, and delay at isolated signalized 

intersections. In addition, the software has accident-prediction capabilities for lowspeed (30 miles per hoUl' or less) urban intersections. The data required for 

accident prediction is vehicle and pedestrian flow, length of pedestrian crossing, 

geometric characteristics, and sign al timing plan. With this information, the 

software will estimate expected accident characteristics. The software's model 

relies on the large amounts of empirical accident data collected in the United 

Kingdom, so it is not likely to produce reliable results for conditions in the United 

States. 
SWEDEN 

CHAPTER SEVEN 

LOW-COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 

In their meetings with the scanning team, the Swedish hosts discussed a number of 

intersection safety improvements. To avoid eliminating any potential safety 

improvements, the team chose to include some treatments that might be 

considered high-cost safety improvements in the following list: 

• Prohibit right turns on red, particularly at intersections with significant 

pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 

• Use 100-second-maximum cycle lengths to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and 

motorist compliance with the red phase. 

• Use a pocket transmitter to extend a signal's green time for school groups or 

other special users. This approach could be used to comply with Americans with 

Disabilities Act requirements without providing unnecessarily long pedestrian 

clearance intervals when they are not needed. 

• Provide audible pedestrian-crossing signals to reinforce visual signals and 

address the needs of the hearing impaired. 

• Adopt intersection design and operational concepts based on approach speeds. 

For example, all signalized intersections with an approach speed limit greater 

than 70 kilometers per hour should be provided with exclusive turn lanes and 

perhaps have protected-only phasing for left and right turns. 

• Implement the LHOVRA system at isolated high-speed intersections where 

safety problems have been demonstrated and signal synchronization is not a 

concern. 

GERMANY 

The German hosts presented several intersection safety improvements. To avoid 

eliminating any potential safety improvements, the team chose to identify the 

following safety improvements regardless of their costs: 

• Determine clearance intervals based on conflict points and approach speeds. 

Doing so can be incorporated into design or signal-timing modifications 

inexpensively. 

• Develop and implement multidisciplinary (enforcement, education, and 

engineering) traffic safety commissions to identify, study, and recommend 

improvements at high-accident locations. The success of these commissions 

requires adequate training and/or traffic safety background for members and a 

strong leadership committed to improving traffic safety. 

• Publicly identify high-accident intersections through distinctive signing 

(similar to the curve warning sign). 

73 
74 

CHAPTER SEVEN 

• Consider prohibiting left turns at congested intersections and instead install 

signing to reroute traffic to make three right turns. 

• Install "please wait" signals at pedestrian crossings to indicate that the 

pedestrian button has been activated. 

• Complete detailed, well-documented phasing and timing plans to ensure that 

change intervals can accommodate vehicles approaching the intersection. Such 

plans would ensure that motorists could stop with a reasonable deceleration 

rate or proceed and clear potentially conflicting traffic safely. 

• Perform safety audits as part of regular design and evaluation of high-accident 

locations. 

• Install photo enforcement equipment at high-crash locations. The German 

approach is to reduce motorists' speed on intersection approaches to minimize 

the consequences of potential conflicts. 

• Enhance intersection pavement markings for bicycle and pedestrian crossings. 

(Members of the German delegation disagreed about the effectiveness of 

additional pavement markings. One school of thought says the most effective 

way to improve nonmotorized safety is to provide protected phasing for 

pedestrian and bicycle traffic.) 

• Develop speed-related (rather than traffic volume-related) warrants for 

exclusive left-turn lanes and protected phasing requirements. 

• Eliminate right turns on red, particularly when pedestrian crossings are 

present. 

• Install pedestrian fences, or staggered crossings, so that pedestrians must turn 

when crossing a street and face oncoming traffic. 

THE NETHERLANDS 

The team identified a number of low-cost improvements the Dutch implement to 

make signalized intersections safer. Many are aimed at improving the safety of 

pedestrians and bicyclists, since walking and biking are such significant means of 

travel, particularly in urban areas. Low-cost safety improvements include the 

following: 

• Limit maximum cycle lengths to 90 to 120 seconds to minimize delay and 

maximize compliance. In the case of actuation and demand control, cycle 

lengths are substantially shorter. Shorter cycle lengths tend to reduce the level 

of red-light running of both motorized and nonmotorized traffic. 

• Consider the effects of placing signal heads on the near side of the intersection 

so crossroad drivers cannot anticipate the end of a conflicting phase and 

pedestrian walkways are kept clear. 

• Suggest protected left-turn phasing, which may be helpful when opposing 

vehicle approach speeds are in excess of 50 kilometers per hour. 
LOW-COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 

• Target traffic law enforcement and automated enforcement actions based on 

speed and red-light-running violations at high-accident locations. Dutch 

officials strongly emphasized the importance of a coordinated public awareness 

program in conjunction with an automated enforcement program. 

• Provide countdown clocks at pedestrian and bicycle crossings. 

• Consider the use of large signal back plates to increase visibility. 

• Provide dynamic, radar-controlled speed signs at high-speed intersections. 

• Provide speed tables on intersection approaches to control speed. 

• Consider using punitive signalization ("cut-off" signals) to reduce high speed. If 

a vehicle is detected traveling more than 10 miles per hour over the posted 

speed limit, the signal changes to red before the vehicle enters the dilemma 

zone. 

• Develop a multidisciplinary (enforcement, citizens, universities, etc.) task force 

to target high-accident locations and the driver behavior associated with severe 

intersection accidents. 

• To the extent possible, provide consistency in intersection design and operation 

to minimize driver confusion. 

UNITED KINGDOM 

The team observed a number of low-cost safety improvements in the United 

Kingdom: 

• Use short cycle lengths to encourage driver and pedestrian compliance with 

signal controls. 

• Provide dilemma zone protection through appropriate detector placement and 

settings for speeds greater than 35 miles per hour. 

• Deploy PUFFIN and TOUCAN technologies where pedestrian and bicycle 

traffic is present. 

• Provide zigzag pavement markings at lane edges approaching pedestrian 

crossings. 

• Use the speed discrimination and extension (SDE) strategy on high-speed 

approaches to vary green extension and minimize vehicles caught in the 

dilemma zone. 

• Use speed and red-light-running cameras where accidents are related to such 

violations. 

• Use road safety audits at preliminary design, final design, implementation, and 

follow-up levels. 

• Install high-friction surfaces in the dilemma zone at high-speed intersections. 

75 
76 

CHAPTER SEVEN 

• Install offset crosswalks with stagger~d crossings to force pedestrians to face 

oncoming traffic. 
SWEDEN 

MATRIX 

CHAPTER EIGHT 

RESEARCH ON SIGNALIZED 

INTERSECTION SAFETY 

Sweden is using real-time traffic models to optimize signal timings in their 

network. MATRIX is a real-time traffic automation system that uses a generic 

information and control platform. Traffic information collected from road network 

sensors feeds into MATRIX so that traffic signal timing plans can be managed in a 

demand-responsive manner. 

The strategy is to compare real-time traffic data with origin/destination and 

assignment estimation and adjust signal timings to compensate for this variance in 

traffic demand. This strategy is being implemented using technology developed in 

Turin, Italy, and the system is still under development. 20 

SuperlHOVRA 

Sweden is in the process of improving LHOVRA with SuperLHOVRA. The focus of 

SuperLHOVRA is heavy vehicles, which safety studies have confirmed are 

disproportionately involved in right-angle crashes. The system detects heavy 

vehicles 250 meters and 130 meters from an intersection, measures speed and 

vehicle length, and adjusts signal timings to reduce the likelihood of red-light 

running. The system has been installed at four locations, resulting in a 90 percent 

reduction in heavy truck red-light running. Because this system requires a large 

number of loop detectors, which are often unreliable, researchers are looking into 

cheaper, more reliable detection techniques. 21 

GERMANY 

The Federal Highway Research Institute (BAST) is conducting or overseeing 

nearly 300 highway-related research projects. Its budget is about EUR 30 million 

per year. Fifty percent of the budget is spent on research projects, including about 

EUR 4 million on safety. BAST identified seven projects that address issues raised 

by the team: 

• Right turn on red with green arrow (1996-1999) 

• Tolerance toward traffic detection systems for vehicle-actuated control 

methods (1997- 1999) 

• Standardization and modular design for traffic engineering-based problems at 

signalized intersections, including evaluation of the use of standardized 

controllers (1998) 

• Examination of the effectiveness of interventions at existing traffic lights (1995-

2000) 

77 
78 

CHAPTER EIGHT 

• Acceleration of public transport under special consideration for cyclists and 

pedestrians (ongoing) 

• Standardization of interfaces for traffic lights (ongoing) 

• Assurance of traffic light quality (ongoing) 

THE NETHERLANDS 

The team identified a number of research efforts focused on signalized intersection 

safety. Dutch research shows that photo enforcement can effectively encourage 

user compliance and reduce vehicle speed and red-light-running violations. The 

Dutch are just beginning a research program with SWOV (a scientific safety 

board22) to determine the effect photo enforcement has had on actual safety 

performance metrics, such as reducing the number and severity of accidents. 23 

Pedestrian crossing during the red phase is an important concern in the 

Netherlands. The Dutch have developed several techniques to minimize this 

behavior. They are testing and researching additional strategies and techniques to 

further improve nonmotorized motorists' compliance with red signals. Several 

ongoing research projects involve the use of video detection to identify waiting 

pedestrians or bicyclists and LED countdown sensors in the pavement. 

The use of dynamic, hydraulic speed bumps is being studied in the Netherlands. 

The height of the speed bump can be varied, depending on the speed of the 

approaching vehicle. 

In addition, CROW is developing guidelines for pedestrians and bicycles on 

roundabouts. 24 The Transport Research Centre 25 from the Ministry of Transport, 

Public Works, and Water Management is engaged in a number of research projects: 

• Use of rescue services to improve highway safety 

• Railway crossings 

• Roadway work zones 

• Information signs and stations 

UNITED KINGDOM 

TRL, in partnership with the Department for Transport, the Highways Agency, and 

other transportation agencies in the United Kingdom, is involved in a number of 

research projects focusing on signalized intersection safety. 

The Department for Transport is working on three research projects in 2002 and 

2003: 

• Effects of traffic signal strategies on the safety of vulnerable road users 

• Safety effects of bus priority schemes 

• Assessment of the casualty reduction performance of local highway authorities 
RESEARCH 

The United Kingdom is researching new technologies to improve detection 

capabilities used in PUFFIN and TOUCAN crossings. 

79 
80 

CHAPTER NINE 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

The team met several times during the scan to discuss observations and findings. 

Each member provided a list of recommendation ideas. Through group discussion, 

team members combined these ideas and distilled them into the following list of 

team recommendations. The team also discussed preliminary implementation 

ideas, and the team's final implementation strategy will be reflected in the scan 

technology implementation plan (STIP). In addition, many individual team 

. members observed innovative processes and techniques of personal or professional 

interest to them, and those implementation ideas are captured in the additional 

recommendations section. 

PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Develop a model photo enforcement process/program to reduce red-light 

running and control speed at high-accident signalized intersections. Ken 

Kobetsky will serve as the team champion for this recommendation. Goals 

include developing best practices through which public support for photo 

enforcement can be enhanced (e.g., making signal timing fair to road users, 

making cameras readily identifiable, and ensuring that enforcement methods 

are not used simply to raise money). Implementation strategies include the 

following: 

• Obtain funds through the STIP program to develop a production report for 

deployment and implementation. 

• Communicate findings through transportation-related groups such as 

AASHTO, FHWA, and ITE. 

• Develop programs and strategies targeted toward safety organizations such 

as the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety, Mothers 

Against Drunk Driving, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety. 

2. Enhance dilemma-zone detection at high-speed, isolated, rural 

intersections using LHOVRA, MOVA, OSCADY, and other identified 

strategies. Rudy Umbs will serve as the team champion for this 

recommendation. Implementation strategies include the following: 

• Collect site-specific information at high-accident locations. 

• Solicit team members for candidate intersections within their jurisdictions. 

• Coordinate with the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices (NCUTCD) and the AASHTO Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering 

and Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety. 

• Identify candidate locations within five months. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

• Obtain full or partial funding through the STIP program. 

• Bring European experts to the United States to assist in designing, 

implementing, and testing new technology. 

3. Develop a series of pilot projects to control speed through intersections 

using a combination of practices observed in Europe. Techniques include 

geometrics (lane width and speed tables), pavement markings, automated photo 

enforcement, and adjustable message signs. Rick Collins will serve as the team 

champion for this recommendation. Implementation strategies include the 

following: 

• Compile best-practice information from Sweden and the Netherlands to 

develop a best-practices guide. 

• Identify candidate locations for test implementation. 

• Bring European experts to the United States to assist in designing and 

implementing speed-reduction strategies. 

• Work with FHWA to fund a synthesis project to develop a best-practice plan 

and identify demonstration projects. 

4. Promote roundabouts as alternatives to signalized intersections as a 

way to manage the consequences of collisions (severity versus 

frequency). Phil Clark will serve as the team champion for this 

recommendation. Implementation strategies include the following: 

• Work with European experts to develop guidelines for converting signals to 

roundabouts in the United States. 

• Develop seminars and training courses, including operational and geometric 

computer simulation (similar to ARCADY) instruction for highway 

designers. 

• Develop a process and tools, including operational and geometric computer 

simulation packages, to assist designers and highway agencies in conveying 

the advantages to the public. 

5. Develop guidelines and identify pilot projects to enhance pedestrian 

safety at signalized intersections in the United States. Guidelines will 

focus on applying strategies such as PUFFIN and TOUCAN crossings, 

countdown indicators, and audible pedestrian signals. N azir Lalani will serve as 

the team champion for this recommendation. Implementation strategies include 

the following: 

• Coordinate with the NCHRP pedestrian signal project. 

• Develop a toolbox to identify best practices. 

• Work with the AASHTO task force to incorporate some of the geometric 

design applications observed during the visit. 

• Coordinate with user groups such as the American Disability Association. 

81 
82 

CHAPTER NINE 

• Coordinate with NCUTCD. 

• Identify feasible locations to pilot test various strategies. 

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 

In addition to the primary team recommendations, several team members have 

identified practices or programs that relate to their specific areas of expertise. The 

following is a summary of individual recommendations: 
(Xl 

w 

Table 2. Additional Recommendations 

Category Recommendations 

Signing/marking Introduce wider pavement markings in 

the United States. 

Phasing/operations/ Adopt traffic signal operational policies 

detection restricting left turns to protected-only 

operation on high-speed (45 mph or 

higher) roads. 

Test modification of the LHOVRA concept 

using extension of red clearance interval 

to accommodate vehicles in the dilemma 

zone at the expiration of the green 

interval because of a max out. 

Require a standard yellow interval for all 

u.s. traffic signals. Additional clearance 

time needed would be accommodated in 

all-red interval. 

Pedestrians/bicycles Use countdown indicators to provide 

feedback to pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Test a modified PUFFIN pedestrian signal 

in the United States. 

Other Incorporate promising strategies into the 

implementation guides for the AASHTO/ 

NCHRP Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

-

Implementation Strategy 

Introduce these concepts as optional in Steve V

the markings chapter of the FHWA svanwi

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices (MUTCD). 

Draft proposed text for amendment to Robert 

MUTCD and submit to NCUTCD for se~fri

consideration. Present rationale and 

encourage adoption of such policies by 

committees of TRB and ITE. 

Determine whether available hardware Robert 

and software can provide the desired se~fri

logic and operation. Identify two test 

locations for pilot implementation.Report 

findings at TRB and/or ITE meetings. 

Steve V

svanwi

Investigate the operation of Dutch signal Robert 

installations. Pilot test operation at two rse~fr

locations and identify changes in 

pedestrian and bicyclist behavior and 

degree of understanding. Draft text for 

proposed amendments to MUTCD.Report 

findings to TRB/ITE. 

Steve V

svanw

Prepare implementation guides for 13 Kevin S

emphasis areas of the Strategic Highway kslack

Safety Plan. Promising strategies and 

examples will be incorporated into 

multiple guides as appropriate. 
84 

CONTACT INFORMATION 

APPENDIX A 

TEAM MEMBERS 

Gene K. Fong (Co-Chair) 

Director of Field Services-East 

Federal Highway Administration 

City Crescent Bldg., Suite 4000 

10 South Howard Street 

Baltimore, MD 21201 

Phone: 410-962-5177 

Fax: 410-962-3655 

Cell: 410-984-9201 

E-mail: gene.fong@fhwa.dot.gov 

James H. Kopf (Co-Chair) 

Chief Engineer and Deputy Executive Director 

Mississippi Department of Transportation 

PO Box 1850 

Jackson, MS 39215 

FEDEX: 401 North West Street, Jackson, MS 39201 

Phone: 601-359-7004 

Fax: 601-359-7050 

E-mail: jkopf@mdot.state.ms.us 

Philip J. Clark 

Deputy Chief Engineer/Director, Design Division 

New York State Department Of Transportation 

Building 5, Room 405 

State Office Campus 

1220 Washington Avenue 

Albany, NY 12232-0748 

Phone: 518-457-6452 

Fax: 518-457-7283 

E-mail: pclark@gw.dot.state.ny.us 

Rick Collins 

Engineer of Traffic 

Texas Department of Transportation 

125 East 11th Street 

Austin, TX 78701-2483 

Phone: 512-416-3135 

Fax: 512-416-3349 

E-mail: rcollins@dot.state.tx.us 
Richard A. Cunard 

Engineer of Traffic & Operations 

Transportation Research Board 

Room GR326P 

2001 Wisconsin Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20007 

Phone: 202-334-2963 

Fax: 202-334-2003 

E-mail: rcunard@nas.edu 

Ken F. Kobetsky 

Program Director for Engineering 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 249 

Washington, DC 20001 

Phone: 202-624-5254 

Fax: 202-624-5469 

E-mail: kenk@aashto.org 

N azir Lalani 

Principal Engineer 

Transportation Department 

County of Ventura 

800 South Victoria Avenue 

Ventura, CA 93009-1600 

Phone: 805-654-2080 

Fax: 805-654-3852 

E-mail: nazir.lalani@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 

Fred N. Ranck 

Safety Engineer 

FHWA Midwestern Resource Center 

19900 Governors Drive 

Olympia Fields, IL 60461-1021 

Phone: 708-283-3545 

Fax: 708-283-3501 

E-mail: fred.ranck@fhwa.dot.gov 

Robert K. Seyfried 

Director, Transportation Engineering Division 

Northwestern University Center for Public Safety 

405 Church Street 

Evanston, IL 60204 

Phone: 847-491-3431 

Fax: 847-491-5270 

E-mail: r-seyfried@northwestern.edu 

TEAM MEMBERS 

85 
86 

APPENDIX A 

Kevin Slack (Report Facilitator) 

Vice President & Senior Transportation Engineer 

CH2M HILL 

13921 Park Center Road, Suite 600 

Herndon, VA 20171 

Phone: 703-471-6405, ext. 4517 

Cell: 703-338-8547 

Fax: 703-796-6299 

E-mail: kslack@ch2m.com 

James W. Sparks 

Deputy Street Transportation Director 

City of Phoenix 

200 West Washington Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85003-1611 

Phone: 602-262-4435 

Fax: 602-495-0336 

Cell: 602-509-6693 

E-mail: jsparks@ci.phoenix.az.us 

Rudolph M. Umbs 

Acting Director, Office of Safety Design 

Federal Highway Administration 

HAS-10, Room 3419 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202-366-2177 

Fax: 202-366-3222 

Pager: 1-800-692-8829 

E-mail: rudolph.umbs@fhwa.dot.gov 

Stephen N. Van Winkle 

Director of Public Works 

City of Peoria 

Department of Public Works 

419 Fulton Street, Room 307 

Peoria, IL 61602 

Phone: 309-494-8800 

Fax: 309-494-8658 

E-mail: svanwinkle@ci.peoria.il.us 

BIOGRAPHIC SKETCHES 

Gene K. Fong (co-chair) is the director of Field Services-East for the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) in Baltimore, Maryland. Fong oversees the 

Federal-aid Highway Program in 14 eastern States and the Eastern Resource 

Center offices. His emphasis includes providing strategic leadership in enhancing 

intermodal and interagency cooperation and coordination to advance FHWA and 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) initiatives, including support for the 
TEAM MEMBERS 

DOT and FHWA goal to continually improve highway safety. In the past, he served 

as the division administrator in Washington State and assistant division 

administrator in New York State. Fong has a master's degree from San Jose State 

University. He is a licensed professional engineer in Michigan and serves on 

several executive leadership committees for FHWA. 

James H. Kopf (co-chair) is the chief engineer and deputy executive director of 

the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) in Jackson, Mississippi. He 

is responsible for developing and executing all technical policies and procedures 

for MDOT. He also exercises general and technical supervision of MDOT functions. 

Kopf has been with MDOT for 35 years. He has a bachelor's degree in civil 

engineering from Mississippi State University. He is a licensed professional 

engineer and a licensed professional land surveyor in Mississippi. He serves on 

various national transportation committees, including the American Association of 

State Highway Officials' Standing Committee on Highways, Study Committee on 

Quality, Special Committee on TRAC, Standing Committee on Highway Traffic 

Safety, Subcommittee on Transportation Systems Management, and Transportation 

Research Committee. He is also a member of the National Society of Professional 

Engineers and Mississippi Engineering Society. 

Philip J. Clark is deputy chief engineer and director of the Design Division for 

the New York State Department of Transportation in Albany, New York. He is 

responsible for oversight of transportation design activities statewide, including 

developing related policies, procedures, and standards. Clark has also served as 

director of the department's Poughkeepsie regional office, where his 

responsibilities included oversight of a $200 million annual capital construction 

program and maintenance and operation of the State transportation system in 

seven counties north of New York City. He is a licensed professional engineer in 

New York and has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of 

Vermont. Clark serves on the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials' Task Force on Geometric Design, which is responsible for 

preparing "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets." 

Rick Collins is the director of the Traffic Engineering Section for the Texas 

Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in Austin, Texas. He is responsible for 

developing and issuing statewide guidelines, standards, and procedures for traffic 

engineering features such as signs, traffic signals, and pavement markings. The 

Traffic Engineering Section is also responsible for the Hazard Elimination 

Program, a Federal safety construction program. Collins has served with TxDOT 

for more than 18 years and has been involved in traffic, safety, and design issues. 

He also has two years of design experience with a private engineering firm in 

Austin. He has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Texas A&M University 

and a master's degree in engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. He is a 

licensed professional engineer in Texas and is a member of the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' Highway Subcommittee 

on Traffic Engineering and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 

Richard A. Cunard is the engineer of traffic and operations for the 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) in Washington, D.C. He is responsible for the 

87 
88 

APPENDIX A 

technical activities at TRB related to traffic engineering and control, traffic 

operations, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), and vehicle-highway 

automated systems. He has authored numerous technical papers and articles on 

traffic control, operations, and safety issues. Cunard has served with TRB for more 

than 13 years and has more than 25 years of experience in traffic engineering and 

safety for public and private agencies. He has bachelor's and master's degrees in 

civil engineering from Wayne State University. He is a licensed professional 

engineer. Cunard is active in several national and international professional 

associations and societies and serves on international technical program 

committees in the areas of ITS, traffic control, traffic engineering, and traffic safety. 

Ken F. Kobetsky is the program director for engineering for the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 

Washington, D.C. Kobetsky serves as liaison for AASHTO's Standing Committee on 

Highways (SCOH) and Standing Committee on Research. He is also liaison for 

SCOH's technical Subcommittees on Maintenance, Materials, and Traffic 

Engineering, as well as several task forces and joint committees. Kobetsky works 

with AASHTO technical committees and task forces to produce engineering and 

related professional publications and addresses technical inquiries on highway 

engineering. Kobetsky also directs the National Transportation Product Evaluation 

Program and the Snow and Ice Pooled Fund Cooperative Program technical 

services programs. Kobetsky has been with AASHTO for eight years and has more 

than 30 additional years of State highway agency experience in traffic operations, 

design, and construction. He has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the 

University of North Dakota, a graduate degree in traffic engineering from Yale 

University, and a master's degree in engineering from the West Virginia College of 

Graduate Studies. He is a registered professional engineer. Kobetsky chairs the 

National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and serves on many 

technical committees of the Transportation Research Board. 

Nazir Lalani is a principal engineer in the Ventura County, California, 

Transportation Department in charge of the Traffic and Transportation Planning 

Division. He is responsible for designing and operating signalized intersections. He 

also teaches a course on the fundamentals of traffic engineering for the Institute of 

Transportation Studies at the University of California at Berkeley. An expert on 

signalized intersection safety, he serves on a review panel for a new Federal 

Highway Administration publication on this topic. For the past 25 years, he has 

been responsible for the operation of signalized intersections in a number of cities 

and counties in several States, focusing on implementing safety improvements to 

reduce collisions. Lalani has a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from the 

University of Exeter in England and a master's degree in civil engineering from 

Arizona State University. He is a member of the Institute of Transportation 

Engineers (ITE) and the American Public Works Association. He chairs the ITE 

Public Agency Council and is a frequent presenter on safety-related topics at ITE 

conferences. 

Fred N. Ranck is a safety/geometrics engineer for the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) at the Midwestern Resource Center. Ranck is responsible 

for safety technical support to the 10 FHWA divisions in their midwestern 
TEAM MEMBERS 

transportation programs and is responsible for Parts 2 and 5 of the Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices as a member of FHWA's MUTCD Team. In the past, 

Ranck was the city traffic engineer for Naperville, Illinois; manager of the Highway 

Traffic Safety Department for the National Safety Council; and county traffic 

engineer for DuPage County, Illinois. He was the principal investigator for 

developing the national WALK ALERT Pedestrian Safety Program and has been 

the national director for the Operation Lifesaver Grade Crossing Safety Public 

Information Program. Ranck has bachelor's degrees in physics and civil 

engineering and a master's degree in transportation engineering from the 

University of Illinois-ChampaignlUrbana. He is a licensed professional engineer in 

Illinois. He is certified as a professional traffic operations engineer by the Institute 

of Transportation Engineers and has International Municipal Signal Association 

traffic signal technician level II and ATTSEA work site supervisor certifications. 

Robert K. Seyfried is the director of the Transportation Engineering Division of 

the Northwestern University Center for Public Safety. He is responsible for 

administering, planning, developing, and presenting seminars and workshops on 

transportation engineering on the Evanston, Illinois, campus and throughout the 

United States. These continuing education programs include training in traffic 

signal design, operations, and traffic safety, and are attended by professionals from 

city, county, State, and private engineering organizations. Seyfried has 33 years' 

experience in transportation engineering, and has been on the staff of the 

Northwestern University Center for Public Safety for the past 25 years. In the past, 

Seyfried worked as a consultant preparing intersection improvement and traffic 

signal plans. Seyfried has bachelor's and master's degrees in civil engineering from 

Northwestern University. He is a member of the Institute of Transportation 

Engineers, American Society of Civil Engineers, Transportation Research Board, 

and Guide Signs Technical Committee of the National Committee on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices. He is a registered professional engineer in Illinois and a 

certified professional traffic operations engineer. 

Kevin L. Slack (report facilitator) is a senior transportation engineer and vice 

president for CH2M HILL in Herndon, Virginia. Slack manages CH2M HILL's 

Transportation Group in Virginia and is the co-principal Investigator for the 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 17-18(3) on 

"Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan." At CH2M HILL, 

Slack has been responsible for transportation planning, traffic engineering, 

preliminary design, and final design on a wide variety of projects in more than 10 

States. As co-principal investigator for NCHRP Project 17-18(3), Slack is 

responsible for developing documents and materials to guide transportation 

agencies on programs and actions that can produce measurable reductions in 

highway fatalities at signalized intersections. In addition, Slack supports the 

Federal Highway Administration in developing its Interactive Highway Safety 

Design Model. Slack earned bachelor's and master's degrees in civil engineering 

from Pennsylvania State University. He is a registered professional engineer in 

Virginia and Illinois and a member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 

James W. Sparks is traffic engineer for the City of Phoenix, Arizona. Sparks 

directs the Traffic Operations Division for Phoenix and serves as deputy director 

89 
90 

APPENDIX A 

for the Street Transportation Department. He is responsible for all aspects of 

operating traffic, including signing, striping, signals, and parking meters. He has 

been with Phoenix as a transportation professional for 30 years and has eight prior 

years with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. Sparks has bachelor's and 

master's degrees in civil engineering from the University of Oklahoma and 

received a certificate from the Yale Bureau of Highway Traffic. He is a licensed 

professional engineer in Arizona and has served as president of the Arizona 

Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Sparks has authored more 

than a dozen articles in professional journals on effective and efficient means of 

moving traffic. He serves on the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices. 

Rudolph M. Umbs is acting director of the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) Office of Safety Design. The office is responsible for the Roadway, 

Roadside, Intersection, and Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Programs, including the 

new Road Safety Audits Program. In addition, the office handles FHWA's 

responsibilities for safety data systems and analyses and the State and Community 

Highway Safety Grant Program. Umbs also serves as the FHWA headquarters' 

liaison to more than 70 FHWA field highway safety staff. He has been involved in 

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan since its inception and is a member of the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program's Project 17-18 Panel on implementing the 

plan. Umbs has been with FHWA for more than 31 years, including 26 years in 

highway safety. His most recent position was chief of the Safety Design and 

Operations Division, which was responsible for revising and maintaining the 

national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. He is a graduate of Marquette 

University and a registered professional engineer in Minnesota. Umbs has received 

the FHWA National Safety Leadership Award and Administrator Award. His office 

has received Telly Awards and the American Society of Association Executives' 

Gold Circle Award for excellence in highway safety public relations programs and 

FHWA's Quality Journey Award. 

Stephen N. Van Winkle is the public works director for the City of Peoria, Illinois, 

a position he has held since 1982. Among his responsibilities is management of 225 

signalized intersections. Motorist and pedestrian safety are his primary goals. In 

the past, Van Winkle worked for the Illinois Department of Transportation, where 

he was involved in geometric intersection and roadway design and the application 

of traffic control devices. He served as the bureau chief of Traffic Engineering and 

Roadway Planning and Project Programming for one of Illinois' nine highway 

districts. Van Winkle has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's 

degree in highway and traffic engineering from Texas A&M University. He is a 

fellow of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and has served as Illinois 

Section president, Urban Traffic Engineering Council chair, international director 

for District 4, and ITE delegation chair on the National Committee of Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices. 
APPENDIX B 

AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS 

To help clarify the scanning team's areas of interest, members have identified six 

topics as important categories for discussion. Team members have developed 

specific questions in each category to help facilitate discussions and provide 

additional insight into their interests in safety at signalized intersections. 

A key goal of our visit is to identify readily implementable intersection-safety 

solutions and programs for deployment in the United States. Please focus your 

discussions and efforts on highly promising and implementable intersection-safety 

countermeasures and solutions. We are particularly interested in how you have 

identified and overcome implementation barriers and any special implementation 

needs. Please provide specific examples and documentation. 

In addition to the primary topics of interest, outlined in I through VI, the panel has 

identified a number of general topics that pertain to several or all of the 

categories: 

• The organization of, structure of, and responsibilities for your country's traffic 

signal operations and intersection safety. 

• What are your country's safety priorities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and 

motorists, relative to providing overall mobility? How do these priorities affect 

your approach to intersection safety programs? 

• How do legal issues or the risk of tort lawsuits influence your approach to 

intersection safety? To what extent do concerns about possible tort lawsuits 

create barriers to considering or implementing innovative safety 

improvements? 

• How does your organization fund intersection safety-related activities? 

• The panel is interested in both urban and rural signalized intersection safety, 

particularly safety at high-speed rural signalized intersections. 

• Do you have any public educational programs that target intersection safety? If 

so, please provide examples (flyers, posters, television commercials, etc.). We 

are interested in programs targeted to all users, including drivers, pedestrians, 

bicyclists, school children, etc. 

• What correlation have you found between the enforcement of intersectionrelated laws and intersection safety? 

As you review the amplifying questions, please consider these general issues and 

their effect on your agency's approach to signalized intersection safety. Any specific 

examples (plans, photographs, reports, site visits) that illustrate your safety 

approach would be appreciated. 

91 
92 

APPENDIXB 

I. SELECTION, DESIGN, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC 

CONTROL DEVICES AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS WITH A FOCUS ON THE SAFETY 

IMPLICATIONS OF EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS. 

1. How does your organization use safety measures or safety-based performance 

indicators to justify the installation of traffic signals or improvements to 

signalized intersections? On which safety measures are the criteria based? 

2. Under what circumstances would you not signalize an intersection? How would 

you address intersection safety under those circumstances? 

3. Under what circumstances would you downgrade intersection control (e.g., 

replace a signal with stop control) to improve intersection safety? 

4. How do signal operation policies and procedures explicitly address intersection 

safety (e.g., special signal timing requirements, cycle lengths, permissive versus 

protective left-turn phasing, number of phases, lead versus lag phasing, length 

of clearance interval, all-red interval, pedestrian phase, dilemma zone 

protection, right-turn prohibitions on red, pre-green interval, etc.)? 

5. Please describe or document any policies, procedures, or special devices 

(including pavement markings or sensors) employed to address safety issues at 

signalized intersections with the following: 

• High pedestrian volume 

• Significant bicycle traffic 

• Elderly users (both drivers and pedestrians) 

• Disabled or handicapped users (including the visually impaired) 

6. What traffic control devices are used to address safety issues at isolated highspeed intersections (e.g., advanced warning systems, special signal operational 

schemes, and special hardware)? Please discuss or provide documentation on 

operational and design criteria for such devices and successes of their 

application in improving intersection safety. 

7. What types of special signal displays (e.g., left/right turn, pedestrian, bicycle, 

etc.) are used to improve intersection safety? 

8. In what manner is safety considered in signal system coordination? 

9. To what extent is maintenance considered an intersection safety issue? What is 

your agency's policy for signal trouble calls? Do you have a proactive bulb 

replacement program? 

10. What training is offered in the selection, design, installation, operation, and 

maintenance of traffic control devices? 

11. What special considerations are given to emergency preemption at signalized 

intersections? 
AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS 

12. How common are lawsuits involving traffic control devices? What kind of 

lawsuits? 

13. What safety effects (positive or negative) have been noted in using LED 

signals? 

II. INNOVATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AT SIGNAUZED INTERSECTIONS. 

1. What are some examples of innovative traffic control devices employed on or 

adjacent to the roadway primarily for intersection safety reasons? Examples 

might include the following: 

• Strobe lights to increase visibility 

• Pedestrian detectors or countdown timers 

• Advance vehicle detection 

• Video surveillance or detection 

2. What circumstances have led to the installation of these innovative trafficcontrol devices? 

3. What measurable effects have these devices had on intersection safety? Please 

provide examples and documentation. 

4. What safety measures or procedures are used to determine if traditional traffic 

control solutions are ineffective and that innovative traffic control is required? 

5. How are automated enforcement measures used to enforce red light running? 

Please describe the technology, enforcement practices, barriers to 

implementation, and special implementation needs. How effective has 

automated enforcement been in reducing intersection-related accidents? 

6. How is innovative traffic control technology identified, implemented, and 

measured for effectiveness? What legal and/or administrative issues are 

encountered? 

7. Please describe any innovative traffic control devices, interconnections, or 

special signal operational treatments used at signalized intersections near atgrade rail crossings. 

8. Please describe any innovative traffic control devices used to address transit 

safety at signalized intersections. This includes both bus and light-rail transit. 

III. INNOVATIVE GEOMETRIC DESIGNS FOR SIGNAUZED INTERSECTIONS. 

1. Please describe and provide examples of innovative geometric designs 

developed, deployed, or in the process of being deployed to address safety 

problems at signalized intersections. Please provide any available supporting 

data or studies to verify measurable improvements. 

2. Please describe any safety criteria or guidelines that address conversion of a 

signalized intersection to a roundabout. On what measures are such criteria 

93 
94 

APPENDIXB 

based? What are the key issues (e.g., pedestrian activity, transit activity, bicycle 

use, public education/awareness, vehicle design considerations, approach speed, 

etc.) to be considered when evaluating a roundabout versus a signalized 

intersection? 

3. Please describe safety or other guidelines you follow to convert an at-grade 

intersection to a grade-separated interchange. Examples of such solutions 

would be appreciated. What impact do these conversions have on intersection 

safety? 

4. What effects do auxiliary lanes have on signalized intersection safety? Please 

consider the following: 

• Left-fright-turn deceleration/storage lanes (length/transitions) 

• Double left-fright-turn deceleration/storage lanes 

• Right-turn acceleration lane 

• High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes 

• Bicycle lanes 

5. What innovative design measures are used to separate pedestrians and bicycles 

from motorized vehicle traffic at signalized intersections? 

6. What safety-based criteria or guidelines related to intersection geometric 

features are used? 

7. Please describe and provide background on how intersection safety and 

operations directly influence the design process. Please discuss or describe how 

you choose the design of signalized intersections, addressing the following key 

decisions: 

• Selection of design vehicle for channelization 

• Determination of design speed 

• Selection of human factor inputs, such as pedestrian walking speed 

• Determination of need and design for left- and right-turn lanes 

• Determination of need and design for raised islands, medians, and other 

physical channelization 

• Determination of the number of lanes, including through lanes and turning 

lanes 

• Determination of appropriate lane widths 

8. How are traffic-calming measures used to improve traffic safety at signalized 

intersections or on the approaches to signalized intersections? 

9. To what extent are innovative geometric designs used to eliminate or minimize 

conflicting movements within an intersection? Examples include the following: 
AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS 

• Median U-turns 

• Indirect left-turn lanes 

• Left-turn acceleration lanes 

Please provide examples of their implementation, special implementation 

needs, and barriers to implementation, particularly in circumstances where 

safety was an explicit consideration. What impact does the application of these 

innovative geometric designs have on intersection safety? 

,V. PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION, 

AND COUNTERMEASURE SELECTION AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS WITH SAFETY 

PROBLEMS. 

1. What measures are used to identify and prioritize safety problems at signalized 

intersections? What types of data are collected and how are they used? 

2. What primary considerations are used to select the appropriate safety 

countermeasures at signalized intersections? How are the costs of 

improvements compared to the benefits? How do you balance safety needs with 

intersection efficiency? 

3. How are safety countermeasures monitored for effectiveness? How is the 

information compiled and made available for reference by others? 

4. Please describe any governmentally (or other) mandated safety goals in your 

country related to intersections and signalized intersections. 

5. What surrogate measures do you use for crash frequency or severity? If 

possible, please provide documentation and examples. 

6. How are law enforcement or other agencies involved in identifYing and solving 

safety problems at signalized intersections? 

7. What reference materials/guidelines are provided to staff or local officials to 

aid them in evaluating their intersections for safety and choosing among 

appropriate improvements? How is this information disseminated? 

8. How do you educate the public on safety issues and driving procedures? 

V. LOW-COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS. 

1. What are some specific examples of low-cost intersection safety improvements 

in operations, geometric design, enforcement, or education? What were the keys 

to successful implementation? 

2. How do you employ left- or right-turn prohibitions as a low-cost means of 

addressing safety problems? Please provide information on the safety effects of 

these prohibitions at the intersection and along the path of diverted 

movements. 

95 
96 

APPENDIXB 

3. How do you incorporate law enforcement measures to improve safety at 

signalized intersections? Are there studies that document the effectiveness of 

law enforcement measures? We are interested in both conventional and 

automated enforcement techniques. 

VI. RESEARCH PROJECTS FOCUSED ON SAFETY ISSUES AT SIGNAUZED 

INTERSECTIONS. 

1. What ongoing research activities in your country (or elsewhere in Europe) are 

related to signalized intersection safety? Topics of interest include the 

following: 

• Surrogate measures for safety 

• Alternative geometric design solutions 

• Operational effects 

• Human factors 

• Elderly drivers 

• Disabled users 

• ITS strategies 

• Safety of pedestrians 

• Safety of bicyclists 

• Collision avoidance systems (in vehicle or road based) 

• Modeling the expected safety effects of design or operational treatments 

2. What agencies or organizations sponsor, participate in, or have a strong interest 

in intersection safety? How do they influence and help carry out your national 

research agenda? 

3. How are research plans and findings disseminated and implemented in your 

country? 
APPENDIX C 

HOST COUNTRY CONTACTS 

SWEDEN 

Vagverket 

Alf Peterson 

Senior Advisor, ITS 

Phone: +46 8 757 66 00 

E-mail: alf.peterson@VV.se 

Torbjorn Boivie 

M. Sc. Civ. Eng. 

Phone: +46 8 98 41 91 

E-mail: torbjorn.boivie@Vv.se 

Svante Berg 

Traffic Management, Road Design Office 

Phone: +4624375561 

E-mail: svante.berg@vv.se 

Lena Ryden 

Director at International Secretariat 

Phone: +4624375521 

E-mail: lena.r:yden@VV.se 

Roger Johansson 

Deputy Director, Traffic Safety Department 

Phone: +4624375880 

E-mail: roger.johansson@Vv.se 

Real Estate and Traffic Administration 

Lars Soder 

Senior Adviser, Technics & Purchasing 

Phone: +46 8 508 262 08 

E-mail: www.gfk.stockholm.se 

Mats Fager 

Phone: +46 8 508 262 98 

E-mail: mats.fager@gfk.stockholm.se 

PEEK 

David Andrew 

Marketing & Product Development 

Phone: +46 855610700 

E-mail: david.andrew@peek.se 

97 
98 

APPEND/XC 

Michael Cewers 

Operativ Chef/Operations Manager 

Phone: +46 8 556 10 700 

E-mail: michael.cewers@peek.se 

Mats Mansson 

Teknick ChefITechnical Manager 

Phone: +46 8 556 10 700 

E-mail: mats.mansson@peek.se 

John Chipperfield 

Phone: 941-552-1500 

E-mail: john.chipperfield@peekcorp.com 

GERMANY 

SIEMENS 

Roberto Bragagnolo 

Regional Director 

Phone: +49 89 7 22 - 5 54 03 

E-mail: roberto.bragagnolo@siemens.com 

Bernhard Hering 

Director 

Phone: +49 89 7 22 - 2 46 38 

E-mail: bernhard.hering@atd.mchh.siemens.de 

Hans-J ochen Monnich 

Project Manager 

Phone: +49 89 7 22 - 26152 

E-mail: hans-jochen.moennich@atd.mchh.siemens.de 

Fritz Busch 

Vice President, SITRAFFIC 

Phone: +49 89 7 22 - 2 63 67 

E-mail: fritz.busch@atd.mchh.siemens.de 

Stadt Frankfurt AM Main 

Herbert Schroeder 

Phone: (069) 212-4 22 19 

E-mail: Herbert.shroeder@stadt-frankfurt.dt 

Joachim Bielefeld 

Phone: (069) 212-42323 

E-mail joachim.bielefeld@stadt-frankfurt.de 
Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and Housing 

Konstantin Sauer 

Phone: +49 - 2 28 - 3 00 - 52 88 

E-mail: konstantin.sauer@bmvbw.bund.de 

Stadt Koln 

Hans Richter 

Phone: (02 21) 2 21- 27833 

E-mail: hans.richter@stadt-koel.de 

Grahl 

Stefan Grahl 

Transportation Consulting Engineer 

Phone: +49 (030) 47 00 37 55 

E-mail: stefan.Grahl@t-Online.de 

HOST COUNTRY CONTACTS 

Institut fur Verkehrswirlschaft, Sfobenween und Sfadtebau Universtat Hannover (IVH) 

Bernhard Friedrich 

Phone: +49 (0) 5 11 7 62 - 28 02 

E-mail: friedrich©ivh.uni-hannover.de 

Gesam1verband der Deutschen Versicherungs-wirlschaft e.V. (GOY) 

Werner Koppel 

Phone: 0221/16024-25 

Web site: http://www.gdv.de 

Bundesanstalt fur SfraBenwesen (Bast) 

Klaus Krause 

Phone: 02204/43-518 

Axel Elsner 

Head of Section Accident Statistics 

Phone: +49 (22 04) 43 420 

E-mail: elsner@bast.de 

Christine Kellermann 

Phone: +49 (22 04) 43 311 

E-mail: kellermannC@bast.de 

99 
100 

APPEND/XC 

THE NETHERLANDS 

Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management 

Frans Middelham 

Senior Consultant, Modeling and Control Techniques 

Phone: +31102825880 

E-mail: f.middelham@avv.rws.minvenw.nl 

Govert Schermers 

Senior Consultant, Traffic Safety 

Phone: +3110 282 57 04 

E-mail: schermers@avv.rws.minvenw.nl 

Henk Taale 

Senior Consultant, Traffic Modeling & Control 

Phone: +31102825881 

E-mail: h.taale@avv.rws.minvenw.nl 

Hans Tinselboer 

Head of Section Road Infrastructure & Traffic Management 

Phone: +3110 282 56 81 

E-mail: h.j.j.m.tinselboer©avv.rws.minvenw.nl 

Ministry of Justice 

Meine van Essen 

ResearcherlProject Consultant 

Phone: +31 346 33 33 60 

E-mail: m.van.essen@bvom.drp.minjus.nl 

Province ZuldeHolland 

Martijn de Leeuw 

Traffic Control Engineer 

Phone: +31 704416131 

E-mail: leeuwam@Pzh.nl 

Berend Feddes 

Senior Consultant, Traffic Control 

Phone: +31 70441 78 98 

E-mail: feddes@pzh.nl 

Bertus Fortuijn 

Head of Traffic Bureau 

Phone: +31 70 44163 63 

E-mail: fortuijn@pzh.nl 
city of Ro1terdam 

Robert Kooijman 

Senior Traffic Control Engineer 

Phone: +3110 489 50 13 

E-mail: R.Kooijman@dsv.rotterdam.nl 

HOST COUNTRY CONTACTS 

Information and Technology Centre for Transport and Infrastructure (CROW) 

Hillie Talens 

Project Manager 

Phone: +31 318 695 300 

E-mail: talens@crow.nl 

Wi1teveen + Bos 

Walter C. M. Fransen 

Phone: +31 570 69 75 11 / 69 75 83 

E-mail: w.fransen@Witbo.nl 

Verenigde Verkeers Veiligheids Organisatie (3VO) 

J eroen Kempen 

Senior Consultant 

Phone: +31 35 524 88 38 

E-mail: j.kempen@3vo.nl 

DTV Consultants 

Bo Boormans 

Director 

Phone: +31 76 513 66 00 

E-mail: b.boormans@dtvconsultants.nl 

Goudappel Coffeng 

Luc Prinsen 

Senior Consultant, Traffic Management 

Phone: +31570666222 

E-mail: lprinsen@goudappel.nl 

Via lis, Traffic and Mobility Suppliers 

Peter van Dijk 

Business Unit Manager 

Phone: +31 23 518 93 57 

E-mail: peter.van.dijk@Vialis.nl 

101 
102 

APPEND/XC 

Rudi J. Lagerweij 

Consultant, Business Development 

Phone: +3123 5189209 

E-mail: rudi.lagerweij@Vialis.nl 

Arcadis Nederland 

Robert Jan Roos 

Project Manager 

Phone: +3133 460 44 43 

E-mail: r.j.roos@arcadis.nl 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Department for Transport 

David Williams 

Traffic Management Division 

Phone: 020 7944 2595 

E-mail: davidj.williams@dft.gsi.gov.uk 

Ian Drummond 

Road Safety 

Phone: 020 7944 2629 

E-mail: lan.drummond@dft.gsi.gov.uk 

Mike Middleton 

Traffic Manager 

Phone: 020 7944 2145 

E-mail: michael.middleton@dft.gsi.gov.uk 

Highways Agency (HA) 

John Smart 

Principal Technical Adviser 

Phone: 020 79214986 

E-mail: john.smart@highways.gsi.gov.uk 

TRl 

John Peirce 

Traffic Consultancy Manager 

Phone: +44 (0) 1344 770032 

E-mail: jpeirce@trl.co.uk 
Transport for london 

Jim Landles 

Assistant Director, Traffic Technology Services 

Phone: 020 79414380 

E-mail: jimlandles@tfl.gov.uk 

Mark Beasley 

Signal Maintenance & Data Management 

Phone: 020 79414103 

E-mail: markbeasleY@tfl.gov.uk 

Del Cook 

Traffic Operations 

Phone: 020 79412335 

E-mail: delcook@streetmanagement.org.uk 

Chris Wynne 

Chief Engineer, Traffic Control Center 

Phone: 020 79412347 

E-mail: chriswynne@streetmanagement.org.uk 

Michael J. Smith 

HOST COUNTRY CONTACTS 

Team Manager, Traffic Control Systems & Road Lighting Team 

Phone: 0117 372 8227 

E-mail: mike.smith@highways.gsi.gov.uk 

103 
104 

ENDNOTES 

1. Road Accidents, 2001 figures, Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water 

Management, Transport Research Centre (AW) , e-mail: 

servicedesk@avv.rws.minvewn.nl. 

2. For more information, contact Govert Schermers, Ministry of Transport, Public 

Works, and Water Management. See Appendix C for contact information. 

3. For more information about safety timing calculations, contact Joachim 

Bielefeld, City of Frankfurt. See Appendix C for contact information. 

4. For more information about the signal maintenance program and experience 

with halogen bulbs in Frankfurt, contact Joachim Bielefeld, City of Frankfurt. 

See Appendix C for contact information. 

5. Only the recommendations are available in English. The handbooks are in 

Dutch. For more information, contact Hillie Talens, CROW. See Appendix C for 

contact information. 

6. For more information see: "Traffic Control in Urban Areas, a Survey Among 

Road Managers," AP.M. Wilson, F. Middelham, J.W.M. Vermeul, paper published 

at the 10th International Conference on Road Transport Information and Control, lEE, London, April 2000, Conference Publication No. 472, or contact Frans 

Middelham. See Appendix C for contact details. 

7. For more information about SCOOT, contact Mike Middleton, Department of 

Transport. See Appendix C for contact information. 

S. For more information about MOVA, contact J. R. Peirce, TRL. See Appendix C 

for contact information. 

9. For additional information about signalizing roundabouts, contact J. R. Peirce, 

TRL. See Appendix C for contact information. 

10. Each letter of this acronym stands for an optimization, or priority, function of 

the system. The acronym does not translate well into English, but its letters 

stand for the following: L, generic priority (trucks, buses, queue, platoons); H, 

priority of the main road (mobility); 0, incident reduction (traffic safety); V, 

variable yellow interval (mobility); R, red-light-running control (traffic safety); 

and A, minimization of green-yellow-red-green sequences (i.e., rest in red when 

traffic is not present). 

11. A comprehensive report on developing and implementing LHOVRA is available 

through SNRA, "Signal Control Strategy for Isolated Intersections" (publication 

1991:51E). For more information, contact AIf Peterson, SNRA. See Appendix C 

for contact information. 

12. For more information on Stockholm's LED conversion, including conversion 

plans, technical specifications, warranties, and maintenance, contact Torbjorn 

Boivie, SNRA, or Lars Soder, City of Stockholm. See Appendix C for contact 

information. 
ENDNOTES 

13. For more information on the use of handheld transponders, contact Mats Fager, 

City of Stockholm. See AppendixC for contact information. 

14. For more information about the public safety messages, contact Jeroen Kempen, 

3VO. See Appendix C for contact information. 

15. For more information about speed tables, contact Bertus Fortijn, Province ZuidHolland. See Appendix C for contact information. 

16. This has been proposed by Bo Boormans from DTV. See Appendix C for contact 

information. 

17. These studies include the following: (1) A. Hooke, J. Knox, and D. Portas, 1996, 

"Cost Benefit Analysis of Traffic Lights and Speed Cameras," Police Research 

Series Paper 20, Police Research Group, Home Office, London, UK. (2) D.J. 

Finch, P. Kompfner, C.R. Lockwood, and G. Maycock, 1994, "Speed, Speed Limits 

and Accidents," Project Report 58, Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), 

Crowthorne, UK. (3) M.C. Taylor, D.A. Lynam, and A. Baruya, 2000, "The Effects 

of Drivers' Speed on the Frequency of Road Accidents," Report 421, TRL, 

Crowthorne, UK. 

18. For a copy of the report, contact David Williams, Department of Transport. See 

Appendix C for contact information. 

19. For more information about the MAAP, contact J. R. Peirce, TRL. See Appendix 

C for contact information. 

20. For more information about MATRIX, contact Torbj6rn Boivie, SNRA. See Appendix C for contact information. 

21. For more information about SuperLHOVRA, contact Alf Peterson, SNRA. See 

Appendix C for contact information. 

22. For more information, see www.swov.nl. 

23. For more information about the program, contact Meine van Essen, Openbaar 

Ministerie. See Appendix C for contact information. 

24. For more information, contact Hillie Talens, CROW. See Appendix C for contact 

information. 

25. For more information, contact Frans Middelham, AW. See Appendix C for 

contact information. 

105 




Office of International Programs 

FHWA/US DOT (HPIP) 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Tel: 202-366-9636 

Fax: 202-366-9626 

international@fhwa.dot.gov 

www.international,fhwa.dot.gov 

Publication No. FHWA-PL-04-004 

HPIP/09-03(SM1EW