Objective

Today’s transportation professionals, with limited resources available to them, are challenged 

to meet the mobility needs of an increasing population. At many highway junctions, congestion 

continues to worsen, and drivers, pedestrians, and 

bicyclists experience increasing delays and heightened exposure to risk. Today’s traffic volumes and 

travel demands often lead to safety problems that 

are too complex for conventional junction designs 

to properly handle. Consequently, more engineers 

are considering various innovative treatments as 

they seek solutions to these complex problems. 

The corresponding report, Alternative Intersections/

Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR) (FHWAHRT-09-060), covers four intersection designs and 

two interchange designs. These designs offer 

substantial advantages over conventional atgrade intersections and grade-separated diamond 

interchanges. The AIIR provides information on 

each alternative treatment and covers salient 

geometric design features, operational and safety 

issues, access management, costs, construction sequencing, and applicability. This TechBrief 

summarizes information on one alternative intersection design—the restricted crossing U-turn 

(RCUT) intersection (see figure 1).

Research, Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101-2296

TECHBRIEF

FHWA Publication No.: FHWA-HRT-09-059

FHWA Contact: Joe Bared, HRDS-05, (202) 493-3314, joe.bared@dot.gov

This document is a technical summary of the Federal Highway Administration 

report, Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Information Report (AIIR)

(FHWA-HRT-09-060).

Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection

Figure 1. RCUT intersection in Troy, MI.

www.tfhrc.gov
2

Introduction

The RCUT, also referred to as the superstreet 

intersection or J-turn intersection, is characterized 

by the prohibition of left-turn and through movements from side street approaches as permitted 

in conventional designs. Instead, the RCUT intersection accommodates these movements by requiring drivers to turn right onto the main road and 

then make a U-turn maneuver at a one-way median 

opening 400 to 1,000 ft after the intersection. Left 

turns from the main road approaches are executed 

in a manner similar to left turns at conventional 

intersections and are unchanged in this design 

(see figure 2). Left-turn movements from the major 

road could also be removed at primarily rural 

unsignalized RCUT designs.

RCUT intersections have been constructed in 

several States following the introduction of the 

concept in the early 1980s.(1) An RCUT at a location 

in Michigan is shown in figure 1. Other installations 

include three unsignalized RCUT intersections on 

U.S. Route 301 on Maryland’s Eastern Shore and 

two on U.S. Route 15 in Emmitsburg, MD. One 

of the Emmitsburg, MD, installations is shown in 

figure 3. RCUT intersections have also been recently installed at several locations in North Carolina, 

including a 2.5-mi stretch of U.S. Route 23/74 in 

Haywood County, where three RCUT intersections 

were installed. Five RCUTs were also installed on 

Route 1 in Lee and Moore Counties, and three were 

installed on a signalized corridor of U.S. Route 17 

in Brunswick County.

Geometric Design

Geometric aspects of RCUT intersections can 

vary, but a typical design is shown in figure 2 and 

discussed as follows:

•	 The RCUT intersection has either no median 

openings at the intersection or has only oneway median openings for the exclusive use 

of left-turning traffic from the main road.

•	 Desirable minimum median widths between 

40 and 60 ft are typically needed to accommodate large trucks so that they do not encroach 

on curbs or shoulders. RCUT intersections 

with narrower medians need bulb-outs or 

loons at U-turn crossovers (see figure 4).

•	 The spacing from the main intersection 

to the U-turn crossover varies in practice. 

The American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials recommends 

spacing of 400 to 600 ft based on signal 

timing.(2) The Michigan Department of Transportation recommends 660 ft ±100 ft, and 

the North Carolina Department Transportation 

standard minimum spacing between main 

intersections and crossovers is 800 ft.

•	 Driveways should not be allowed near the 

main intersection or on the opposite side of 

Figure 2.Typical RCUT plan view with crossovers on 

mainline approaches.

Figure 3. U.S. Route 15 RCUT intersection in 

Emmitsburg, MD.

150’ 200’

First St

425’

58’

Main Rd (U.S. 301)

R 140’ R 140

R 110’

R 150’

R 70’

10’

4’
3

the arterial from the median U-turn (MUT) to 

reduce the chance of wrong-way movements 

in the crossover.

•	 Pedestrian crossings of the major road at the 

RCUT intersection are usually accommodated 

on one diagonal path from one corner to the 

opposite corner (see figure 5).

Traffic Signal Control

One typical design (as in figure 2) of an RCUT 

intersection may have three distinct intersections 

operating under traffic signal control with just 

two phases and relatively short cycles. Signal 

warrants provided in the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provide key guidance on the justification for signal control at the 

locations where U-turns are made.(3) One theoretical benefit of the RCUT intersection is that signal 

controllers for one direction of the arterial could 

be operated independently of the signal controllers 

for the opposite direction of the arterial. It is also 

feasible to use one controller for the three signal 

locations.

Operational Performance

The traffic simulation software VISSIM was used 

to compare the operational performance of RCUTs 

to conventional intersections. Five RCUT designs 

were modeled for three traffic scenarios and 

compared to conventional intersections. For the 

case where the minor flow was less than 0.2 of 

the total flow, simulation results indicated the 

following:

•	 Up to a 30-percent increase in throughput

(i.e., the number of vehicles exiting the 

intersection).

•	 Up to a 40-percent reduction in network intersection travel time. 

Safety Performance

RCUT intersections have 18 conflict points compared to 32 at conventional intersections. The 

RCUT intersection appears to offer substantial 

safety advantages over conventional intersections. 

For example, for the RCUT intersections on the 

U.S. Route 23/74 corridor in North Carolina, there 

was a 17-percent decrease in total crashes, a 

31-percent decrease in total crash rate, a 41-percent 

decrease in fatal/injury crashes, and a 51-percent 

decrease in fatal injury crash rate. Higher reductions were observed for the three unsignalized 

RCUTs that replaced conventional intersections 

on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. For the 

U.S. Route 17 corridor in North Carolina, total crash 

rates were found to be lower than the 10-year average for 25 signalized conventional intersections 

in Charlotte, NC, with comparable annual average 

daily traffic.

Figure 5. Pedestrian movements in an RCUT 

intersection.

Figure 4. Movement in a loon at a crossover that 

features two U-turn lanes.

Tracking Vehicle

(WB-62)

R 70’

R 150’
4

Researchers—This study was performed by Principal Investigators Warren Hughes and Ram Jagannathan. For 

more information about this research, contact Joe Bared, FHWA Project Manager, HRDS-05 at (202) 493-3314, 

joe.bared@dot.gov. 

Distribution—This TechBrief is being distributed according to a standard distribution. Direct distribution is being 

made to the Divisions and Resource Center.

Availability—This TechBrief may be obtained from the FHWA Product Distribution Center by e-mail to 

report.center@dot.gov, fax to (814) 239-2156, phone to (814) 239-1160, or online at http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety.

Key Words—Superstreet, Alternative intersection, Restricted crossing U-turn, and RCUT.

Notice—This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the 

interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained 

in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ 

names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement—The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to 

serve the Government, industry, and public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies 

are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically 

reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

october 2009 FHWA-HRT-09-059

HRDS-05/10-09(3M)E

Applicability

RCUT intersections are typically implemented as 

part of a corridor treatment; however, they can 

be used at isolated intersections. Unsignalized 

RCUT intersections preserve corridor capacity 

and can be installed without the adverse effects 

of signal control. Scenarios where RCUT intersections are most applicable include the following: 

•	 Relatively low to medium side-street through 

volumes and heavy left-turn volumes from the 

major road.

•	 The minor road total volume to total intersection volume ratio is typically less than or 

equal to 0.20.

•	 Areas where median widths are greater 

than 40 ft. For narrower medians, loons on 

the shoulders need to be constructed. 

•	 For intersections with very high left-turn 

and through volumes from the side road 

approaches, RCUT intersection design is not 

the optimum choice. Refer to the AIIR for 

other alternative treatments. 

Summary

RCUT intersections reroute minor street left-turn 

and through movements to an MUT crossover 

and thereby provide major advantages, including 

reduced delay and congestion for through traffic 

on the major road and reduced opportunities for 

crashes compared to conventional designs. More 

details on the RCUT intersection can be found in 

the full AIIR available from the Federal Highway 

Administration.

References

1. Kramer, R.P. (1987). “New Combinations of 

Old Techniques to Rejuvenate Jammed 

Suburban Arterials, Strategies to Alleviate 

Traffic Congestion,” Conference Proceedings, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 

139–148, Washington, DC.

2. American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials. (2004). A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 

Washington, DC.

3. Federal Highway Administration. (2003). The 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD), Washington, DC.