TECHBRIEF TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE OF 

THREE TYPICAL DESIGNS OF 

NEW JERSEY JUGHANDLE 

INTERSECTIONS 

Publication No.: FHWA-HRT-07-032 

FHWA Contact: Joe Bared, HRDS-05, 202–493–3314, or 

Wei Zhang, HRDS-05, 202–493–3317 

Objective 

Although New Jersey jughandle intersections (NJJIs) have 

been around for over five decades, researchers have not yet 

developed a simplified procedure to evaluate their traffic 

performance and compare them with conventional at-grade 

intersections. A limited number of studies have reported 

qualitative and quantitative comparisons of NJJIs. There 

have been, however, no readily available tools for traffic 

engineers and planners to estimate average delays, 

average numbers of stops, and maximum queues. For this 

study, researchers used VISSIM simulations to model 

typical geometries over a wide distribution of traffic flow 

conditions for three NJJI design. Comparisons of NJJIs with 

conventional intersections for similar volume conditions 

revealed that NJJIs produced lower average intersection 

delays and higher intersection capacities for near-saturated 

traffic conditions and similar traffic performance for 

undersaturated conditions. Practitioners can use statistical 

models documented in this study to assess average 

intersection delays, average number of stops per vehicle, 

and maximum queue lengths for three types of NJJIs. 

Figure 1. Forward/reverse NJJI on Jackson 

Avenue in Pequannock Township, NJ (2).

Research, Development, and 

Technology 

Turner-Fairbank Highway 

Research Center 

6300 Georgetown Pike 

McLean, VA 22101-2296 

www.tfhrc.gov
2

Introduction 

High-volume intersections (especially during 

peak hours) pose a particularly difficult 

challenge to traffic engineers and planners 

interested in reducing delays and improving 

safety for motorists and pedestrians. The 

major side effects of traffic congestion 

include increased pollution, higher stress 

levels for drivers, and greater economic 

losses in terms of time wasted. To reduce 

congestion, delays, and crashes, 

researchers have suggested several 

innovative intersection designs for heavy 

traffic flow situations. These nontraditional 

intersection designs include the quadrant 

roadway intersection, median U turn, 

superstreet median, bowtie, jughandle, split 

intersection, and continuous flow 

intersection. 

The most significant benefit in the 

intersection performance for these heavy 

flow situations is achieved by reducing the 

number of phases in the signal cycle, 

although traffic diversion also may be 

employed. Reid and Hummer (1), 

comparing nontraditional intersections to 

conventional intersections, suggested that 

the jughandles do not perform better than 

the conventional designs in terms of 

average travel time based on model 

simulations of seven intersections under 

varying traffic conditions. The current study 

analyzes the performance of three NJJI 

design configurations compared to 

conventional intersections for a variety of 

traffic flows and signal settings. 

Comparisons of NJJIs with conventional 

intersections for similar volume conditions 

revealed that NJJIs produced lower average 

intersection delays and higher intersection 

capacities for saturated traffic conditions 

and similar traffic performance for 

undersaturated conditions. Jagannathan et 

al. (2) investigated the differences and 

similarities in safety performance of NJJIs 

versus conventional intersections for a 

limited sample set of 44 NJJIs and 50 

conventional intersections based on 

statistical analyses of intersection crash 

data. Results from raw data indicated that 

conventional intersections tended to have 

more head-on, left-turn, fatal plus injury, and 

property damage only accidents, and 

relatively fewer rear-end accidents than 

NJJIs. These observations were confirmed 

by negative binomial crash prediction 

models that were developed to account for 

the influence of other causal factors. The 

fatality plus injury crashes per million 

entering vehicles at NJJIs were 

approximately 26 percent lower than at 

comparable conventional intersections. 

Description of NJJIs 

The New Jersey Department of 

Transportation (NJDOT) design manual (3) 

defines a jughandle as an “at-grade ramp” 

provided at or between intersections to 

permit motorists to make indirect left turns 

and/or U turns. Around-the-block designs 

that use interconnecting local street patterns 

to accomplish indirect left turns or U turns 

are not considered jughandles. These 

ramps exit from the right lane of the 

highway either in advance of the 

intersection or beyond the intersection. This 

design, which eliminates all left turns from 

the major road at the intersection, provides 

greater safety and reduces delays to the 

through traffic that left-turning vehicles 

usually create. The rerouted left turns from 

the major road cross the major road as 

through traffic from the minor road. The 

intersection of the major road and minor 

road is signalized. Brief descriptions of the 

types of jughandle ramp are given below. 

Type A—Forward Ramps 

With forward ramps, all turning traffic (right 

and left) exit onto a jughandle ramp to the 

right, upstream of the intersection. Leftturning traffic is able to cross the 

intersection at the cross street. Drivers 

wishing to make a U turn on the mainline 

can exit onto the ramp and then turn left 

from the cross street. This eliminates leftturn movement on the mainline and 

improves traffic flow; however, it requires a 

large right-of-way for the ramps. Figure 2 is 
3

With reverse ramps, left-turning traffic uses 

the rightmost lane downstream of the 

intersection into a loop ramp. Right-turning 

traffic turns right at the intersection in a 

traditional manner, not onto the loop ramp 

beyond the intersection. More through 

capacity is needed at the intersection 

because left-turning traffic first travels 

through the intersection before turning right 

onto the jughandle ramp, but this relieves 

problems by eliminating left-turn phases and 

left-turn lanes for left-turning vehicles from 

the mainline. Figure 4 illustrates the NJDOT 

design guidelines for the “reverse” type NJJI 

ramp.

an illustration of NJDOT design guidelines 

for the “forward” type NJJI ramp. 

Type B—U-Turn Ramps 

With U-turn ramps, where there is no 

intersection, ramps along the mainline 

enable vehicles to make U turns safely. A 

traffic signal is usually present to stop the 

mainline traffic flow and allow U-turning 

drivers to complete their maneuvers. Figure 

3 illustrates the NJDOT design guidelines 

for the “U-turn” type NJJI ramp. 

Type C—Reverse Ramp 

Figure 2. NJDOT design guidelines for jughandle intersections with a “forward” type 

ramp (Source: NJDOT Design Manual). 
4

Figure 3. NJDOT design guidelines for jughandle intersections with a “U-turn” type ramp 

(Source: New Jersey DOT Design Manual). 

Figure 4. NJDOT design guidelines for jughandle intersections with a “reverse” ramp 

(Source: NJDOT Design Manual).
5

Analysis Methodology 

To study the traffic performance of the 

NJJIs in detail, researchers selected 

VISSIM as the traffic simulation tool based 

on its versatility in modeling nontraditional 

movements and treatments. In this study, 

the researchers analyzed three different 

geometric design configurations for NJJIs 

and compared them to conventional 

intersections. Comparison intersections are 

conventional designs with similar 

characteristics with respect to number and 

width of approach lanes and traffic volumes. 

The NJJI is a nontraditional intersection and 

has noticeable differences with respect to 

traffic operation compared to conventional 

intersections. Left-turning traffic on the 

major road of a NJJI uses the ramp, 

because the left-turn movements from the 

major road are not permitted at the 

intersection. 

The six primary factors that influence the 

capacity of NJJIs to accommodate what 

would have been left-turning vehicles from 

the major road are: 

• The length of the storage capacity 

on the minor road in terms of the distance 

between the intersection and the terminus 

of the jughandle ramp on the minor road. 

• Relative proportions of through and 

right-turning vehicles on the major road. 

• The volume of traffic on the minor 

road approaching the intersection, which 

affects the gaps available for left-turning 

vehicles from the major road ramp. 

• Right-turning traffic from the major 

road may be in the same queue at the minor 

road as is left-turning traffic from the major 

road (not applicable for reverse jughandle 

ramps). 

• Approach characteristics on the 

minor road, specifically, lane geometry and 

the posted speed limit. 

• Sight distance available at the 

terminus of the jughandle ramp. 

The NJJI can operate with at least one less 

signal phase compared to a conventional 

signal-controlled intersection with one or 

more left-turn phases. Therefore, lower 

average traffic delays at signalized 

intersections are expected for NJJIs 

compared to conventional intersections. 

Increased travel times and concomitant 

delays for the left-turning vehicles from the 

major road are expected for NJJIs 

compared to conventional intersections. The 

researchers conducted microscopic traffic 

simulations to identify situations where 

NJJIs perform better than conventional 

intersections. The signal controller used in 

the modeling was an actuated controller 

operating in a “free” (noncoordinated) 

manner. The researchers calculated the 

amber and all-red intervals using the 

standard Institute of Transportation 

Engineers formula. The traffic composition 

was the default option in VISSIM—2 percent 

trucks. Driver behavior was based on the 

Wiedemann model used in VISSIM. The 

study team used VISSIM defaults for all 

other network parameters. Average speeds 

were 72 kilometers per hour (kph) (45 miles 

per hour (mph)) on the roads, 48 kph (30 

mph) on the jughandle ramp, and 28 kph 

(15 mph) for vehicles when they executed 

turns. 

Cases Modeled 

The researchers modeled the following 

three cases: 

• Case A, which included a fourlegged intersection with two forward 

jughandle ramps on the major road. 

• Case B, which included a fourlegged intersection with two reverse 

jughandle ramps on the major road. 

• Case C, which included a fourlegged intersection with a forward jughandle 

ramp in one direction and a reverse 

jughandle ramp in the opposite direction on 

the major road. 

The common elements for the three 

geometric design configurations were: 
6

• The jughandle ramp has only one 

lane. The forward jughandle ramp terminus 

widens to permit two lanes at its intersection 

with the crossroad. 

• The jughandle ramps feature yield 

control for right-turning vehicles and stopcontrol for left-turning vehicles at the 

location where the jughandle intersects the 

crossroad. 

• There were two cases of lane 

geometry and corresponding signal control 

strategy modeled for each NJJI design 

configuration. For each direction, the first 

simulation case had two through lanes on 

the major road, one shared through plus left 

lane, and one shared through plus right lane 

on the minor road with nondirectional split, 

permissive left turn phasing. The second 

simulation case had, for each direction, two 

through lanes and one left-turn lane on the 

major road, and one shared through plus 

right lane on the minor road with 

protected/permitted left-turn phasing on the 

minor road. 

• For each NJJI geometric design 

configuration, researchers simulated 1,300 

randomly computer-generated traffic flow 

sets, which varied in terms of traffic flows, 

such as low, moderate, or high flows, and 

directional splits, such as balanced and 

unbalanced splits. 

• Researchers evaluated 18 

comparable conventional intersections, 

including running simulations for each 

conventional comparison site, using a total 

of three different sets of traffic flows. 

• Researchers used SynchroTM to 

optimize signal time settings for free 

operation, or maximum green, for each NJJI 

and conventional intersection. 

For left-turning traffic from the major roads, 

the range was between 25 and 350 vph. For 

the through traffic on the major roads, the 

range was 100 to 2,500 vph in one 

direction. For right-turning traffic on the 

major roads, the range was 25 to 350 vph in 

one direction. For left-turning traffic on the 

minor roads, the range was 5 to 75 vph in 

one direction. For the through traffic on the 

minor roads, the range was 25 to 150 vph in 

one direction. For right-turning traffic on the 

minor roads, the range was 25 to 150 vph in 

one direction. Maximum green times were 

100 seconds and 50 seconds for phases 2 

plus 6 and 3 plus 4, respectively, which 

were the phases serving the major roads 

and minor road movements. If all approach 

phases went to maximums, then the cycle 

length would be 162 seconds. The 

alternative signalization scheme had 

maximum green times of 70 seconds, 35 

seconds, and 25 seconds for phases 2 plus 

6, 4 plus 8, and 3 plus 7, respectively. The 

yellow times and all-red times for all phases 

were 4 and 2 seconds, respectively, for two 

sets. The median between the through 

lanes for the opposing directions of travel 

was assumed to be 3 meters (m) (10 feet 

(ft)) wide. 

Case A 

The intersection model has two through 

lanes per direction and one forward 

jughandle ramp per approach for the two 

major road approaches, as shown in figure 

5. The researchers used three sets of 

geometric scenarios, which differed in terms 

of the distance from the centerline of the 

intersection to the location where the 

jughandle ramp intersects the road. 

Case B 

The intersection model has two through 

lanes per direction and one reverse 

jughandle ramp per approach for the two 

major road approaches, as shown in figure 

6. As with case A, centerline distances of 

the intersection to the location where the 

jughandle ramp intersects the road were 

varied to create three different geometric 

scenarios. The right-turning vehicles on the 

major road turn right at the intersection, 

using the auxiliary ramp lane for the reverse 

jughandle traffic. 

Case C 

The intersection model has two through 

lanes per direction, a reverse jughandle 

ramp on one approach, and a forward 

jughandle ramp on the other approach for 

the two major road approaches, as shown in 

figure 7. As with the other cases, centerline 
7

distances of the intersection to the location 

where the jughandle ramp intersects the 

road were varied to create three geometric 

scenarios. 

Figure 5. Typical geometry of the jughandle intersection featured in case A. 

Figure 6. Typical geometry of the jughandle intersection featured in case B. 
8

Figure 7. Typical geometry of the jughandle intersection featured in case C. 

Researchers simulated each variation of the 

NJJI using preestablished intersection 

traffic-flow conditions. This was done using 

a specialized program to extract specific 

parameters from each of the output files 

generated by VISSIM. The researchers also 

used the list of files utilized as input for 

VISSIM for the data extraction tool. The 

program processed each VISSIM output file 

and produced a list with the following 

variables: 

Discussion of Traffic 

Simulation Results 

The “forward/forward” (F/F) NJJI, “forward/ 

reverse” (F/R), and “reverse/reverse” (R/R) 

NJJI configurations had similar performance 

compared to the conventional intersections 

for low and medium traffic conditions. For 

high entering traffic volumes, the F/F NJJI, 

F/R NJJI, and R/R NJJI configurations 

reported lower average intersection delays 

in the ranges of 15 to 35 percent, 20 to 40 

percent, and 25 to 40 percent, respectively, 

in comparison to conventional intersections. 

The maximum intersection capacity of the 

F/F NJJI, F/R NJJI, and R/R NJJI 

configurations were higher than 

conventional intersections. The differences 

were in the ranges of 20 to 25 percent, 25 to 

30 percent, and 25 to 40 percent, 

respectively. 

• Average control delay = 

deceleration, acceleration, move-up, and 

stop delay (second/vehicle). 

• Maximum queue length = maximum 

queue length in the network (feet). 

• Average number of stops = average 

number of stops per vehicle (stops per 

vehicle). 

These output parameters provided the basis 

for statistical analysis and subsequent 

predictive model development. 

The travel times for the conventional 

intersection were lower by 10 to 15 percent 

when compared to the F/F NJJI, F/R NJJI, 

and R/R NJJI configurations for low and 

medium entering volumes. However, the 

travel times for the conventional 

intersections were higher than the F/F NJJI, 
9

F/R NJJI, and R/R NJJI configurations for 

peak traffic flows. The NJJIs always had a 

higher number of stops per vehicle 

compared to conventional intersections, 

except during saturated traffic conditions 

where the NJJIs performed better than 

conventional intersections. 

The capacity of the NJJI decreases as the 

ramp offsets decrease. Reducing the minor 

road offsets and major road offsets from 

137 meters to 70 meters (450 ft to 230 ft) 

resulted in a reduction in the left-turn 

capacity on the major road approach by 

approximately 30 percent. The alternative 

signal phasing with protected left-turn 

phasing on the minor approach reduced the 

major road capacity by 20 percent, 

increasing the minor road capacity by 30 

percent and resulting in a net 10 percent 

decrease in the total serviced flow for all the 

NJJI configurations. 

The typical R/R NJJI, F/R NJJI, and F/F 

NJJI used in the study have maximum 

intersection capacities of 5,500 entering 

vph, 5,300 entering vph, and 5,150 entering 

vph, respectively. The changing of the leftturn maneuver (forward jughandle ramp) to 

a right-turn maneuver (reverse jughandle 

ramp) yields a 5 to 15 percent increase in 

intersection capacity based on the 

distribution of turning movement 

percentages on all of the intersection 

approaches. 

Simulation cases with three through lanes 

per approach on the major road, 

proportional increases in entering volumes 

for NJJIs, and conventional intersections 

resulted in very similar traffic performance 

as in cases with two lanes per approach on 

the major road. 

Estimating Measures of 

Effectiveness for NJJIs 

The researchers developed statistical 

models that estimated three variables of 

interest commonly used by practitioners in 

assessing intersection traffic performance. 

They developed the models using the 

nonlinear regression technique readily 

available in the SAS® software to express 

an exponential form. After several trials and 

iterations of different variables and model 

forms, the researchers developed the 

coefficients of the variables, which are given 

in table 1 for predicting average control 

delay (CD), in seconds per vehicle, average 

number of stops (ST), in stops per vehicle, 

and maximum queue (MQ) in feet. The 

section called “Cases Modeled” provides 

traffic flow ranges for the statistical models. 

All variables are significant beyond the 95 

percent confidence level. Goodness-of-fit 

measures (in terms of the conventional Rsquared statistic) are strong for all models. 

Although the regression is based on a 

nonlinear model, the R-squared statistic is 

acceptable, according to Kvalseth (4), when 

very few outliers are present. 

CD = EXPO [a0 + (a1 * XL1C1/10000 + a2 * 

XL2C2/10000 + a3 * XMNVOL/10000 + a4 * 

XMJVOL/10000 + a5 * XFWDREV + a6 * 

XREV + a7 * XSIG + a8 * XOFFTYPE)] 

MQ = EXPO [b0 + (b1 * XL1C1/10000 + b2 

* XL2C2/10000 + b3 * XMNVOL/10000 + b4 

* XMJVOL/10000 + b5 * XREV + b6 * XSIG 

+ b7 * XOFFTYPE)] 

ST = EXPO [c0 + (c1 * XL1C1/10000 + c2 * 

XL2C2/10000 + c3 * XMNVOL/10000 + c4 * 

XMJVOL/10000 + c5 * XFWDREV + c6 * 

XREV + c7 * XOFFTYPE)] 

Where: 

a, b, and c are regression coefficients with 

corresponding measures of significance, 

model goodness of fit (table 1). 

XL1C1 = cross product of major left turn 

volume (vph) from the southern approach 

with the total minor road approach volume 

(vph) on the eastern approach(vph). 

XL2C2 = cross product of major left-turn 

volume (vph) from the northern approach 

with the total minor road approach volume 

(vph) on the western approach(vph). 

XMNVOL = sum of the minor road volumes 

(vph) on the eastern and western 

approaches. 
10

XMJVOL = sum of the major road volumes 

(vph) on the northern and southern 

approaches. 

XFWDREV = 1 if F/R type jughandle, else 

0. 

XREV = 1 if R/R type jughandle, else 0. 

XOFFTYPE = 1 if minor road ramp offset 

less than 275ft , else 0. 

XSIG = 1 if non-protected left-turn phasing 

on side street, else 0. 

EXPO (exponential) = e = 2.716828 

Table 1. Model statistics for jughandle intersections. 

CD coeff. ST coeff. MQ coeff. 

Variable 

(standard error) (standard error) (standard error) 

1.534 1.4077 4.3299 Intercept 

(0.0273 ) ( 0.0266) (0.0226) 

XL1C1 0.0166 2.5567 0.00606 

(0.00140) (0.0889) (0.00154) 

XL2C2 0.0142 2.5601 0.0117 

(0.00262) (0.0898) (0.00255) 

XMNVOL 5.5875 3.626 3.6326 

(0.4766) (0.3513) (0.4516) 

XMJVOL 5.0754 5.1424 2.2749 

(0.0872) (0.5231) (0.0817) 

XFWDREV -0.1196 -0.1149 

(-0.0138) (-0.0143) 

XREV -0.1122 -0.1283 -0.0252 

(-0.0138) (0.0114) (0.00906) 

XSIG -0.1099 -0.0242 

(0.00894) (0.00858) 

XOFFTYPE 0.2417 0.2364 0.1517 

(0.0114) (0.0118) (0.0104) 

R2 0.87 0.85 0.84 
11

Conclusions 

Although the results and conclusions apply 

specifically to the selected geometric 

dimensions and traffic characteristics in 

cases A, B, and C, generalizations can be 

made for NJJIs as an intersection type. The 

five main points are: 

• NJJIs have lower average 

intersection delays compared to 

conventional intersections for nearsaturated traffic conditions. The magnitude 

of difference ranges from 15 to 35 percent 

for F/F NJJIs, from 20 to 40 percent for F/R 

NJJIs, and from 25 to 40 percent for R/R 

NJJIs. However, the NJJIs had similar traffic 

performance compared to conventional 

intersections for undersaturated traffic 

conditions. 

• The F/F, F/R, and R/R NJJIs have 

higher intersection capacities compared to 

conventional intersections for saturated 

traffic conditions. The magnitude of the 

difference ranges were 20 to 25 percent, 25 

to 30 percent, and 25 to 40 percent for the 

F/F, F/R, and R/R NJJIs respectively. 

• The R/R NJJIs had the highest 

intersection capacity, followed by the F/R 

NJJIs and the F/F NJJIs. The changing of 

the left-turn gap acceptance maneuver 

(forward jughandle ramp) to a right-turn 

merge maneuver (reverse jughandle ramp) 

yields a 5 to 15 percent increase in 

intersection capacity based on the 

distribution of turning movement 

percentages on all approaches. 

• The travel times and number of 

stops per vehicle for NJJIs are lower 

compared to conventional intersections only 

for near-saturated traffic conditions. For 

other traffic scenarios, NJJIs are 

comparable or have slightly higher travel 

times and stops compared to conventional 

intersections. 

• The vehicular capacity of left-turn 

volumes on the major road of the NJJI 

decreases as the ramp offsets decrease, 

such that reduction in the minor road offsets 

and major road offsets from 137 m to 70 m 

(450 ft to 230 ft) reduces the left-turn 

capacity on the major road approach by 

approximately 30 percent. 

Additional Information 

For additional information, contact Joe 

Bared or Wei Zhang, Office of Safety R&D, 

6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101-

2296; tel. nos.: 202–493–3314, 202–493–

3317. 

References 

1. Reid, J. D., and Hummer, J. E., Travel 

Time Comparisons Between Seven 

Unconventional Arterial Intersection 

Designs. Transportation Research Record, 

1751 (2001). 

2. Jagannathan, R., Gimbel, M., Bared, J., 

Hughes, W., Persaud, B., and Lyon, C., 

Safety Comparison of New Jersey 

Jughandles and Conventional Intersections, 

TRB Annual Conference Proceedings 

(2006). 

3. New Jersey Department of 

Transportation, Roadway Design Manual, 

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/do

cuments/RDME/sect6E2001.shtm 

(accessed March 2007). 

4. Kvalseth, T. O., Cautionary Note About 

R2. The American Statistician, Vol. 39 No. 4 

(Pt. 1) (1985). 
12

Researchers—This synthesis was performed by Ramanujan (Ram) Jagannathan, 

of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. It has been peer reviewed by Arthur Eisdorfer, 

retired Manager of Civil Engineering, NJDOT. For more information about this 

research, contact Joe Bared, FHWA Project Manager, HRDS, (202)-493-3314, 

joe.bared@fhwa.dot.gov. 

Distribution—This TechBrief is being distributed according to a standard 

distribution. Direct distribution is being made to the Divisions and Resource Centers. 

Availability—This document can be obtained from the FHWA Product Distribution 

Center by e-mail to report.center@fhwa.dot.gov, by fax to 301–577–1421, by phone 

to 301–577–0818, or online at www.tfhrc.gov/safety/intersect.htm. 

Key Words—New Jersey jughandle; traffic operation; safety; traffic modeling 

Notice—This TechBrief is disseminated under sponsorship of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The TechBrief provides a 

synopsis of the study’s final publication. The TechBrief does not establish policies or 

regulations, nor does it imply FHWA endorsement of the conclusions or 

recommendations. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or 

their use. 

Quality Assurance Statement—The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a 

manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to 

ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. 

FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement.