MEDIAN U-TURN

INTERSECTION

Informational Guide

August 2014 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

FOREWORD

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative is designed to 

identify and deploy innovation aimed at reducing project delivery time, enhancing safety and 

protecting the environment. In 2012, FHWA chose Intersection & Interchange Geometrics (IIG) 

to feature as one of the innovative technologies in EDC-2. Specifically, IIG consists of a family 

of alternative intersection designs that improve intersection safety while also reducing delay, and 

at lower cost and with fewer impacts than comparable traditional solutions. 

As part of the effort to mainstream these intersections, FHWA has produced a series of guides to 

help transportation professionals routinely consider and implement these designs. Concurrent 

with this Median U-turn (MUT) Informational Guide, FHWA developed and published guides 

for three other designs: Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT), Displaced Left Turn (DLT), and 

Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI). These guides represent summaries of the current state of 

knowledge and practice, and are intended to inform project planning, scoping, design and 

implementation decisions.

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

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/. Additionally, limited quantities of hard copies are available from the 

Report Center; inquiries may be directed to report.center@dot.gov or 814-239-1160. 

Michael S. Griffith

Director

Office of Safety Technologies

Notice

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

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

the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, 

specification, or regulation. 

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

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement

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

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

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

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

ensure continuous quality improvement.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

i 

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-14-069

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Median U-Turn Informational Guide

5. Report Date

August 2014

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Authors

Jonathan Reid, Larry Sutherland, Parsons-Brinckerhoff; Brian Ray, Andy 

Daleiden, Pete Jenior, Julia Knudsen, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

8. Performing Organization Report No.

Project 13517

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700 

Portland, OR 97205

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

TO DTFH61-00023-T-13002

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period 

Technical Report

Informational Report

September 2013 to August 2014

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA

15. Supplementary Notes

Jeffrey Shaw (jeffrey.shaw@dot.gov), Office of Safety Technologies (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/), served as the Technical

Manager for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The following FHWA staff contributed as technical working group 

members, reviewers and/or provided input or feedback to the project at various stages: Joe Bared, Mark Doctor, Brian Fouch, 

Elizabeth Hilton, Jim McCarthy, George Merritt, Will Stein, Jim Sturrock and Wei Zhang.

16. Abstract

This document provides information and guidance on Median U-Turn (MUT) intersections, resulting in designs suitable for a 

variety of typical conditions commonly found in the United States. To the extent possible, the guide provides information on the 

wide array of potential users as it relates to the intersection form. This guide provides general information, planning techniques, 

evaluation procedures for assessing safety and operational performance, design guidelines, and principles to be considered for 

selecting and designing MUT intersections.

17. Key Words

MUT, Median U-Turn, Indirect Left, Michigan Left, Alternative intersections, 

Alternative interchanges, Innovative Intersections

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

148

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

ii

Sl* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO Sl UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 

(!' square feet 0.093 square meters m2 

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2 

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha 

mi

2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 

VOLUME 

floz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters ml 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft' cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m' 

yd' cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m' 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m' 

MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g 

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg 

T short tons (2000 I b) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg(or"r') 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) OF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oc or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx 

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM Sl UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac 

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME ml millilrters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L lrters 0.264 gallons gal 

m' cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft' 

m' cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd' 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz 

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb 

Mg (or''f') megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 shorttons(20001b) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oc Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit OF 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl 

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbffln2 

·s 1 is the symbol for the International System of n~s. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply w~ Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003) 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS AND INTERCHANGES ................... 1

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS ......................... 1

ORGANIZATION OF THE GUIDELINES .............................................................................. 2

SCOPE OF THE GUIDE ............................................................................................................ 3

MUT INTERSECTION OVERVIEW ........................................................................................ 3

APPLICATION .......................................................................................................................... 7

RESOURCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 2— POLICY AND PLANNING ........................................................................... 15

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS AND 

INTERCHANGES .................................................................................................................... 15

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH ............................................................................................... 18

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................ 21

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 21

PLANNING CHALLENGES ................................................................................................... 22

PROJECT PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................... 23

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ................................................................................. 24

SUMMARY OF MUT ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES ..................................... 26

CHAPTER 3— MULTIMODAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... 28

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH ............................................................................ 29

PEDESTRIANS ........................................................................................................................ 29

BICYCLISTS ............................................................................................................................ 34

TRANSIT VEHICLE CONSIDERATION .............................................................................. 36

HEAVY VEHICLE CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................... 38

CHAPTER 4— SAFETY ........................................................................................................... 39

SAFETY PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................ 39

OBSERVED SAFETY PERFORMANCE ............................................................................... 41

SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................ 43

INCIDENT RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................... 46

SAFETY EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................... 47

CHAPTER 5— OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................... 49

OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................... 49

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................... 55

COMPARATIVE LITERATURE AND PERFORMANCE STUDIES .................................. 56
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

iv

CHAPTER 6— OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 59

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS TOOL OVERVIEW ................................................................ 60

PLANNING-LEVEL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 61

HIGHWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS (HCM) ANALYSIS .................................................... 63

MICROSIMULATION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 67

CHAPTER 7— GEOMETRIC DESIGN ................................................................................. 69

DESIGN APPROACH.............................................................................................................. 69

GEOMETRIC DESIGN PARAMETERS/PRINCIPLES......................................................... 71

RANGE OF MUT CONFIGURATIONS ................................................................................. 71

OPERATIONAL EFFECTS OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN ....................................................... 76

DESIGN GUIDANCE .............................................................................................................. 78

CHAPTER 8— SIGNAL, MARKING, SIGNING, AND LIGHTING CONSIDERATIONS

....................................................................................................................................................... 91

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH ............................................................................ 91

SIGNALIZED VERSUS UNSIGNALIZED U-TURN CROSSOVERS ................................. 91

SIGNALS .................................................................................................................................. 92

SIGNING .................................................................................................................................. 96

PAVEMENT MARKING ......................................................................................................... 99

LIGHTING ............................................................................................................................. 100

CHAPTER 9— CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ............................................... 103

CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................. 103

COSTS .................................................................................................................................... 105

MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................... 106

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 108

Appendix A CATALOG OF ALL KNOWN INSTALLATIONS IN THE UNITED 

STATES ............................................................................................................ 111

Appendix B SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY DETAILS .............. 125

Appendix C MARKETING AND OUTREACH MATERIALS ...................................... 127

Appendix D SUPPLEMENTAL CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN DETAILS ............ 137
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

v 

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1-1. Example of a MUT intersection.................................................................................. 4

Exhibit 1-2. Example of a MUT intersection with one signal in main intersection. ...................... 5

Exhibit 1-3. Added stop-controlled U-turn crossover near intersection.(1) ..................................... 6

Exhibit 1-4. U-turn crossover on minor street.(1) ............................................................................ 6

Exhibit 1-5. Use of loons to reduce median width.(2) ..................................................................... 6

Exhibit 1-6. U-turn crossovers on both streets.(1) ........................................................................... 7

Exhibit 1-7. Locations of MUT intersections. ................................................................................ 8

Exhibit 1-8. Example of a U-Turn crossover intersection in Draper, Utah.(3) ................................ 8

Exhibit 1-9. View of upstream traffic approaching a MUT intersection in Draper, Utah.(3) .......... 9

Exhibit 1-10. Advance signing at a MUT intersection in Draper, Utah.(3) ..................................... 9

Exhibit 1-11. Example of a bicycle traveling through a MUT intersection in Draper, Utah.(3) ... 10

Exhibit 1-12. Pedestrian crossings at MUT main crossing intersection in Troy, Michigan.(2) ..... 10

Exhibit 1-13. MUT crossover intersection in Southfield, Michigan.(4) ........................................ 11

Exhibit 1-14. MUT crossover with direct access to adjacent land use in Southfield, Michigan.(2)

....................................................................................................................................................... 11

Exhibit 1-15. MUT intersection pedestrian connection and median landscaping in Birmingham, 

Michigan.(2) ................................................................................................................................... 12

Exhibit 1-16. MUT intersection with water retention ponds in median in New Orleans, 

Louisiana.(2) ................................................................................................................................... 12

Exhibit 1-17. MUT intersection with development in wide median in Silver Spring, Maryland.(2)

....................................................................................................................................................... 13

Exhibit 2-1. Relationship between traffic volume served and intersection type. ......................... 17

Exhibit 2-2. MUT intersection information page from UDOT.(16) ............................................... 18

Exhibit 2-3. Thru-Turn Intersection video used by UDOT.(17) ..................................................... 19

Exhibit 2-4. Express left intersection graphic used by City of Tucson, AZ.(18) ............................ 20

Exhibit 2-5. Project development process.(22) ............................................................................... 24

Exhibit 2-6. Summary of MUT advantages and disadvantages. ................................................... 27

Exhibit 3-1. Pedestrian-vehicle conflict points at a conventional intersection. ............................ 30

Exhibit 3-2. Pedestrian-vehicle conflict points at MUT intersection. .......................................... 31

Exhibit 3-3. Comparison of major street walk phases at conventional and MUT intersections. .. 31

Exhibit 3-4. Single- versus two-stage pedestrian crossings. ......................................................... 32

Exhibit 3-5. Signalized mid-block crossing. ................................................................................. 33

Exhibit 3-6. Right-turn lane with bicycle lane. ............................................................................. 35

Exhibit 3-7. Left turn options for bicycles. ................................................................................... 36

Exhibit 3-8. Bus stop locations. .................................................................................................... 37

Exhibit 3-9. LRT or BRT accommodations in MUT corridor.(24) ................................................ 38

Exhibit 4-1. Conflict point comparison. ....................................................................................... 39

Exhibit 4-2. Vehicle-vehicle conflict points at conventional intersection. ................................... 40

Exhibit 4-3. Vehicle-vehicle conflict points at MUT intersection. ............................................... 40

Exhibit 4-4. Crash Rate comparison of MUT and conventional intersections.(11) ........................ 42

Exhibit 4-5. Forecast crashes for MUT and conventional intersections for a 5-year period.(11) ... 42

Exhibit 4-6. Example of U-turn/right-turn conflict.(1) .................................................................. 44

Exhibit 4-7. MUT crossover detail.(27) .......................................................................................... 44

Exhibit 4-8. MUT restrictive signing.(4) ........................................................................................ 45

Exhibit 4-9. Dual lane crossover design path overlap potential. .................................................. 46
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

vi 

Exhibit 5-1. Concurrent movements at a conventional intersection and at a MUT intersection. . 50

Exhibit 5-2. Typical MUT intersection signal locations. .............................................................. 51

Exhibit 5-3. Comparison of intersection cycle lengths and phasing.(4)......................................... 52

Exhibit 5-4. MUT signal phase timing. ........................................................................................ 53

Exhibit 5-5. MUT intersection vehicle paths options. .................................................................. 54

Exhibit 5-6. Divided highway level of service and throughput comparison.(12) ........................... 56

Exhibit 5-7. Summary of comparison literature and performance studies. .................................. 57

Exhibit 6-1. MUT analysis techniques. ......................................................................................... 61

Exhibit 6-2. CAP-X Planning Level Tool Screen Capture.(37)...................................................... 62

Exhibit 6-3. LOS criteria for signalized intersections (based on HCM Exhibit 18-5).(6) ............. 64

Exhibit 6-4. HCM methodology for MUT intersection evaluation (adapted from HCM Exhibit 

18-11).(6) ........................................................................................................................................ 65

Exhibit 6-5. Input data for HCM evaluation of MUT intersections (based on HCM Exhibit 18-

6).(6) ............................................................................................................................................... 66

Exhibit 7-1. MUT characteristics. ................................................................................................. 70

Exhibit 7-2. MUT intersection with one signal at the main intersection. ..................................... 70

Exhibit 7-3. MUT intersection design variations – stop control crossover near intersection. ...... 72

Exhibit 7-4. MUT intersection design variations – U-turn crossover on minor street. ................ 73

Exhibit 7-5. MUT intersection design variations – U-turn on both streets. .................................. 74

Exhibit 7-6. RCUT intersection. ................................................................................................... 75

Exhibit 7-7. MUT intersection with narrow median, Tucson, AZ.(1) ........................................... 76

Exhibit 7-8. Loon at U-turn crossover in Wilmington, NC.(9) ...................................................... 76

Exhibit 7-9. Bicycle box for left turn. ........................................................................................... 78

Exhibit 7-10. Typical right-turn lanes at MUT intersections.(10) .................................................. 79

Exhibit 7-11. Directional crossover design on highway.(27) ......................................................... 80

Exhibit 7-12. AASHTO- minimum median widths for U-Turn crossovers.(5) ............................. 82

Exhibit 7-13. Loon design serving a design vehicle.(27) ................................................................ 82

Exhibit 7-14. Footprint comparison of a MUT intersection versus a conventional intersection. . 84

Exhibit 7-15. Spacing consideration for a major street left turn movement. ................................ 86

Exhibit 7-16. Spacing consideration for minor street left turn movement. .................................. 87

Exhibit 7-17. Spacing consideration for a right turn. .................................................................... 88

Exhibit 8-1: Example of signalized (left) and unsignalized (right) U-turn crossover 

intersections.(4) .............................................................................................................................. 92

Exhibit 8-2. MUT intersection with multiple controllers. ............................................................ 93

Exhibit 8-3. MUT intersection with single controller. .................................................................. 94

Exhibit 8-4: Signal pole placement for the U-turn crossover. ...................................................... 95

Exhibit 8-5. Detector placements. ................................................................................................. 96

Exhibit 8-6. Example of MUT intersection signing plan. ............................................................. 98

Exhibit 8-7. Alternate crossover guide sign. ................................................................................. 98

Exhibit 8-8. Alternate major street advance guide sign. ............................................................... 99

Exhibit 8-9. Traditional fishhook (left), variation used in Michigan (center) and ThrU signage 

used in Utah (right). ...................................................................................................................... 99

Exhibit 8-10. Typical pavement marking at a directional crossover.(27) ..................................... 100

Exhibit 8-11. Pavement markings at a directional crossover with dual lanes.(27) ....................... 100

Exhibit 9-1. Summary of costs associated with MUT intersections. .......................................... 106
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

1

CHAPTER 1— INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS AND INTERCHANGES

Alternative intersections and interchanges offer the potential to improve safety and reduce delay 

at a lower cost and with fewer impacts than traditional solutions. However, transportation 

professionals are generally unfamiliar with many alternative intersection and interchange forms, 

partially because some forms have only a few installations in operation or because installations 

are concentrated in a few states. Furthermore, at the national level, well-documented and 

substantive resources needed for planning, analysis, design, and public outreach and education 

were limited. 

Concurrent with this Median U-Turn (MUT) Informational Guide, the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) developed and published informational guides for three other 

alternative intersection forms: Displaced Left Turn (DLT), Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT), 

and Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI). These guides are intended to increase awareness of 

these specific alternative intersections and interchanges and provide guidance on how to plan, 

design, construct, and operate them. These guidelines represent summaries of the current state of 

knowledge with the intent of supporting decisions when considering and potentially selecting 

alternative intersection and interchange forms for appropriate applications. 

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

The term “intersection” means the junction of two or more street facilities. In some cases, this 

may specifically mean an “at-grade” intersection form. In others, it may include the junction of 

two or more streets requiring partial or complete grade separation (“interchanges”). A number of 

state and city transporation agencies have or are implementing intersection control evaluation 

processes or policies as a means of integrating the widest range of intersection forms as project 

solutions. For example, California, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have policies or processes 

to objectively consider and select the most appropriate intersection form for a given project 

context. 

Many of the policies or processes include common objectives in selecting the optimal or 

preferred intersection control alternative for a given project context. The common elements 

generally include but not be limited to the following:

• Understanding the intended context, and how operations, safety, and geometry fit the that 

context for each intersection or corridor including intended users (pedestirans, bicyclists, 

passenger cars, transit vehicles, freight, emergency responders, and over size/over weight 

[OSOW] vehicles)

• Identifying and documenting the overall corridor or intersection context including the 

built, natural, and community environment and the intended performance outcomes of the 

intersection form 

• Considering and assessing a wide range of traffic control strategies and other practical 

improvement concepts to identify worthy project-level technical evaluation
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

2

• Comparing engineering and economic analysis results of practical alternatives that 

consider implementation costs, performance benefits and impacts (safety, multimodal, 

operations, environment, etc.), and the estimated service life of alternatives 

ORGANIZATION OF THE GUIDELINES

This guide is structured to address the needs of a variety of readers, including the general public, 

policy makers, transportation planners, operations and safety analysts, and conceptual and 

detailed designers. This chapter distinguishes MUT intersections from conventional intersections 

and provides an overview of each chapter in this guide. The remaining chapters in this guide 

increase in the level of detail provided. 

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

alternative intersections in general and MUT intersections in particular. Considerations related to

policies, project challenges, performance measures, and the project development process 

throughout the duration of the project are presented. 

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

facilities at MUT intersections and how the needs of various users should inform decisions to 

produce a facility that optimally serves non-motorized and motorized traffic. 

Chapter 4: Safety— This chapter summarizes documented safety performance and safety 

considerations at MUT intersections based on studies completed by state agencies and recent 

research efforts. Although the documented safety performance of MUT intersections is limited,

information about conflict points and emergency services at these intersections are discussed.

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

operational characteristics of MUT intersections and how they affect elements such as traffic 

signal phasing and coordination. The chapter also provides guidance for practitioners related to 

design elements such as driveways that may affect the operational performance of MUT 

intersections. It describes the unique operational characteristics of MUT intersections and 

prepares transportation professionals for conducting operational analysis as described in Chapter 

6. 

Chapter 6: Operational Analysis—This chapter presents an overview of the approach and tools 

available for conducting a traffic operations analysis of a MUT intersection. 

Chapter 7: Geometric Design—This chapter describes the typical MUT intersection design 

approach and provides guidance for geometric features. Design of a MUT intersection will also 

require reviewing and integrating the intersection’s multimodal considerations (Chapter 3), 

safety assessment (Chapter 4), and traffic operational analysis (Chapters 5 and 6). 

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

relating to the design and placement of traffic control devices at MUT intersections, including 

traffic signals, signs, pavement markings, and intersection lighting. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

3

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

maintenance of a MUT intersection. 

An Appendix is included at the end of this guide for the purpose of providing more detailed 

information about many of the resources and best practices relating to MUT intersections. The 

Appendix contains the following information: 

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

• B - Supplemental operational and safety details

• C - Marketing and outreach materials

• D - Supplemental construction and design details

SCOPE OF THE GUIDE

This guide provides information and guidance on planning and designing for MUT intersections, 

resulting in designs suitable for a variety of typical conditions commonly found in the United 

States. To the extent possible, the guide provides information on how the intersection form can 

accommodate a wide variety of users. Developed from best practices and prior research, the 

scope of this guide is to provide general information, planning techniques, evaluation procedures 

for assessing safety and operational performance, design guidelines, and principles to be 

considered for selecting and designing MUT intersections. This guide does not include specific 

legal or policy requirements. However, Chapter 2 provides information on planning topics and 

considerations when investigating intersection control forms. 

MUT INTERSECTION OVERVIEW

The Median U-Turn (MUT) Intersection is also known as the Median U-turn Crossover and 

sometimes referred to as a boulevard turnaround, a Michigan loon, or Thru-Turn Intersection.

For the purposes of this informational guide, MUT refers to any intersection replacing direct left 

turns at an intersection with indirect left turns using a U-turn movement in a wide median. The 

MUT intersection eliminates left turns on both intersecting streets and thus reduces the number 

of traffic signal phases and conflict points at the main crossing intersection, resulting in 

improved intersection operations and safety. 

At a MUT intersection, vehicles on the major street (the street with the wide median) that would 

typically turn left at a signalized intersection with the crossing street are directed through the 

main crossing intersection, make a U-turn movement at a downstream directional crossover (that 

is usually signalized), and proceed back to the main crossing intersection (in the opposite 

direction from which the motorist came). They then turn right onto the minor street. Directional 

crossovers are one-way median openings facilitating U-turns. Loons are paved areas on the 

outside edge of the travel lanes opposite directional crossovers that enable U-turns by large 

vehicles.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

4

Similarly, vehicles on the minor street that would typically turn left at a signalized intersection 

with the major street are directed to turn right onto the major street, make a U-turn movement at 

the same directional crossover 500 to 600 feet downstream, and then proceed through the main 

crossing street. The signals at the main crossing intersection (that permit only through and rightturn movements from both streets) and the signals at the U-turn crossovers (that osculate 

between through traffic on the major street and U-turn movements) are coordinated to minimize 

stops and delays to both through and turning traffic. Exhibit 1-1 illustrates an example of a MUT 

intersection with two signals at the main intersection. Exhibit 1-2 illustrates an example of a

MUT intersection with one signal at the main intersection. 

Exhibit 1-1. Example of a MUT intersection. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

5

Exhibit 1-2. Example of a MUT intersection with one signal in main intersection. 

There are unique design variations of the Median U-Turn intersections, which include: 

• Placing a stop-controlled directional crossover immediately prior to the primary

intersection

• Placing directional crossovers on the minor street to minimize major street median width 

and right-of-way requirements 

• Using loons at crossover intersections to reduce median width requirements 

• Placing directional crossovers on both the major and minor street

The selection of one of these variations is commonly influenced by right-of-way availability on 

the major and minor streets and the anticipated intersection and U-turn crossover volumes. MUT 

intersections can be used in multiple variations to accommodate specific locations. Crossover 

placement can be adjusted to minimize impacts to access, provide better access, or to work with 

right-of-way limitations. Exhibits 1-3 through 1-6 illustrate each design variation of the MUT 

intersection. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

6

Exhibit 1-3. Added stop-controlled U-turn crossover near intersection.(1)

Exhibit 1-4. U-turn crossover on minor street.

(1)

Exhibit 1-5. Use of loons to reduce median width.

(2)
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

7

Exhibit 1-6. U-turn crossovers on both streets.(1)

APPLICATION

Several MUT intersections have been installed throughout the United States and each location is 

documented in the Appendix. Exhibit 1-7 shows the location of known MUT intersections in the 

United States, as of the publication of this guide. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

8

Exhibit 1-7. Locations of MUT intersections. 

Exhibit 1-8 through Exhibit 1-17 feature photos of MUT intersections illustrating different 

contextual environments and a variety of design features.

Exhibit 1-8. Example of a U-Turn crossover intersection in Draper, Utah.(3)
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

9

Exhibit 1-9. View of upstream traffic approaching a MUT intersection in Draper, Utah.(3)

Exhibit 1-10. Advance signing at a MUT intersection in Draper, Utah.(3)
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

10

Exhibit 1-11. Example of a bicycle traveling through a MUT intersection in Draper, Utah.(3) 

Exhibit 1-12. Pedestrian crossings at MUT main crossing intersection in Troy, Michigan.(2)
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

11

Exhibit 1-13. MUT crossover intersection in Southfield, Michigan.(4)

Exhibit 1-14. MUT crossover with direct access to adjacent land use in Southfield, 

Michigan.(2)
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

12

Exhibit 1-15. MUT intersection pedestrian connection and median landscaping in 

Birmingham, Michigan.(2)

Exhibit 1-16. MUT intersection with water retention ponds in median in New Orleans, 

Louisiana.(2)
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

13

Exhibit 1-17. MUT intersection with development in wide median in Silver Spring, 

Maryland.(2)

RESOURCE DOCUMENTS

This MUT intersection guide is supplemental to major resource documents including but not 

limited to: 

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

Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] Green Book)(5)

• Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)(6)

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

• Highway Safety Manual (HSM)(8)

• Other referenced research documents that are more specialized to specific areas of the 

guide include various National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 

reports, Transportation Research Board (TRB) papers, and FHWA publications 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

14

The following are supplemental resource documents specific to MUT intersections: 

• FHWA Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR), June 2010(9)

• FHWA Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide(10)

• FHWA Synthesis of the Median U-Turn Intersection Treatment(11)

• “Directional Crossovers: Michigan’s Preferred Left Turn Strategy,” Michigan 

Department of Transportation Geometric Design Unit, December 1995(12)

• “Operational Aspects of Michigan Design for Divided Highways,” Transportation 

Research Record 1579(13)

• “A Preliminary Study in the Efficiency of Median U-Turn and Jughandle Arterial Left 

Turn Alternatives,” presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the TRB, Washington, DC, 

January 1993(14)

• “Analyzing System Travel Time in Arterial Corridors with Unconventional Designs 

Using Microscopic Simulation,” Transportation Research Record 1678(15)
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

15

CHAPTER 2— POLICY AND PLANNING

This chapter contains guidance on how to consider alternative intersections in general and MUT 

intersections in particular. This chapter summarizes policy and planning considerations related to 

MUT intersections. The remaining chapters of this guide will provide specific details of the 

multimodal, safety, operations, geometric design, and traffic control features of MUT 

intersections. 

Alternative intersections are often initially considered for operational or safety needs, and other 

key factors may include spatial requirements and multimodal needs. This chapter provides 

approximate footprints for different types of MUT intersections to allow for planning-level 

screening and feasibility analysis. 

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS AND 

INTERCHANGES

Alternative intersection evaluations may vary depending on the stage of the project development 

process. Each project stage can affect how the policy and technical considerations are assessed. 

While operation, design, safety, human factors, and signing controls should be considered at 

every stage of the development process, a planning-level design evaluation may not require the 

same level of analysis or detailed evaluation of each consideration as projects in later 

development stages. Evaluations should be as comprehensive as needed to answer key project 

questions for each unique project context. 

Serving Pedestrians and Bicycles

When considering a MUT intersection, integrating pedestrian and bicycle needs at an early stage 

of the project planning process yields a higher quality solution. The unique characteristics of a 

MUT intersection require a wide median and reduced number of signal phases, which can 

introduce both benefits and challenges to pedestrians and bicyclists.

Pedestrians crossing at a MUT intersection encounter fewer conflicting traffic streams than at a 

conventional intersection. Crosswalks can be placed across all intersection legs and generally 

follow direct lines similar to conventional intersections. Pedestrians cross the major street during 

the minor street through and right-turn signal phase. Removing the left turns from the main 

crossing intersection creates a two-phase signal. This allows for a shorter signal cycle length 

while maintaining a similar green time for pedestrians and vehicles compared to a conventional 

intersection form. This benefits pedestrians by creating more pedestrian phases per hour and less 

“don’t walk” time between “walk” times (i.e. less wait time between walk signals).

A typical MUT intersection includes a wide center median on at least one or both streets, which 

may cause the total pedestrian crossing distance of the major street to be longer than a 

conventional intersection (though newer installations in Utah and Tucson, AZ are on streets 

without medians). Longer crossing distances must be accommodated in the signal phasing. The 

wide median allows for breaking the pedestrian crossing into two simplified crossings with each 

only opposed by one direction of traffic, and the lack of left-turn lanes generally reduces the 

number of lanes crossed by pedestrians compared to a conventional intersection. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

16

Many MUT intersections have higher than average vehicle speeds because they are often built 

along principle or other high-volume streets designed to carry vehicles at higher speeds. Despite 

higher than average speeds, there are at least two older MUT corridors in Michigan that have 

more recently been retrofit with bicycle lanes, and the trend for newer and reconstructed streets 

in many communities is to integrate Complete Streets policies that include bicycle 

accommodations. Complete Streets is a transportation policy and design approach requiring a 

street to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient, and 

comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities regardless of their mode of 

transportation. 

Through and right-turning bicyclists navigate MUT intersections in the same way as 

conventional intersections. Left-turning bicyclists have several options for navigating a MUT 

intersection, described in detail in Chapter 3. They can use the U-turn crossover, pass through the 

intersection on a multi-use path as a pedestrian would, or make two stage direct left turns and 

wait on the shoulder or in bicycle lanes or bicycle boxes. 

Traffic Volume Relationships

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

intersections, and grade separations in their ability to serve increasing traffic volumes. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

17

Exhibit 2-1. Relationship between traffic volume served and intersection type.

A MUT intersection generally has a larger footprint compared to conventional intersection 

because of the wide median and/or the loons. With right-of-way restrictions, it can be difficult to 

widen or add lanes; therefore, careful planning is required during the initial design of a MUT 

intersection. The right-of-way footprint may affect any agency’s decision on whether to 

construct this type of intersection. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

18

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

Similar to other transportation projects, stakeholder outreach is a critical part of the overall 

planning process. Successfully implementing the first MUT intersection in a community may 

result from explicit and proactive outreach and education to affected stakeholders and the general 

public. This would create opportunities to familiarize others with how the intersections work 

while creating opportunities to hear of general project and MUT intersection specific issues and 

considerations. 

Creating multiple forums to engage the public (including presentations at local council or board 

meetings, briefs at community organization functions, and project-specific open house meetings) 

results in opportunities to listen to community interests and share objective information about the 

intersection form. Media campaigns through local newspapers, television, and public meetings 

can be effective methods of keeping the community informed. Exhibit 2-2 is an example of an 

informational map used by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) for explaining MUT 

intersections (Thru-Turn Intersections) to various users. Once the intersection is open to the 

public, monitoring driver behavior and using law enforcement as necessary to promote proper 

use of the new form can aid driver acclimation. 

Exhibit 2-2. MUT intersection information page from UDOT.(16)

UDOT has also prepared videos for users to learn more about navigating this type of alternative 

intersection. Exhibit 2-3 shows multiple screen captures from the UDOT Thru-Turn Intersection 

video. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

Exhibit 2-3. Thru-Turn Intersection video used by UDOT.

(17)

19

In addition, some agencies have used different names to advertise and explain the MUT 

intersection during stakeholder outreach. The City of Tucson, AZ and Regional Transportation 

Authority use the term “express left” and “indirect left turn” intersection. Exhibit 2-4 shows a 

graphic for the “express left” intersection and provides information on how users may navigate 

the intersection. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

20

Exhibit 2-4. Express left intersection graphic used by City of Tucson, AZ.(18)

FHWA has created alternative intersection and interchange informational videos and video case 

studies, which can be viewed on the FHWA YouTube channel 

(https://www.youtube.com/user/USDOTFHWA).(19) In addition, FHWA has developed 

alternative intersection brochures that can be found on the FHWA website 

(http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov).(20) Examples of this information are shown in the appendix. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

21

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Designing, operating, and managing a street and its intersections should align with the 

appropriate jurisdictional policies associated with that facility. The facility location and type can 

often dictate the appropriateness of the right-of-way and access management needs associated 

with alternative intersections. The degree to which motor vehicle throughput should or should 

not be prioritized over other modes also plays a role in determining the appropriateness of 

alternative intersections at specific locations.

Some of the policy considerations of a MUT intersection include the following: 

• Access management 

o U-turns 

o Driveway spacing or signal spacing criteria

• Operational Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) criteria

• Pedestrian facilities with access and wayfinding for persons with disabilities, including

the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 (the 

Rehabilitation Act)(21)

• Providing safe and convenient bicycle facilities 

• Design vehicle

• Snow removal and storage 

• Incident management

• Emergency response needs

• Isolated versus corridor implementations 

• Allowing or prohibiting left turn on red (LTOR). Several states currently do not permit 

LTOR between one-way streets. This has potential operational implications at U-turn 

crossover intersections. 

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

The following are planning considerations for an alternative intersection design: 

• Community goals – Outside formalized land use policies, cities and communities often 

have general goals that provide insights about the nature and character of their 

community. These goals can range from concepts that preserve a historic character or 

identified heritage to creating walkable communities or complete streets. Other goals can 

be to encourage economic development by preserving existing business or residential 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

22

areas while encouraging thoughtful development. Regardless of the specific goals or 

vision, these considerations may influence street and intersection design. 

• Surrounding land uses and zoning – Consider the land uses along MUT intersections

and possible design modifications that can be made to improve land use viability. 

• Project context – Key questions that help to identify stakeholders for a particular project 

might include:

o What is the purpose and function of the existing or planned road facilities? 

o What are the existing and planned land uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the 

road facilities?

o Who will likely desire to use the road facilities given the existing and planned 

land uses? 

o What are the existing and anticipated future socio-demographic characteristics of 

the populations adjacent to and in the vicinity of the existing or planned road 

facilities?

o What are the perceived or actual shortcomings of the existing road facilities? 

o Who has jurisdiction over the facility? 

o Where is capital funding for the project originating (or expected to originate)? 

o Who will operate and maintain the facility?

• Multimodal considerations – Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit needs should play a role in 

selecting an intersection form and developing intersection design elements.

• Access management – On an intersection approach with a MUT, access may need to be 

restricted near crossovers.

• Design vehicles – The intersection geometry will need to accommodate transit, 

emergency vehicles, freight, and potentially oversize and overweight vehicles.

PLANNING CHALLENGES

The following are several challenges associated with planning MUT intersections:

• Driver education – Successful implementations of alternative intersections are often 

preceded by public outreach and education campaigns, which are typically not conducted 

for conventional intersection improvements. At MUT intersections, the prohibition of left 

turns at the main crossing intersection and the “turn-right-to-go-left” principle is

communicated in the field but also can be communicated to the public prior to opening 

the intersection.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

23

• Driver expectation – MUT intersections relocate left-turn movements from their 

conventional location. This is different from what most drivers would expect and must be 

accounted for in the intersection planning and design.

• Multimodal accommodation – As with any street segment or intersection, each 

configuration must consider and serve the various users who currently or may be 

expected to use the facilities. This should always include pedestrians and bicycles, 

understanding that the exact provisions may necessarily vary from site to site. However, 

pedestrian facilities must always be made accessible. MUT intersections are generally 

compatible with transit as well.

• Sufficient corridor right-of-way – The greatest challenge for the MUT intersection is 

the provision of sufficient right-of-way to accommodate wide medians.

PROJECT PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS

Measuring the effectiveness of overall project performance depends on the nature or catalyst for 

the project. Understanding the intended specific operational, safety, and geometric performance 

context for each intersection or corridor including intended users can guide help determine 

project-specific performance measures. The project performance may be directly linked to the 

specific design choices and performance of the alternatives considered. The project performance 

categories described below can influence and are influenced by specific MUT intersection design 

elements and their characteristics.(22) 

Accessibility

Chapter 3 of this guide describes accessibility as it relates to special consideration given to 

pedestrians with disabilities including accommodating pedestrians with vision or mobility 

impairments. However, for the purposes of considering a project’s general context and the 

performance considerations, the term “accessibility” goes beyond the conversation of policy 

related to ADA and Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) and is meant to 

be considered in broader terms.(21) With respect to considering applicable intersection forms for 

a given project context, accessibility is defined broadly as the ability to approach a desired 

destination or potential opportunity for activity using highways and streets (including the 

sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes provided within those rights-of-way). This could include the 

ability for a large design vehicle to navigate an intersection as much as it might pertain to the 

application of snow mobiles or equestrian uses in some environments or conditions. 

Mobility

Mobility is defined as the ability to move various users efficiently from one place to another 

using highways and streets. Mobility can sometimes be associated with motorized vehicular 

movement and capacity. For the purposes of this guide, mobility is meant to be independent of 

any particular travel mode.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

24

Quality of Service

Quality of service is defined as the perceived quality of travel by a road user. It is used in the 

2010 HCM to assess multimodal level of service (MMLOS) for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, 

and transit riders.(6) Quality of service may also include the perceived quality of travel by design 

vehicle users such as truck or bus drivers. 

Reliability

Reliability is defined as the consistency of performance over a series of time periods (e.g., hourto-hour, day-to-day, year-to-year).

Safety

Safety is defined as the expected frequency and severity of crashes occurring on highways and 

streets. Expected crash frequencies and severities are often disaggregated by type, including 

whether or not a crash involves a non-motorized user or a specific vehicle type (e.g., heavy 

vehicle, transit vehicle, motorcycle). In cases where certain crash types or severities are small in 

number, as is often the case with pedestrian- or bicycle-involved, it may be necessary to review a 

longer period of time to gain a more accurate understanding. 

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

For the purposes of this report, the project development process is defined as consisting of the 

stages described below. Federal, state, and local agencies may have different names or other 

nomenclature with the overall intent of advancing from planning to implementation. Exhibit 2-5 

illustrates the overall project development process.(22) 

Exhibit 2-5. Project development process.(22) 

Planning Studies

Planning studies often include exercises such as problem identification and other similar steps to 

ensure there is a connection between the project purpose and need and the geometric concepts 

being considered. Planning studies could include limited geometric concepts on the general type 

or magnitude of project solutions to support programming. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

25

Alternatives Identification and Evaluation 

The project needs identified in prior planning studies inform concept identification, 

development, and evaluation. At this stage, it is critical to understand the project context and 

intended outcomes so potential solutions may be tailored to meet project needs within the 

opportunities and constraints of a given effort. FHWA describes context sensitive solutions as 

“... a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders in providing a 

transportation facility that fits its setting.”(23) In considering the concept of “context sensitive 

design/solutions,” this stage calls for meaningful and continuous stakeholder engagement to 

progress through the project development process.

Preliminary Design

Concepts advancing from the previous stage are further refined and screened during preliminary 

design. For more complex, detailed, or impactful projects, the preliminary design (typically 30-

percent design level plans) and subsequent documentation are used to support more complex 

state or federal environmental clearance activities. The corresponding increased geometric 

design detail allows for refined technical evaluations and analyses that inform environmental 

clearance activities. Preliminary design builds upon the geometric evaluations conducted as part 

of the previous stage (alternatives identification and evaluation). Some of the common 

components of preliminary design include: 

• Horizontal and vertical alignment design 

• Typical sections

• Grading plans 

• Structures

• Traffic/intelligent transportation systems (ITS)

• Signing and pavement markings 

• Illumination

• Utilities

Final Design

The design elements are advanced and refined in final design. Typical review periods include 60-

percent, 90-percent, and 100-percent plans before completing the final set of PS&E. During this 

stage, there is relatively little variation in design decisions as the plan advances to 100-percent. 

Functionally, in this stage of the project development process, the targeted performance 

measures have a lesser degree of influence on the form of the project.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

26

Construction

Construction activities could include geometric design decisions related to temporary streets, 

connections, or conditions that facilitate construction. Project performance measures may relate 

to project context elements. 

SUMMARY OF MUT ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

As described in Chapter 1 and the previous sections of this chapter, MUT intersections have 

unique features and characteristics related to multimodal considerations, safety performance, 

operations, geometric design, spatial requirements, constructability, and maintenance. 

Exhibit 2-6 provides an overview of the primary advantages and disadvantages of MUT 

intersections for users, policy makers, designers, and planners to understand when considering 

this type of alternative intersection form.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

27

Exhibit 2-6. Summary of MUT advantages and disadvantages. 

Advantages Disadvantages

Non-Motorized Users

• Pedestrians and bicyclists must cross only one 

direction of travel at a time

• Pedestrians and bicyclists cross fewer lanes of 

travel (shorter distance, less exposure)

• Because of the two-phase signal operations, 

greater service time can be given to pedestrians 

and bicyclists

• Bicyclists have center refuge (room for bicycle

box) in making two-stage left turns

• Pedestrians crossing the major street may have 

to cross in two stages, potentially increasing 

crossing time 

• Because all left turns must also turn right, 

greater right-turn/pedestrian exposure 

• Bicyclists turning left must use crosswalks as a 

pedestrian or mix with vehicle traffic to access 

MUT as a vehicle would

Safety

• Fewer overall conflict points and no left-turn 

conflicts

• Lower delay and fewer stops on major street

could reduce rear-end crash rates 

• Drivers may be less familiar with intersection

• Potential for driver disregard of the left-turn 

prohibitions 

Operations

• Reduced delay and fewer stops for through 

movements on the major street 

• Shorter cycle lengths and increased green time 

for through movements decreases intersection 

delay, congestion, and queuing 

• Potential increase in delay, travel distance, and 

stops for left-turning traffic

• Slightly longer clearances phases needed to 

clear main crossing intersection

Access Management

• Eliminates left turns out of driveways along 

corridor 

• Consolidates access to U-turn crossover 

intersections

• Some drivers must pass through intersections 

twice

• Access may be restricted between main 

crossing and U-turn intersections

Right of Way

• If planned properly, establishes final limits of 

ROW as future lanes can be added in the 

median without outside widening 

• Requires substantially more ROW along major 

street

• Required right of way not typically available 

in urban and suburban areas or at great cost 

Aesthetics

• Median provides opportunity for landscaping 

and other aesthetic treatments

• Wide distances between sides of road make 

urban feel difficult
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

28

This page intentionally left blank.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

29

CHAPTER 3— MULTIMODAL CONSIDERATIONS

This chapter provides an overview of multimodal facilities at MUT intersections and how 

provisions for pedestrians and bicycles should influence the overall planning and design of these 

intersections. Several of the guidelines presented here are based on elements of the AASHTO

Green Book, but are applied within the unique context of a MUT intersection.

(5) The overall 

objective is to develop a design, regardless of the type of intersection, compatible with a 

Complete Street. A Complete Street is a facility that serves many types of users including 

freight, transit, and non-motorized users. 

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH

MUT intersection planning and design should consider a variety of transportation modes. The 

following elements should be evaluated when considering a MUT intersection: 

• Historically, MUT intersections were been built on streets with wide medians; however, 

there are recent examples of MUT intersections with little or no median. Compared to 

streets without medians and streets with narrower medians, traditional MUT intersections 

have longer total pedestrian crossing distances within the main crossing intersection and 

increased time for bicyclists to ride across the major street. 

• The prohibited left-turn movements at the main crossing intersection may create 

enforcement issues for automobiles and for bicycles when bicycle boxes, bicycle lanes, or 

other accommodations for direct left turns are not included in the design. 

• Large vehicles require adequate space at the crossover intersections to accommodate 

swept paths. Geometrics may include wider turning lanes, paved shoulders within the 

crossover area, bump outs, and/or mountable or traversable features. The geometry of the 

intersection and all its associated movements need to accommodate the design vehicle for 

the facility.

• The unique geometrics that require a wide median or large loons, as well as the unique 

operations that reduce the number of signal phases at the median U-turn intersections, can 

introduce both benefits and challenges to pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles, and 

users with disabilities.

This chapter describes the unique characteristics of the four primary non-auto modes 

(pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and heavy vehicles) that should be considered when analyzing 

and designing MUT intersections. 

PEDESTRIANS

Pedestrians crossing a MUT intersection encounter fewer conflicting traffic streams than at a 

conventional intersection. At a conventional intersection, pedestrians cross the street with onestage or two-stage crossing during the vehicle phase of the adjacent street. Exhibit 3-1 shows 

traffic movements and conflict points that pedestrians experience at a conventional intersection.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

30

Exhibit 3-1. Pedestrian-vehicle conflict points at a conventional intersection. 

At a MUT intersection, the left turns are removed from the main intersection and occur away 

from the intersection, thus removing potential pedestrian exposure to left-turning vehicles. 

Exhibit 3-2 shows the intersection movements with a MUT design. Crosswalks can be marked 

across all intersection legs, as at a conventional intersection. Pedestrians at a MUT intersection 

cross the major street during the minor street through and right-turn signal phase, when the only 

conflicts possible are with minor street right-turning vehicles or major street right-turning 

vehicles making a right turn on red (RTOR). As a result, the number of conflict points is 

reduced. However, the frequency of conflicts at each conflict point increases for a MUT 

intersection since left-turn movements are consolidated into right-turn movements, and the total 

number of vehicles crossing the crosswalk is the same. The net effect is expected to be positive 

for pedestrians since traffic patterns are simplified and easier for pedestrians to determine

compared to a conventional intersection. There are no known studies or empirical data available 

to support or reject this assumption. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

31

Exhibit 3-2. Pedestrian-vehicle conflict points at MUT intersection.

Removing the left turns from the main intersection allows for a two-phase signal. This results in

a shorter signal cycle length, while producing similar green times for pedestrians and vehicles. 

This operation benefits pedestrians by creating more pedestrian phases per hour, compared to a 

conventional intersection, along with less “don’t walk” time between “walk” times (i.e., less wait 

time between walk signals). As shown in Exhibit 3-3, “walk”/flashing “don’t walk” time can 

increase even as the overall cycle length decreases, providing more pedestrian crossing time per 

hour. 

Exhibit 3-3. Comparison of major street walk phases at conventional and MUT 

intersections. 

The typical MUT intersection includes a wide center median or refuge area on at least one of the 

two streets, which may cause the total pedestrian crossing distance to be longer compared to a 

conventional intersection. However, newer installations in Utah and Tucson, AZ are on streets 

with narrow medians approximately one lane wide. The crossing distance is mitigated at some 

intersections by removing the left-turn lanes, leaving fewer lanes to cross and less exposure of 

the pedestrian to vehicle traffic. Longer crossing distances must be accommodated in the signal 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

32

phasing. However, because of the two-phase signal operation, the minor street often receives a 

sufficient amount of green time to accommodate a single-stage major street pedestrian crossing 

time. If not, a balance must be struck between the required pedestrian time and the vehicle 

movement time, requiring pedestrians to cross the major street in two stages. A pedestrian 

pushbutton is required in the median to accommodate two-stage crossings.

Exhibit 3-4 compares a single-stage versus two-stage crossing of a MUT intersection. Singlestage crossings are always preferred so pedestrians are not unduly delayed and do not have to 

wait in the median between the streets. However, the width of the major street may result in 

pedestrian walk times longer than the green time required for vehicular movements from the 

minor street, which could otherwise be better allocated for major street traffic. In cases such as 

these, two-stage crossings can be used. 

In a two-stage crossing, the pedestrian travels across one direction of the road to the median. The 

pedestrian then stops in the median in a refuge area— which is typically wide enough to 

accommodate pedestrians, wheelchairs, strollers, or bicycles— and waits for the “walk” display 

before crossing the other half of the street. Despite the overall shorter cycle length, the pedestrian 

crossing times for a MUT intersection under a two-stage crossing are typically greater than a 

single-stage crossing of a conventional intersection. 

Exhibit 3-4. Single- versus two-stage pedestrian crossings.

U-Turn Crossovers

The U-turn crossover intersections create an opportunity for mid-block pedestrian crossings. If 

signalized, crossover intersections typically have signals that only control major street traffic 

approaching the main crossing intersection. However, signals controlling both directions of the 

major street could be installed to facilitate pedestrian crossings, as shown in Exhibit 3-5. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

33

Exhibit 3-5. Signalized mid-block crossing.

ADA and PROWAG Accessibility Considerations 

Accessibility was previous described in Chapter 2 in the broader contexts of considering a 

project’s contextual environment and the ability for various users to approach a desired 

destination or potential opportunity for activity using highways and streets (including the 

sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes provided within those rights-of-way). In this section, accessibility 

is explicitly focused on the policies related to ADA and Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility 

Guidelines (PROWAG).(21) Special consideration should be given to pedestrians with disabilities, 

including accommodating pedestrians with vision or mobility impairments. Being relatively new 

on a national level, specific guidance for “Accessible MUTs” is not yet available. However, 

general accessibility principles can be borrowed from other forms of intersections and applied 

here. The United States Access Board provides many additional resources on accessibility and 

specific requirements for Accessible Public Rights of Way, which the transportation professional 

should refer to and be familiar with.(21) 

Pedestrians with vision, mobility, or cognitive impairments should find crossing a MUT 

intersection similar to crossing a conventional intersection. Either intersection form requires 

crossing multiple lanes and generates conflicts with right-turning vehicles. In general,

intersection crossing conflicts can be accommodated with traditional design techniques. The cues 

that pedestrians with vision impairments rely on to cross intersections, such as the sound of 

traffic parallel to their crossing, are similar in the two intersection forms. The direct crossing 

path of a MUT intersection is relatively easy and convenient to use. All pedestrians will 

experience two-phase signal timing and a reduced number of conflicting traffic streams than at a 

conventional intersection. Auditory and sensory cues should be given in the median to indicate 

an additional street crossing is required, and to assist pedestrians choosing to make the crossing 

in two stages.

The basic principles for accessible design can be divided into the pedestrian walkway and the 

pedestrian crossing location. For the pedestrian walkways, the following considerations apply: 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

34

• Delineate the walkway through landscaping, curbing, or fencing to assist with wayfinding 

for blind pedestrians 

• Provide sufficient space (length and width) and recommended slope rates for wheelchair 

users and other non-motorized users such people pushing strollers, walking bicycles, and 

others 

• Construct an appropriate landing with flat slope and sufficient size at crossing points 

For pedestrian crossing locations, these additional considerations apply: 

• Provide curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces at the transition to the street

• Provide accessible pedestrian signals with locator tone at signalized crossings

• Locate push-buttons to be accessible by wheelchairs and adjacent to the crossing at a 

minimum separation of 10 feet

• Use audible speech messages where spacing is less than 10 feet, or where additional 

narrative for the expected direction of traffic is needed

• Align the curb ramp landing to the intended crossing direction 

• Crosswalk width through the intersection should be wide enough to permit pedestrians 

and wheelchairs to pass without delay from opposing directions, and the medians should 

provide sufficient storage for all non-motorized users to safely wait when two-stage 

crossing are required

All pedestrians—but especially those with vision, mobility, or cognitive impairments—may 

benefit from targeted outreach and additional informational material created with pedestrians in 

mind. These outreach materials include information on crosswalk placement and intended 

behavior, as well as answers to frequently asked questions. For blind pedestrians, materials need 

to be presented in an accessible format, with sufficient descriptions of all features of the MUT 

intersection. 

BICYCLISTS

Traditionally, MUT intersections were built along suburban arterials or other high-volume streets 

where bicycle accommodations were less likely to be included. However, the current trend in 

many communities and State DOTs is to integrate Complete Streets policies that include bicycle 

accommodations on all types of streets. There are at least two older MUT corridors in Michigan 

with marked bicycle lanes added after the MUT intersections were established. 

Through and right-turning bicyclists encounter relatively higher percentages of green time at 

MUT intersections compared to conventional intersections. At MUT intersections, there is a 

higher proportion of right-turning vehicles compared to a conventional intersection (as traffic 

that would turn left at a conventional intersection is required initially to turn right at a MUT 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

35

intersection), which results in more conflicts between the bicycle through and vehicle right-turn 

movements. An increasingly common practice at conventional or alternative intersections is to 

shift the right turn lane to the right of the bicycle lane, as illustrated in Exhibit 3-6. This clearly 

identifies the conflict areas between through bicyclists and right-turning vehicles. 

Exhibit 3-6. Right-turn lane with bicycle lane.

Left-turning bicyclists have three options for navigating a MUT intersection, as described below 

and illustrated in Exhibit 3-7: 

A. Bicyclists making a two-stage left turn: Minor street bicyclists approach the intersection on 

the right and follow the vehicle signal indications. When receiving the green indication, the 

bicyclists proceed across the intersection and stop in a bicycle turn queue box. When the 

major street receives a green indication, bicyclists proceed along the major street. Because 

bicyclists follow the same rules of the road as motor vehicles, signage should be carefully 

considered to prevent the auto left-turn movement while allowing the bicycle left-turn 

movement. One option would be to provide R3-5a mandatory movement lane control signs 

(i.e., straight ahead only) for the auto lanes in lieu of “no left turn” signage. This option is 

most desirable for bicyclists.

B. Bicyclists following pedestrian crossing rules: Bicyclists approach the intersection and 

instead of traveling through based on the vehicle indications, exit the street to the right and 

follow the “walk”/”don’t walk” indications (just as a pedestrian would). 

C. Bicyclists following vehicle rules: Bicyclists approach the intersection on the right and 

follow the vehicle signal indications. When receiving the green indication or with an 

acceptable gap in cross traffic (when turning on a red indication), the bicyclists turn right and 

cross all lanes to the left side of the road, entering the MUT crossover. When the green signal 

is received, the bicyclists complete the U-turn, crossing all lanes to the right side of the road, 

and travel straight through the main intersection (just as a vehicle would). The bicyclist must 

cross all lanes of traffic between the main intersection and the MUT while vehicle traffic 

performs the same maneuver. This option is undesirable for bicyclists, but it is always legally 

permissible even if other options are available. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

36

Exhibit 3-7. Left turn options for bicycles.

Of these options, the two-stage left turn is the most natural for bicyclists and the most likely to 

be obeyed. The “vehicle rules” option exposes bicyclists to significant out-of-direction travel and 

potential vehicle conflicts, while the “pedestrian rules” option generates potential pedestrian 

conflicts. However, the “pedestrian rules” option can be considered when upgrading sidewalks to 

multi-use paths, or when an otherwise off-street bicycle path crosses the street at the intersection.

TRANSIT VEHICLE CONSIDERATION

The MUT intersection does not introduce any unique movements for buses compared to a 

conventional intersection. Buses on the major street can operate using the right lane on both the 

major and minor streets and make stops before or after the main crossing intersection in the same 

manner as conventional intersections, while receiving more green time and less delay. Principle 

streets with MUT intersections provide the opportunity to develop curbside bus lanes, with the 

long auxiliary lane provided between a U-turn crossover and the intersection shared by buses and 

right-turning vehicles. 

Transit stops can be developed at MUT intersections in much the same way as at a conventional 

intersection. If transit service is only provided along the major street, then providing a far-side 

bus stop is typically preferred to allow buses to take advantage of signal progression, support 

green-extension transit signal priority treatments, and avoid blocking right-turn movements. If 

transit service is provided on both streets, then transfer opportunities between bus lines should 

also be considered. This may involve a combination of a nearside stop on one street and a farside stop on the other street, allowing the heavy transfer movement to be made by simply 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

37

walking around the corner. In that case, buses stopping at a nearside stop in a right-turn lane 

should be exempted from the right-turn requirement and possibly provided with a queue-jump 

phase to assist them in leaving the stop. Exhibit 3-8 illustrates potential locations for the nearside and far-side bus stop locations. 

Exhibit 3-8. Bus stop locations. 

Buses having to make left turns at the intersection will experience added delay from the out-ofdirection travel, which could increase the transit provider’s operating costs. Consideration could 

be given to exempting buses from the left-turn prohibition (particularly from the major street, 

when sufficient storage space is provided in the median), or to providing a special transit phase 

to facilitate bus left turns.

The MUT intersection may provide a unique opportunity for light-rail transit (LRT) and bus 

rapid transit (BRT) vehicles to use the wide median required for the U-turn movements. In a 

conventional highway corridor, the median width is typically insufficient to accommodate LRT 

or BRT operations, and median openings and/or two-way left-turn lanes (TWLTLs) are 

incompatible with the requirements to provide a semi-exclusive running way for transit vehicles. 

However, a MUT corridor typically has sufficient median width to accommodate LRT and BRT 

vehicles, and limits the number and direction of crossings across the transitway. 

The transitway crossings would alter the location of where vehicles enter the crossover, but the 

crossovers could be kept clear and priority given to the transit vehicles with preemption phasing. 

The transit vehicles could also be given priority movement through the intersection during the 

same green phase as the major street without transit-vehicular conflicts. Station platforms could 

be moved toward the main crossing intersection, unlike at conventional intersections where leftturn lanes take up greater space in the median. Locations where streets cross the transitway 

would be controlled by traffic signals (BRT operation or LRT operations of 35 mph or slower) or 

by railroad-style gates and flashing lights (LRT operations above 35 mph). 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

38

At the time of this writing, there were no applications of LRT or BRT running in MUT corridors, 

but there is one corridor in New Orleans, LA (St. Charles Avenue) that features a trolley line 

running through the median parallel to a road with characteristics similar to a MUT intersection. 

The City of Detroit had selected LRT running in the median of Woodward Avenue as the locally 

preferred alternative for the Woodward Avenue LRT project. This project would retrofit transit 

into the median of one of the first MUT corridors in southeast Michigan. Concept plans for one 

intersection on the corridor are shown in Exhibit 3-10. 

Exhibit 3-9. LRT or BRT accommodations in MUT corridor.(24) 

HEAVY VEHICLE CONSIDERATIONS

The typical MUT crossover can accommodate heavy vehicle U-turn movements given the wide 

median provided in a typical MUT corridor. The crossover design detail is further described in 

Chapter 7. A single-lane crossover is designed to provide adequate turning radii and tracking for 

both the front and rear ends of trucks. If the median width is less than adequate for larger vehicle 

U-turns, additional pavement can be added at the far side of the U-turn crossover in the form of 

“loons” (see Chapter 7).
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

39

CHAPTER 4— SAFETY

This chapter discusses safety principles and performance for MUT intersections, including 

geometric design and human factors that potentially impact safety. Safety performance and 

observations are presented, as well as discussions of specific safety issues or concerns not typical 

at conventional intersections. 

SAFETY PRINCIPLES

An appropriate level of safety assessment corresponding to the stage of the project development 

process (planning, alternatives identification and evaluation, preliminary design, final design, 

and construction) supports decisions about MUT intersections. The analysis should be consistent 

with the available data, and the data should be consistent with the applied tools. Multimodal 

safety principles—including vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-bicycle conflict points, accessibility, 

and crossing options—are discussed in Chapter 3. 

Reduced Vehicle-Vehicle Conflict Points

While crash data are often used to develop models or other tools that can ultimately help 

professionals make safety decisions about transportation facilities, crash data are often limited or 

completely unavailable for some types of facilities. In lieu of crash data, one often-applied 

strategy is to examine the number of conflict points at an intersection. While no mathematical 

relationship between conflicts and collisions has been clearly documented, conflicts are 

correlated with collisions and are often used as a surrogate measure, particularly to compare 

different intersection forms. It is common to consider both lane-by-lane conflicts and an 

aggregated conflict analysis that treats each movement as one lane; the latter approach will be 

presented here for the sake of simplicity.

By restricting direct left turns at the main crossing intersection, MUT intersections reduce 

vehicular intersection conflict points from 32 to 16, including the conflict points introduced at 

the median U-turn crossovers, as shown in Exhibit 4-1. If another street is directly opposite the 

U-turn crossover, the number of conflict points is increased by four per instance. If more lanes 

than one in each direction are provided on either the major or minor cross street, the number of 

conflicts will increase. Exhibit 4-2 and 4-3 show the conflict points at a conventional intersection 

and at a MUT intersection, respectively. 

Exhibit 4-1. Conflict point comparison.

Conventional MUT

32 16
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

40

Exhibit 4-2. Vehicle-vehicle conflict points at conventional intersection.

Exhibit 4-3. Vehicle-vehicle conflict points at MUT intersection. 

Removing direct left turns also reduces some of the conflict points with the greatest crash type 

severity, namely left-through angle (“T-bone”) collisions. This type of collision ranks second 

behind head-on collisions for the chance of severe injury. In particular, the MUT intersection, 

compared to a conventional intersection, reduces crossing conflict points by 75-percent (from 16 

to 4). Merging conflict points are reduced from 8 to 6, and diverging conflict points are reduced 

from 8 to 6. While reducing conflict points does not guarantee fewer or less severe crashes, it is 

often an indicator of crash reductions, particularly where crash types with the highest severity 

(including through and left-turn vehicle crashes) are reduced. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

41

Human Factors Principles and Considerations

Human factors and driver expectancy suggest motorists typically accustomed to using 

conventional intersections position their vehicles to the left side of a directional street when 

approaching an intersection where they intend to make a left turn. Similarly, motorists position 

their vehicle to the right side of the directional street when approaching an intersection where 

they intend to make a right turn. MUT intersections prohibit direct left turns at the main 

intersections. Motorists may not expect this prohibition of direct left turns at MUT intersections. 

The most common MUT intersection provides U-turn crossovers in the median downstream of 

the intersection on the major crossroad. As a result, motorists who are traveling on the major 

crossroad who desire to make a left turn at the approaching intersection will be naturally 

positioned within the street to use the U-turn after passing through the intersection. 

Based on human factors and driver expectancy, motorists on the minor crossroad who are 

unfamiliar with an area and desiring to turn left at the approaching intersection (especially where 

more than one directional lane exists in the direction of travel) would also typically position their 

vehicle to the left side of the directional street. As a result, drivers desiring to make a left turn 

may not expect they must first make a right turn at the minor street. Clear, concise signing must 

be provided far enough in advance of the intersection to direct motorists desiring to make left 

turns to move to the right side of the street to make a right turn at the approaching intersection. 

Signage must also inform motorists on the minor crossroad, prior to turning right, where they 

must position themselves on the major crossroad to navigate the U-turn to complete a left turn.

OBSERVED SAFETY PERFORMANCE

Safety Performance Studies

There have been a number of research studies involving the safety performance of MUT

intersections, and they generally show reductions in mean crash rates, especially injury-related 

crashes, when compared to conventional intersections. FHWA developed a Techbrief titled 

“Synthesis of the Median U-Turn Intersection Treatment.”(11) The synthesis reviewed 25 research 

studies published between 1974 and 2005. The studies considered the operational and safety 

performance of the MUT intersections. A subset of the studies compared crash rates between 

conventional and MUT intersections on both a corridor and isolated intersection basis (Exhibit 4-

4), and a comparison of the forecast crashes by severity versus the type of crash (Exhibit 4-5). In 

general, the results indicate that MUT intersections show safety performance improvement 

compared to conventional intersections for most crash types and injury severities. In a few 

instances where the number of crashes for MUT intersections exceeded those for conventional 

intersections, the difference was marginal. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

42

Exhibit 4-4. Crash Rate comparison of MUT and conventional intersections.

(11)

Dataset 

Rate 

Type Group

Mean Crash Rates 

(Crashes/MVE)

Standard 

Deviation Alpha1

Corridor All

MUT (Reduction)

Conventional 

1.554 (14%) 

1.806 

0.784 

0.679 

73 

Intersection 

Related

All

MUT (Reduction)

Conventional 

1.388 (16%) 

1.644 

0.593 

0.643 

80 

PDO

MUT (Reduction)

Conventional 

0.982 (9%) 

1.077 

0.392 

0.467 

49 

Injury 

MUT (Reduction)

Conventional 

0.407 (30%) 

0.58 

0.266 

0.252 

97 

1

"Alpha" denotes the confidence level that the two rates are statistically different.

Exhibit 4-5. Forecast crashes for MUT and conventional intersections for a 5-year 

period.(11)

Injury Crashes PDO Crashes All Crashes

Conventional MUT Conventional MUT Conventional MUT

Crash Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

Type % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes

Overturn 1.53 0.97 0.92 0.41 0.64 0.75 0.27 0.29 0.95 1.71 1.03 1.57

Fixed 

Object 3.56 2.26 4.25 1.89 4.77 5.62 6.97 7.5 4.36 7.85 6.13 9.38

Head-On 0.80 0.51 0.27 0.12 0.43 0.51 0.33 0.35 0.56 1.01 0.35 0.53

Angle St 36.87 23.4 19.77 8.8 18.35 21.63 9.06 9.75 24.73 44.53 12.12 18.54

Rear End 37.99 24.11 65.93 29.35 51.67 60.9 69.85 75.14 46.94 84.51 68.29 104.44

Angle 

Turn 3.56 2.26 4.76 2.12 6.71 7.91 7.74 8.33 5.62 10.12 6.84 10.46

Rear End 

LT 1.53 0.97 0.81 0.36 4.18 4.93 0.93 1 3.27 5.89 0.88 1.35

Rear End 

RT 

Sideswipe 

Opp

0.20 0.13 0.65 0.29 1.45 1.71 1.43 1.54 1.02 1.84 1.19 1.82

0.20 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.27 0.32 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.45 0.20 0.3

Head-On 

Lt 13.75 8.73 2.52 1.12 10.89 12.84 2.75 2.96 11.87 21.37 2.66 4.07

Sideswipe 

same 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.64 0.75 0.44 0.47 0.42 0.76 0.31 0.47

∑ 100.00 63.47 100.00 44.52 100.00 117.87 100.00 107.57 100.00 180.04 100.00 152.93
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

43

Crash Observations 

Since the publication of the FHWA MUT synthesis publication in 2007, there has been a number 

of new MUT intersections proposed and built throughout the United States, including in 

Metairie, LA; Plano, TX; Draper, UT; South Jordan, UT; Wilmington, NC; Tucson, AZ; and 

Springfield, MO.(11) Most of these locations have been constructed since 2010, and there has not 

been a sufficient period since their construction (typically three years at minimum) to acquire 

significant “after” crash data to use in before-and-after safety studies.

A new use for MUT intersections is emerging by combining the MUT intersection with access 

management techniques along a highway corridor. There are numerous locations in urbanized 

areas where businesses line the street with multiple driveways for ingress and egress. One 

practice in the past has been to provide two-way center left-turn lanes to accommodate left turns 

into and out of the businesses. Safety performance of TWLTLs has not always met agency 

interests. Some jurisdictions are removing the TWLTLs and installing raised medians, which 

only permit right turns by vehicles entering or exiting the driveways and have been shown to 

improve corridor safety. (25, 26)

To accommodate vehicles required to cross the opposing lanes of traffic, signalized median Uturns are constructed through the median at mid-block locations. Often at the mid-block location, 

U-turns will be constructed directly opposite each other for the opposing directions of travel.

With the median U-turns constructed, many jurisdictions believe it is a logical step to convert 

their multi-phased signals to two-phase signals by using the median U-turns to also 

accommodate left turns from the signalized intersections. 

SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

The MUT intersection introduces some unique operational qualities not present in a conventional 

intersection. These concerns are discussed in the following sections. 

Right-Turn / U-Turn Conflicts

Where crossovers are aligned with streets or driveways that permit only right turns, U-turns from 

the crossover and right turns from the opposite street/driveway are potentially in conflict 

depending on driver lane choices. Where lower volumes exist on the crossover and/or the 

opposing street, and where the major street is sufficient to accommodate simultaneously turning 

vehicles (i.e. three or four lanes in each direction), U-turns and right-turn movements can be 

served under the same signal phase. However, at signalized intersections locations where the 

volumes of right-turn and U-turn movements increase the potential for crashes, separate signal 

phases can be provided for U-turn and right-turn phases. For a given site, a study would be 

required to determine if the additional signal phase impacts the main crossing intersection 

phasing and major street progression, and if an additional U-turn and/or an additional right-turn 

lane is needed to provide sufficient capacity and operations. U-turn movements also potentially 

conflict with buses on the major street, such as a bus stopped opposite or several vehicle lengths 

downstream from a crossover. A bus at such a stop would wait until a gap in major street and Uturning traffic was present before departing. Exhibit 4-6 shows an example of a U-turn/right-turn 

conflict. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

44

Exhibit 4-6. Example of U-turn/right-turn conflict.(1)

Potential for Wrong-way Movements 

MUT crossovers are directional, not two-way as in conventional divided highway corridors. This 

typically has no negative effects if crossovers are designed with channelization to prevent 

wrong-way movements. Exhibit 4-7 provides a detail of a Michigan Department of 

Transportation (MDOT) conventional U-turn crossover.(27)

Exhibit 4-7. MUT crossover detail.(27) 

Weaving on the Major Street

The potential exists for some weaving movements to take place between through vehicles on the 

major street and vehicles turning right from the minor street and moving to the left lanes to reach 

the U-turn crossover. These movements have potential speed differentiations and can therefore 

be an operational and safety performance concern. In most cases, vehicles turning right from the 

minor street will wait for a gap suitable to move into the U-turn crossover lanes without weaving 

with or impeding through traffic. A simple remedy to eliminate this potential weaving conflict is 

to prohibit RTOR. Many MUT intersections in Michigan prohibit RTOR during certain (peak 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

45

period) portions of the day where adequate gaps in major street traffic would be difficult to 

safely obtain.

Potential for Violating Left Turn Prohibitions

While signing and geometrics can deter vehicles from making direct left turns at the main 

crossing intersection, there is no physical barrier to making illegal left turns. Proper overhead 

and ground-mount signing, marking, and geometric design that positively guide vehicles are all 

important factors in discouraging prohibited left turns at the main crossing intersection. Proper 

application of regulatory highway signs including “no left turn” (R3-2) and “one-way” (R6-1)

aid in the guidance of movements through the MUT intersection and make prohibited 

movements illegal. Exhibit 4-8 illustrates best practices for signing restricted movements at the 

main crossing intersection, and Chapter 7 describes the intersection and crossover design details 

to discourage prohibited left-turn movements. 

Exhibit 4-8. MUT restrictive signing.(4)

At the opening of some MUT intersections in recent years in areas where the MUT intersection 

design is new or not common, state or local police forces have been used during the first day of 

operations to reinforce the turning prohibitions and provide general guidance for proper 

intersection use. 

Truck Navigation of Crossovers 

When designing U-turn crossovers with multiple lanes, designing adequate crossovers for WB50 or WB-67 trucks requires focused detail on truck turning paths. Large trucks should be signed 

to use the rightmost, or outermost, U-turn lanes. The design of the crossover must anticipate the 

vehicle tracking through the crossover to ensure that the WB-50 or WB-67 trucks path does not 

overlap with the path of a passenger car or single-unit truck in the leftmost of the dual lanes. 

Exhibit 4-9 illustrates the potential for path overlap, and design details for dual-lane crossovers 

are provided in Chapter 7. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

46

Exhibit 4-9. Dual lane crossover design path overlap potential. 

Intersection Sight Distance

Providing adequate distance between consecutive U-turn crossovers allows drivers at one stop 

bar to see past a queue built up in the storage bay of the other crossover. Exhibit 4-7, from the 

MDOT, calls for a minimum separation of 100 feet and a desirable separation of 150 feet 

between U-turn crossovers.(27) If consecutive U-turn crossovers must be closer together, the 

designers can signalize them and prohibit LTOR. Designers should also ensure good intersection 

sight distances at MUT crossovers by making sure slopes and plantings in the median are cut 

back beyond the lines of sight. 

INCIDENT RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS

MUT intersections, while restricting direct left turns, do not install physical objects within the 

main intersection (intersection of major and minor crossroads) that would block emergency 

vehicles from making direct left turns. Direct left turns at MUT intersections are denied 

exclusively by signing, signal indications, and pavement markings. Emergency vehicles using 

sirens and flashing lights as they approach a MUT intersection and desiring to turn left can make 

a direct left turn after vehicles with conflicting movements have yielded the right-of-way. This 

practice is no different than an emergency vehicle making a direct left turn at a conventional 

intersection when approaching a red signal indication. 

Emergency vehicles traveling through intersections must make sure all conflicting traffic 

movements have yielded the right-of-way before they proceed. As noted earlier, MUT 

intersections overall (Exhibit 4-4) have 16 fewer conflict points than the 32 noted for 

conventional intersections (Exhibit 4-3). As a result, emergency vehicles traveling through the 

MUT intersection have four fewer conflict points than conventional intersection, two fewer when 

making left turns, and one fewer when making right turns. 

MUT intersections are generally located on divided streets with right-in, right-out driveway 

access. Access to these driveways may require out-of-direction travel compared to an undivided 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

47

street. Mountable portions of raised medians can reduce out-of-direction travel for emergency 

vehicles.

SAFETY EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS

There are no CMFs specific to MUT intersections. The results of past safety studies presented 

earlier in this chapter indicate a trend of improved safety performance at MUT intersections 

versus conventional intersections. 

If agencies wish to construct their own before-and-after safety evaluation of a set of MUT 

projects, there are several factors to keep in mind, including: 

• The boundaries of the analysis area need to be large enough to include all crossovers. It 

would be unfair to compare a conventional intersection to just the main junction of a MUT 

intersection.

• Left-turn vehicles at a MUT intersection drive longer distances to negotiate the intersection 

than comparable conventional intersections. Thus, analyses using rates, such as crashes per 

vehicle-mile, should adjust for these “extra” distances driven.

• It is possible that some left-turning drivers may alter their routes to avoid the intersection. 

Thus, crash migration is a possible threat to the validity of a before-after analysis. Analysts 

should measure traffic demands during the before and after periods, and if crash migration is 

suspected should also widen the scope of the analysis to include new routes drivers are using. 

• MUT intersections are sometimes installed in conjunction with developments that generate 

traffic. This reinforces the need to account for volume in an analysis since higher volumes 

result in lower crash rates for the same number of crashes.

General guidance on before/after safety studies and development of CMFs can be found in 

FHWA’s A Guide to Developing Quality Crash Modification Factors.

(28) 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

48

This page intentionally left blank.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

49

CHAPTER 5— OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

This chapter provides information on the unique operational characteristics of MUT intersections

and how they affect elements such as traffic signal phasing and coordination. The guidance 

presented here builds on existing MUT intersection studies, which include operational 

performance studies, comparative performance studies, and simulation analysis. The chapter also 

provides guidance relating to design elements that could affect the operational performance of 

MUT intersections. It is intended to help transportation professionals understand the unique 

operational characteristics of MUT intersections and prepare them for conducting operational 

analysis as described in Chapter 6. 

OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES

The MUT intersection provides traffic operational benefits, particularly for through movements 

on the major street, by reducing the number of intersection signal phases and shortening overall 

signal cycle lengths. Left-turn movements are made indirectly at MUT intersections. Minor street

left turns are made by turning right at the main crossing intersection, left at a U-turn crossover, 

and proceeding back through the main crossing intersection. Major street left turns are made by 

proceeding through the main crossing intersection, turning left at a U-Turn crossover, and right 

at the main crossing intersection. Despite having to drive an additional distance compared to left 

turns at a conventional intersection, MUT intersection left turns usually have equal or improved 

delay and travel times compared to a conventional intersection. 

Exhibit 5-1 illustrates concurrent movements at a conventional intersection and at a MUT 

intersection. Exhibit 5-2 shows the typical signal locations for a MUT intersection. 

 
I I I I 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I It ~ + + + ~~ tltlt 

't.. 

- -

- - - - - - - -,. 

- -

- - -

- -

- - -

- - ~ 

+I I ~~ i t t ,. 

I I 

I I I I 

East/West Protected Left-Turn Phase 

Conventional Intersection 

East/West Through Phase 

Conventional Intersection 

: 

Ji.l. 

' 

East/West Phases 

MUT 

.-

-

Median U-Turn Informational Guide

50

Exhibit 5-1. Concurrent movements at a conventional intersection and at a MUT

intersection. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

51

Exhibit 5-2. Typical MUT intersection signal locations. 

Cycle Length

The MUT intersection, like many alternative intesections, removes left-turn phasing, which 

results in fewer clearance intervals in the intersection cycle (in this case, a reduction from four to 

two). The time formerly allocated for the eliminated clearance intervals can be allocated to other 

movments, thus improving intersection efficiency.

The MUT intersection provides similar green time per cycle for each through movement and 

more green time per cycle for left-turn movements. Each signalized intersection within the MUT 

will have the same cycle length, which typically ranges from 60 to 120 seconds. The cycle length 

is dependent on intersection traffic volumes, pedestrian crossing times, and the cycle lengths of 

conventional signals in the corridor that are coordinated with the MUT intersection. 

In some cases, a MUT intersection will operate well with a shorter cycle length than is 

appropriate for one or more of the other signalized intersections along a corridor. If the cycle 

length for the MUT intersections is half of the cycle length for the surrounding signals, signal 

coordination and progression can remain along the corridor while also maintaining the benefits 

of MUT intersection. In other cases, the cycle length of the corridor signals must be decreased to 

match the MUT intersection cycle lengths or increased to be twice as long as the MUT 

intersection cycle length if the corridor is to remain coordinated. If the most congested 

intersection on a corridor is converted to a MUT intersection, decreasing the cycle length on the 

corridor is feasible. 

Shorter cycle lengths allow more cycles to be served each hour, and vehicles have less time to 

“store” and form queues, thus shortening queues. Exhibit 5-3 illustrates a shorter cycle length at 

a high-volume MUT intersection compared to a conventional intersection. In this example, the 

green time allotted to the major street movement through is 56 seconds in the conventional 

intersection and 45 seconds in the MUT intersection. The pedestrian crossing on the major street 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

52

requires 33 seconds of “walk” and flash “don’t walk” time, which is the minimum green time for 

the minor street. The minor street green time is longer than this with the conventional 

intersection to serve vehicular demand. The conventional intersection’s 150-second cycle serves 

24 full cycles each hour and allocates 1,344 seconds of green time to the major through 

movement. The MUT intersection’s 90-second cycle serves 40 full cycles each hour and 

allocates 1,800 seconds of green time to the major through movement. The comparative result is 

33-percent more green time allocated under the MUT than the conventional intersection. 

Exhibit 5-3. Comparison of intersection cycle lengths and phasing.(4) 

The example above is most applicable to converting an isolated intersection to a MUT 

intersection. If a single intersection on a corridor was converted in a MUT intersection, it would 

be necessary to use a common cycle length (such as 120 seconds) or have the MUT intersection 

be half the cycle length of the other intersections on the corridor. 

Signal Coordination 

Left-turn phases are removed from the main intersection at MUT intersections. Therefore, the 

green time per phase increases, enabling better corridor progression and bandwidths. The shorter 

minimum cycle lengths typical at a MUT intersection can increase the likelihood the cycle length 

for the MUT intersection could be half the cycle length of the surrounding signals to allow

coordination along the corridor. Providing progression in both directions simultaneously can be 

easier at MUT intersections compared to conventional forms. 

Within the MUT intersection, traffic on the major street should either stop at the crossover signal 

prior to the main intersection (if the crossover is signalized), or travel through both intersections 

and progress through the main signal without stopping. This requires the crossover signal to turn 

red at the main intersection several seconds after the signal at the crossover displays red to clear 

vehicles through the dilemma zone for the main intersection signal; this minimizes queuing 

between the main intersection and the crossover and allows U-turning vehicles to complete their 

turn without queued vehicles blocking their path. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

53

U-turn progression can be accomplished to minimize the travel time of the left-turning vehicles. 

Signals may be timed such that a vehicle traveling through the green light at the crossover has 

little to no wait for the green light at the main intersection before it turns green. Green time for 

the U-turn can nearly match the main intersection’s minor street green time, while the major 

street green times (at the main intersection and crossover) will be nearly the same.

Signal phasing and timing for the U-turn crossovers match the main intersection (see Exhibit 5-

4). To maintain progression along the corridor, upstream crossover signals change from green to 

red phases several seconds prior to the main intersection to allow through vehicles to pass 

through both intersections and reduce queuing between the main intersection and the crossover. 

Exhibit 5-4. MUT signal phase timing. 

Signal timing for an MUT intersection is simple given there are only two phase intervals. The 

minimum cycle length for low-volume periods is based on pedestrian crossings times. If longer 

green times are needed during a higher-volume period, minor street/U-turn split time should be 

set based on the minor street through movement or U-turn crossover demand (higher of the two). 

The major street through movement capacity should govern the minimum green time given to 

both major street movements simultaneously. If both capacities can be met, the major street

movement should be favored slightly, as it typically serves a higher percentage of the traffic 

entering the intersection. 

Crossover Saturation Flow Rates 

There is no evidence saturation flow rates for major street through movements differ at a MUT 

intersection compared to a conventional intersection. However, the saturation flow rate for left 

turns at crossovers does differ from those of conventional left-turn movements. Crossover 

saturation flow rate is a measure of the capacity of the crossover. Major factors affecting the 

flow rate of these signalized crossovers include ratio of U-turns compared to left turns, radius of 

U-turns, and the number of lanes provided. 

U-turns are a naturally slower movement than a left turn, so the saturation flow rate is lower for 

U-turns than left turns. Studies indicate U-turn saturation flow rates range from 1,300 to 1,400 

vehicles per hour (veh/h).(29) Since conventional left-turn movements are more common and 

better understood, U-turn saturation flow rates are generally described as a factor of left-turn 

saturation flow rates. At conventional intersections locations with a high ratio of U-turns, studies 

suggest the U-turn saturation flow rate is reduced as much as 20-percent (factor of 0.80) over the 

left-turn saturation flow rate.(29) Since the crossovers at a MUT intersection are expected to have 

a high percentage of U-turn vehicles (100-percent in some cases), the radius of the U-turn likely 

has the greatest effect on the saturation flow rate. Small radii (less than 50 feet) slow vehicles, 

especially large vehicles, and reduce the saturation flow rate. Large radii (greater than 70 feet), 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

54

while increasing flow rates, require more right-of-way and wider medians, which can have 

implications on land use and other aspects of the MUT intersection design and operation. 

The decision to use dual left-turn lanes is dependent on U-turn volumes as well as the design of 

the MUT system. Using the schematic in Exhibit 5-5, if U-turns only replace major street left 

turns (path A), the number of U-turn lanes are limited by the number of right-turn lanes from the 

major street to the minor street. However, if U-turns replace major and minor street left turns 

(paths A and B), then dual U-turn lanes can be accommodated regardless of the number of rightturn lanes from the major street to the minor street. 

Exhibit 5-5. MUT intersection vehicle paths options.

When considering dual U-turn lanes, vehicle volumes expected from each path also affect lane 

utilization. Vehicles using path A will primarily (and almost exclusively) use the outer 

(rightmost) U-turn lane, and vehicles from path B will primarily (but not exclusively) use the 

inner (leftmost) lane. Generally, vehicles will queue equally in both lanes (drivers on path B are 

not bound to a particular lane choice and will likely choose the lane with the shorter queue), but 

if there is an imbalance in volumes using path A compared to path B, the rightmost U-turn lane 

may queue disproportionally. The design volumes for Path A and Path B should be applied when 

determining queue storage lengths and signal timing at the crossovers. 

Weaving 

Weaving areas are dependent on intersection lane numbers and arrangements and signal phasing.

Weaving at a MUT intersection can typically be created in two scenarios:

1. When vehicles using paths A & B (see Exhibit 5-6) use the same dual U-turn crossover, 

any path A vehicles in the inner (leftmost) U-turn lane would have to weave with path B 

vehicles in the outer (rightmost) lane after the U-turn to complete their left turn.

2. Path B (see Exhibit 5-6) vehicles that turn right on red from the minor street must 

navigate across the major street through lanes to enter the U-turn crossover lanes. This 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

55

scenario also occurs when turning from an unsignalized intersection or property access 

between the main intersection and crossover. One way to eliminate this weaving 

movement is to prohibit RTOR movements from the minor street. The impact of delay 

due to prohibiting RTOR has some offset in that, in most cases, the right-turning vehicle 

delay will be less than a conventional signalized intersection, as the MUT intersection 

cycle length tends to be shorter and greater green time is given to the through and rightturn movements. 

Both scenarios can be minimized through signing/marking or signal timing. For scenario 1, clear 

signage and pavement markings help drivers choose the appropriate U-turn lanes. If there is lane 

utilization imbalance, this becomes more difficult. For scenario 2, vehicles from the minor street

have the opportunity to wait for their green time to turn instead of turning right on red. Spacing 

between the unsignalized intersection, main intersection, and crossover; number of lanes on 

major street; length of U-turn storage lane; and traffic volumes of conflicting movements all 

have an effect on the operation of the weave area.

Storage 

Storage lengths for U-turn crossovers are determined using similar methods to other left-turn 

lanes. The storage should be sufficient to store queued vehicles without backing up onto the 

deceleration lanes, thus restricting through travel on the major street, or worse yet, back-up into 

the main intersection. This is a function of U-turn demand, capacity of crossover, and signal 

timing/coordination of the crossover. The storage length required based on these factors can be 

determined through Highway Capacity Manual analyses or microsimulation.

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Corridor Throughput

The combination of reduced clearance intervals, reduced cycle lengths, and improved corridor 

signal progression with MUT intersections enables greater corridor throughput compared to a 

conventional intersection corridor. As an illustration of this throughput benefit, the Michigan 

DOT, a leader in implementing MUT intersections and corridors, has performed studies at 

dozens of intersections comparing MUT versus conventional corridors. Exhibit 5-6 illustrates a 

compilation of the MDOT study results showing the MUT intersection design improves 

performance by a level of service (LOS) grade on average compared to a comparable 

intersection.(12)

 Further, the maximum corridor throughput is approximately 20-percent greater 

with a MUT corridor (at LOS D) versus a conventional corridor. 

Vehicle Progression

Vehicle progression is improved at MUT intersections compared to conventional intersections, 

especially if MUT intersections are implemented over a series of intersections in a corridor. 

Recalling the example in Exhibit 5-3, the major street through movement receives a greater 

portion of green time at a MUT intersection than at a conventional intersection. Therefore, the 

chances of a vehicle arriving during the green phase at a MUT intersection are greater than under 

a convential intersection. In general, a MUT corridor provides a wider green band for 

progression and may more readily facilitate bidirectional coordination. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

56

NOTE: Letters indicate Level of Service

Exhibit 5-6. Divided highway level of service and throughput comparison.(12) 

COMPARATIVE LITERATURE AND PERFORMANCE STUDIES

Based on the comparative traffic operations and simulation studies, summarized in Exhibit 5-7, 

MUT intersections had the following operational advantages compared to conventional 

intersections: 

• Added capacity of 14- to 18-percent

• Increase in total throughput increased from 15- to 40-percent 

• Vehicles stopping in the network were 20- to 40-percent lower

• Critical lane volumes were reduced by 17-percent

• MUT corridors, compared to conventional corridors with TWLTLs, increased capacity by 

20-to 50-percent, reduced travel times by 17-percent, and increased average speed by 25-

percent
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

57

Exhibit 5-7. Summary of comparison literature and performance studies. 

Study Authors,

Publication & Date Type of Study Key Finding

Reid & Hummer, 

TRR 2001(30) Simulation

MUT intersections changed overall travel times (average for all 

movements) ranged from -21-percent to +6-percent compared to 

conventional intersections

Bared & Kaiser, 

ITE 2002 (31) Simulation

Found considerable savings in travel time under MUT intersections 

compared to conventional intersections, especially where entering 

volumes exceeded 6,000 veh/h and left turns represented 10- to 20-

percent of the entering volume

Hughes, Sengupta & 

Hummer, FHWA 

2010 (9) 

Field MUT intersection increased throughput by 15- to 40-percent compared 

to a conventional intersection

Stover, Texas A&M 

1990 (32) Field MUT intersection reduced CLVs by 17-percent compared to a 

conventional intersection

Koepke & Levinson, 

TRR 1993 (33) Field MUT intersections provide approximately 14- to 18-percent additional 

capacity compared to a conventional intersection

Savage, Journal of 

Traffic Engineering 

1974 (34) 

Field MUT intersections increased corridor capacity by 20- to 50-percent 

compared to a conventional corridor with TWLTL

Maki, MDOT 1992 

(35) Field

Found a 20- to 50-percent increase when conventional intersections 

with TWLTL corridors were converted to boulevards with MUT 

intersections

Dorothy, Malek & 

Nolf, TRR 1997 (13) Simulation

Found consistently lower network travel times when five-lane streets 

with TWLTL and conventional intersections were converted to fourlane streets with MUT intersections with signalized crossovers

Reid & Hummer, 

TRR 1999 (15) Simulation MUT corridor reduced total travel time by 17-percent compared to 

similar corridors with TWLTL and conventional intersections
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

58

This page intentionally left blank.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

59

CHAPTER 6— OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS

The previous chapter presented operational characteristics unique to MUT intersections. To 

support decisions regarding the choice and design of a MUT intersection, there needs to be an

appropriate level of traffic operations analysis corresponding to the stage of the project 

development process. The level of analysis needs to be consistent with the available data, and 

that data needs to support the applied analysis tools. As vehicular traffic operations coincide with 

multimodal considerations, final intersection configurations and associated signal timing should 

be in balance with multimodal needs for each unique project context. 

A MUT configuration is a system of multiple intersections. The main crossing intersection is 

broken into two separate signalized intersections on either side of a wide median that are 

coordinated to function as one intersection. At most MUT intersections, there are two additional 

signalized intersections, one at each intersection of the major street and the U-turn crossover. 

Therefore, operational analysis must consider the operations of each signalized intersection and 

the relationship among all signalized intersections.

Available data could include the following elements:

• Average daily traffic (ADT)

• Speed (posted, design, or 85th percentile)

• Weekday and weekend peak-hour turning movement counts 

• Weekday and weekend off-peak turning movement counts 

• Pedestrian volume at the intersection

• Bicycle volume at the intersection

• Proportion of the traffic stream composed of heavy vehicles 

• Basic geometric data including distances between the U-turnand crossover intersections

Measures of effectiveness are used to evaluate the operational efficiency of a particular design 

like the MUT intersection. The FHWA Traffic Analysis Toolbox has identified the following 

seven basic measures of effectiveness for vehicles:

(36)

• Travel time: average time spent by vehicles traversing a facility, including control delay, 

in seconds or minutes per vehicle 

• Speed: rate of motion (expressed in distance per unit of time) 

• Delay: additional travel time expereienced by travelers at speeds less than the free-flow 

(posted) speed (expresed in seconds or minutes) 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

60

• Queues: length of queued vehicles waiting to be served by the system (expressed in 

distance or number of vehicles) 

• Stops: number of stops experienced by the section and/or corridor (based on a minimum 

travel speed threshold) 

• Density: number of vehicles on a street segment averaged over space (usually expressed 

in vehicles per mile or vehicles per mile per lane)

• Travel time variance: a quantification of the unexpected non-recurring delay associated 

with excess travel demand (can be expressed in several ways)

The final two measures, density and travel time variance, are less applicable to an intersection 

treatment than an uninterruped flow facility, but may still be considered during the operational 

analysis. While average speed and travel time apply to the MUT intersection much like they 

would to a conventional intersection (as long as the analysis area includes the entire 

configuration), the delay and stops performance measures must be carefully aggregated over the 

multiple intersections contained within intersection. Individual performance measures such as 

queues, stops, and delay across multiple intersections of a typical vehicle progressed through the 

intersection provides more meaningful comparisons versus simply adding or averaging the 

performance measures from each intersection.

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS TOOL OVERVIEW

According to FHWA’s Traffic Analysis Toolbox, several tools are available to analyze traffic 

operations at intersections, including the following:(36)

• Planning-level analysis, such as critical lane volume and Capacity Analysis for Planning 

of Junctions (CAP-X)(37)

• Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)Analysis

• Microsimulation analysis

One major factor distinguishing these three types of analysis is the amount of time required to 

evaluate each scenario. HCM analysis may take several times as long as planning analysis, and 

microsimulation is typically an order of magnitude greater than HCM analyses. Planning-level 

tools are useful in the initial feasibility analysis and to conduct a high-level comparison of the 

approximate number of lanes for a MUT intersection. An operational analysis using a 

deterministic method, such as the HCM, is useful to perform a more detailed peak-hour 

performance analysis and to estimate performance measures like delay, travel time, and queue 

lengths.(2) The HCM analysis may provide insight on additional geometric design and signal 

timing details. Microsimulation is useful for alternative intersection forms containing multiple 

closely-spaced intersections for which an HCM procedure has not been explicitly developed. 

Exhibit 6-1 provides a summary of available analysis techniques for MUT intersections. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

61

Exhibit 6-1. MUT analysis techniques. 

Available Techniques

Planning Highway Capacity Manual Microscopic simulation

Available using critical 

lane analysis and CAPX 

Difficult to perform now for motor 

vehicles; can analyze crossing 

pedestrians and bicycles. MUTspecific HCM procedure under 

development

Can be performed for motor 

vehicles, pedestrians, and 

bicycles with most simulation 

packages

PLANNING-LEVEL ANALYSIS

Planning-level tools and methods are useful in the early stages of a project when the MUT

configuration is being considered as one of several options for an intersection improvement 

alternative. Planning-level tools and methods provide high-level analysis, typically providing no 

greater detail than volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios and/or LOS computations. Travel time, delay, 

queue lenghts, signal timings, and specific geometric data are typically not inputs nor outputs of 

planning-level tools. In general, planning-level analysis results are useful for feasibility and highlevel design features but are not directly tied to actual operational performance or operational 

model results. 

For planning-level evaluation of MUT intersections, the principle tool available is criticalmovement analysis, as implemented in FHWA’s CAP-X tools.(37) CAP-X is a tool used to 

evaluate select types of innovative intersections, including the MUT intersection, requiring only 

peak volumes inputs. The tool, easily implemented in a spreadsheet workbook, is designed to 

work using simple inputs including: 

• Turning movement counts at both the main crossing and U-turn crossover intersections 

• Heavy vehicle percentages

• Number of lanes on each intersection approach

• Estimate of future growth in traffic

The outputs are the approximate v/c ratios at the main crossing intersection and each of the 

crossover points. Exhibit 6-2 is a screen capture from the spreadsheet that is downloadable from 

the Transportation Systems Institute website, A Federal Highway Administration Project in 

partnership with the Transportation Systems Institute at the University of Central Florida.(37)

Note that when considering the result of the planning-level analysis, the worst intersection

governs the operations of the entire MUT intersection. For example, if the main crossing 

intersection analysis results show a v/c of 0.7 and one of the crossover intersections has a v/c of 

0.65 but the other crossover intersection has a v/c of 1.3, then the entire intersection would be 

considered unsatisfactory unless additional lanes can be added to the deficient crossover 

intersection to attain satisfactory operations.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

62

Exhibit 6-2. CAP-X Planning Level Tool Screen Capture.

(37) 

The assumed per-lane capacity of each MUT intersection movement is a key parameter in the 

planning-level results. The capacity in an operational analysis is derived from the saturation flow 

rate and the green-to-cycle-length ratio. In a planning-level analysis, the combined capacity of 

two intersecting lanes is estimated through the critical lane volume at the crossing point. This 

value is reduced from a base, uninterrupted saturation flow rate of 1,800 to 1,900 vehicles-perhour-per-lane (vphpl) to account for lost time in the signal cycle. The typical critical lane volume 

in a tool like CAP-X is 1,600 vphpl. 

For the MUT intersection, research has shown the saturation flow rate at the U-turn crossover 

intersection may be lower than at a conventional intersection approach due to the slower speeds 

of the U-turning vehicles. The main crossing intersection saturation flow rate may also be 

reduced due to the longer signal clearance timing needed to safely clear vehicles through both 

intersections with the major street divided by the wide median. However, while these two MUT 

characteristics might suggest a reduction in the critical lane volume, the saturation flow rate is

likely offset by a reduced lost time due to two-phase signal operations. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

63

HIGHWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS (HCM) ANALYSIS

Analytical methods and deterministic models to establish highway capacity, vehicular delay, and 

other performance measures are required for a more detailed analysis. The Highway Capacity 

Manual, as well as Highway Capacity Software and other types of software available from 

private vendors, can be used to perform this level of analysis.(6) These tools use deterministic 

methods derived through analytical equations. An HCM procedure specifically for MUT 

intersections is under development by FHWA. The procedure will be included in an update of 

the 2010 HCM scheduled for completion in 2015. 

The operational analysis methods provide further insight into the operational effects of geometric 

design and signal timing elements of an MUT compared to planning-level analysis methods. 

Advantages of the operational-level analysis approach in the HCM include the ability to balance 

operational detail with reasonable data input needs and analysis resource requirements. The 

HCM method provides more detailed output in the form of delays, travel time, and queue 

estimates than the planning-level method, while allowing for more customization and 

consideration of geometric variability and signal timing details. At the same time, its methods are 

typically applied more quickly than a more resource-intensive simulation analysis. Another key 

advantage of the HCM over simulation analysis is that the deterministic analysis framework 

offers consistency in performance estimation across analysts and interchange options. The HCM 

is generally regarded as the benchmark for operational performance estimation, and its equations 

and Level of Service (LOS) stratification form the basis of comparison with other tools. 

Disadvantages of the current HCM include a limited scope of applicable geometry and lack of

focus on network and system effects, including the interaction of the U-turn crossover 

intersections with the main crossing intersection. Other operational characteristics of MUT 

intersections not adequately handled by existing HCM methodologies include: 

• The potential for queuing to spill back from the U-turn crossover intersection approaches 

back onto the major street

• The impact of weaving from the right turn from the minor street over to the U-turn 

crossover lanes with through traffic on the major street

• The arrival and departure of vehicles between the crossover and main intersection (signal 

coordination) 

• The impact of weaving downstream of dual-lane U-turn crossovers 

• The impact of transit stops within the boundary of the MUT intersection 

• Estimation of pedestrian or bicycle level of service

The current HCM analysis models analyze each intersection independently. Weaving movements 

and lane imbalance in positioning for downstream movements are not factored into the results. It 

is also not possible to cumulatively analyze the travel time and delay associated with left-turning 

movements that are made through a series of intersections. Vehicles are not “tracked” through 

the series of intersections, and thus the net impact to left-turn delay and travel time is not readily 

comparable to conventional intersection operations. The MUT-specific procedure under 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

64

development for the update of the 2010 HCM will include “tracking” of vehicles and net 

impacts.

While the HCM has limitations, as discussed above, it does provide the consistency agencies 

need for evaluating alternatives. The HCM is an international reference manual overseen by an 

independent committee of experts in the field, and thus is often the basis for policy decisions and 

LOS thresholds for intersection selection. 

Level of Service Definition

The LOS of an entire MUT intersection in the HCM can only be evaluated on an intersection-byintersection basis. At present, there is no methodology for establishing an overall LOS grade for 

the MUT intersection; rather the intersection evaluation should be based on the “worst” 

operations of the multiple signalized intersections within the MUT footprint. Evaluation of the 

approach delay and LOS should be rated according to the thresholds established in Exhibit 6-3, 

which is reproduced from the HCM.(6) 

Exhibit 6-3. LOS criteria for signalized intersections (based on HCM Exhibit 18-5).(6)

Control Delay 

(s/veh) LOS

≤10 A

>10–20 B

>20–35 C

>35–55 D

>55–80 E

>80 F

Computational Steps

The basic methodology for analyzing MUT intersection operations is shown in flowchart form in 

Exhibit 6-4. The MUT intersection methodology mirrors the HCM signalized intersection 

method (2010 HCM Exhibit 18-11), but with additional considerations.(6) These include 

assigning conventional turning movements to the patterns permitted by the MUT intersection’s

geometry, assuming optimal progression arriving at the main crossing intersection downstream 

of the U-turn crossover, and verifying the median U-turn queue does not exceed available 

storage length.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

65

Exhibit 6-4. HCM methodology for MUT intersection evaluation 

(adapted from HCM Exhibit 18-11).(6) 

A variety of input data are required to apply the HCM methodology to evaluate an MUT 

intersection. These generally fall into the three categories of geometric conditions, traffic 

conditions, and signalization conditions. Exhibit 6-5 shows input data needed for evaluating an 

MUT intersection using the HCM methodology.(6) 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

66

Exhibit 6-5. Input data for HCM evaluation of MUT intersections 

(based on HCM Exhibit 18-6).(6) 

Type of Condition Parameter

Traffic 

Characteristics

Demand volume by O-D or turning movement

Right turn on red flow rate 

Percent heavy vehicles

Intersection peak hour factor 

Platoon ratios 

Upstream filtering adjustment factor

Initial queue

Base saturation flow rate

Lane utilization adjustment factor

Approach speed 

Pedestrian flow rate

Bicycle flow rate

Local bus stopping rate

Geometric Design

Number of lanes

Average lane width

Turn bay lengths 

Approach grades

Turning radii for all turning movements 

Distance between main crossing and U-turn crossover intersections 

Existence of exclusive or shared left- or right-turn lanes

Signal Control 

Type of signal control

Phase sequence

Cycle length 

Green times

Yellow-plus-all-red change-and-clearance interval

Offsets 

Maximum, minimum green, passage times, phase recall (for actuated 

control) 

Minimum pedestrian green

Phase plan

Other

Analysis period

85th percentile, design, or posted speed 

Area type

One of the key considerations in evaluating MUT intersections in an HCM context is traffic 

signal optimization. The HCM methodology does not include a methodology for optimizing 

MUT intersection traffic signals. Therefore, other tools are needed for optimizing MUT signal 

timing plans prior to implementation in the HCM or a simulation environment. To overcome this 

challenge, analysts often use off-the-shelf signal optimization tools to arrive at signal timing 

parameters for analysis of unbuilt MUT intersections. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

67

When optimizations tools are not available, some simplified optimization techniques can be 

applied. Since all MUT intersections operate as two-phase signals and the U-turn crossover 

intersections typically have lower volumes compared to the main crossing intersection, simple 

base signal timing assumptions can be developed by balancing the phasing split according to the 

proportional volumes on the major and minor streets. Once the main crossing intersection split is 

established, the U-turn crossover intersections are established to match the green time for the 

major street, and the offset is adjusted such that vehicles departing the U-turn crossover 

intersection on a green signal arrive at the downstream intersection at the beginning of the green 

phase (or stop on red with sufficient offset to clear the downstream intersection). The base signal 

phasing assumption can be tested and modified in the more detailed HCM process. 

MICROSIMULATION ANALYSIS

Microsimulation analysis tools are capable of modeling the unique operational aspects of 

alternative intersections, including MUT intersections. Capacity is derived from car-following 

models rather that static assumptions, and all intersections within a MUT configuration can be 

included in a single network. Among the more critical features required to accurately model 

MUT intersections is the ability to replicate and track the turning movement patterns, including 

lane changing and lane assignment preferences. A list of calibration factors and validation 

parameters are described below. The selected tool must be able to include these. A discussion on 

the calibration process can be found in the FHWA’s Traffic Analysis Tools website in Volumes 

III or Volume IV (specific to CORSIM) at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/trafficanalysistools/.

(36) 

Advantages of microsimulation models include flexible customization and configuration of 

geometry, signal timing, and other operational parameters. However, the greatest advantage is 

that microsimulation models can output “system” measures of effectiveness for MUT 

intersections, so that overall movement delay, travel times, and number of stops can be readily 

compared to conventional or other unconventional intersection designs. The MUT-specific 

procedure under development for the update of the 2010 HCM will provide some “system” 

measures of effectiveness.

Disadvantages of microsimulation models include the time, budget, data required for input and 

proper calibration, and the knowledge of how to properly choose, set-up, run, validate and obtain 

results. Another limitation of simulation is the need to calibrate and validate the effort, as well as 

the potential implications of failing to do so. The analyst needs to understand the many unique 

operational attributes of the MUT intersection including saturation flow rate, speed profiles, lost 

time and gap acceptance for U-turns (if U-turns are unsignalized), and know how to replicate 

those in simulation. There may also be variability in the results of MUT intersection evaluations 

performed by different analysts. 

Calibration Factors 

Key data needed to establish calibration factors input into MUT intersection simulation models

include: 

• Field-measured free-flow speeds through MUT crossover intersections. For calibration, 

speeds at MUT crossover approaches were observed to be below the free-flow speeds of 

through movement approaches as discussed in Chapter 5. Speed reduction zones can be 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

68

used to control free-flow speeds for vehicles using the U-turn crossovers. If the model 

does accurately reflect observed field conditions, an alternate or fall back approach is to 

observe free-flow speeds from other similar locations with similar driver behavior.

• Accurately modeling signalized control of MUT intersections requires exploring whether 

the main and U-turn crossover intersections should be modeled with one versus two 

controllers. The selected tool should employ signal control logic that is flexible enough to 

allow modeling of two-controller two-phase signal control, as well as four rings on a 

single controller. Details of MUT intersection signalization schemes are presented in 

Chapters 5 and 8. 

Validation Factors

Several validation parameters are recommended for accurately modeling existing MUT 

intersections in simulation. Data should be collected in existing conditions to support these 

parameters and the testing of the base conditions model, including: 

• Origin-destination (O-D) volumes collected beyond the area of influence of the MUT 

intersection footprint. A calibrated base model should be able to reflect similar volumes 

and travel patterns compared to existing field conditions. For MUT intersections, the O-D 

patterns are adjusted compared to the conventional intersection to match MUT 

intersection geometry and permitted movements.

• Route travel times, collected using GPS receivers, floating car, or other collection 

techniques. A calibrated model should be able to reflect similar travel times compared to 

existing field conditions. 

• Average and 95th percentile queue lengths, particularly for through and left-turn 

movements. A calibrated model should be able to reflect reasonably similar queue 

lengths compared to existing field conditions. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

69

CHAPTER 7— GEOMETRIC DESIGN

This chapter describes the typical MUT intersection design approach and provides guidance for 

geometric features. This chapter presents best practice design criteria developed by experienced 

state agencies, and also provides information regarding implementations in several states. It 

requires input from the multimodal considerations (Chapter 3), safety assessment (Chapter 4), 

and traffic operational analysis (Chapters 5 and 6). The guidance in this chapter is intended to 

supplement national resources on intersections that apply basic design principles.

DESIGN APPROACH

Developing the geometric layout for an intersection configuration requires considering the 

relationship and interaction of safety, operations, and design. In addition, it requires 

understanding the trade-offs of the physical, environmental, or right-of-way constraints for the 

proposed MUT intersection that may preclude ideal median width or crossover location. The 

overarching goal is to provide geometry that serves all users and meets their expectations. As 

with any intersection form under consideration, undesirable geometry cannot necessarily be 

mitigated by signing and pavement markings. The overarching goal is to provide geometry that 

serves various users and meets their expectations. This includes clear and defined channelization 

that is supplemented with signing and pavement markings. Exhibit 7-1 illustrates a MUT 

intersection with two signals at the main intersection and highlights the characteristic features of 

a MUT intersection. Exhibit 7-2 illustrates a MUT intersection with one signal at the main 

intersection. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

70

Exhibit 7-2. MUT intersection with one signal at the main intersection. 

Exhibit 7-1. MUT characteristics.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

71

GEOMETRIC DESIGN PARAMETERS/PRINCIPLES

The geometric design of a MUT intersection introduces some unique design elements not 

typically present at a conventional intersection. These elements include:

• A wide median is often needed to facilitate the median U-turn movements. Typically this 

median is uniform through the intersection and main crossing street, but there are design 

variations reducing the length of the wide median or locate the median on the minor 

street. 

• A large enough vehicle path at the U-turn crossover to accommodate trucks and allow for 

efficient movements through the U-turn by passenger vehicles.

• Design elements providing positive guidance using design elements and signage to 

reduce chances of driver error and discourage prohibited turns. 

• Signing, marking, and geometric design promoting safe and efficient movements that 

would otherwise be unexpected or not familiar to motorists. 

• Corridor-wide access strategies and management considerations to properties along the 

median street to promote safe and efficient access to these properties.

RANGE OF MUT CONFIGURATIONS

MUT intersections can be used in multiple variations to accommodate specific locations. 

Crossover placement can be adjusted to minimize impacts to access, provide better access, or to 

work with right-of-way limitations.

Median U-turn Locations 

Examples of variations of U-turn locations (as illustrated in Exhibits 7-3 to 7-5) are: 

• Placing a stop-controlled directional crossover immediately prior to the main intersection. 

This could improve adjacent land access by eliminating the need for some vehicles to 

travel through the intersection twice to access properties between the main intersection 

and the crossover. However, this places U-turns and right turns in greater conflict by

sharing the same pavement area to make each respective movement.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

Exhibit 7-3. MUT intersection design variations – stop control crossover near 

intersection.

72

• Placing directional crossovers on the minor street to minimize major street median width 

and right-of-way requirements. This may be less intuitive to drivers in an “isolated” 

setting, but the operational and safety benefits of a MUT intersection are still achieved.

Placing U-turn crossovers in the median over multiple intersections along a principle 

street corridor greatly improves route continuity and driver expectation, and provides 

greater access controls between major intersections.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

73

Exhibit 7-4. MUT intersection design variations – U-turn crossover on minor street. 

• Placing directional crossovers on both the major and minor streets can increase left-turn 

capacity by dividing the turning movements into four crossovers instead of two. This is 

especially effective where two MUT streets intersect. It is also effective when the leftturn volumes displaced to the crossover are overburdening the crossover. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

74

Exhibit 7-5. MUT intersection design variations – U-turn on both streets.

Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Intersection

RCUT intersections are similar to MUT intersections and have the same median U-turn 

crossovers to redirect movements from a main intersection, as shown in Exhibit 7-6. The

difference between MUT and RCUT intersections is seen with the movements allowed at the 

main intersection. For a RCUT intersection, major street through, rights turns, and left turns are 

allowed while only right turns are allowed from the minor street. The signals for RCUT

intersections can operate independently with different cycle lengths in each direction on the 

major street. MUT and RCUT intersections are compatible with each other and can be combined 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

75

effectively along the same corridor. RCUT intersections are also known as superstreet 

intersections and j-turn intersections, and are discussed in detail in the companion FHWA RCUT 

Intersection Informational Guide. 

Exhibit 7-6. RCUT intersection. 

Narrow Corridors 

Many of the Michigan MUT intersections were designed and built in “super corridors” of 

reserved right-of-way that could accommodate wide medians. In other locations, it may be more 

difficult to find corridors of sufficient right-of-way, particularly in built-out urban and suburban 

areas. Therefore, some MUT intersections require different designs to provide the necessary 

width for intersections and crossover locations. 

In Utah, two recent isolated MUT-style intersections were installed with wider right-of-way only 

at the U-turn crossover. These intersections, called “ThrU” intersections by local planners and 

designers, provide a wide loon at each crossover intersection and prohibit left turns at the main

intersection. The U-turn loons eliminate the need for a wider median along the major street, 

minimizing right-of-way impacts. An example of a MUT design with narrow medians installed 

in 2013 by Arizona DOT in Tucson, AZ is shown in Exhibit 7-7. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

76

Exhibit 7-7. MUT intersection with narrow median, Tucson, AZ.(1)

Similar intersection designs were installed on MUT corridors in Grand Rapids, MI and 

Wilmington, NC, as shown in Exhibit 7-8. They use loons to provide the necessary turning radii 

at the U-turn crossovers where right-of-way at the main intersection is not available for a full 

median width. Loons generally require some right-of-way; however, they locate right-of-way 

acquisitions to the crossover locations only. 

Exhibit 7-8. Loon at U-turn crossover in Wilmington, NC.(9) 

OPERATIONAL EFFECTS OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN

This section addresses the operational effects of geometric design on safety performance, traffic 

operations, and quality of service for pedestrians and bicyclists. There are several geometric 

design features potentially affecting how the MUT intersection will operate once implemented.

Intersection Skew

U-turn intersections can be built with skewed intersections with minor streets. There are several 

lengthy MUT corridors in southeast Michigan (including Woodward, Grand River, and Gratiot 

avenues) built on radial routes that cause skews at most crossing street intersections. At skewed 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

77

intersections, the U-turn crossovers are unaffected as the U-turn geometry remains the same. The 

stop bars at the main intersection are adjusted or staggered on the skewed approaches similar to a 

conventional intersection design. Skewed left turns are eliminated at the main intersection. At 

conventional intersections, the acute skewed left turns have a detrimental impact on movement 

capacity. Therefore, the MUT has some operational and implementation advantages at skewed 

intersections. 

U-turn Radii

At a MUT intersection U-turn crossover, the width of the median and the number of turn lanes 

together govern the radius of the U-turn movements and thus control the speed of the movement. 

Larger radii encourage U-turn vehicles to complete their movement at higher speeds, which in 

turn improves the capacity of the crossover. Loons can provide a wider turning radius for both 

cars and trucks. However, the speed and capacity benefit is slightly tempered by the fact that 

vehicles must turn more than 180-degrees to return to the through lanes of travel. While the 

number of lanes and median width are typically fixed for reasons other than operations, the 

turning radii should be maximized to the extent possible (acquiring as much right-of-way as 

possible) to establish efficient operational speeds and capacities at U-turns. 

Pedestrians and Bicycles

Chapter 3 provides guidelines to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists at MUT intersections. 

As for conventional intersection design, ADA guidelines provide guidance for designing 

crosswalks, pedestrian ramps, and sidewalks.(21)

 As detailed in Chapter 3, pedestrians can be 

served using conventional pedestrian signals but are served with greater frequency (more cycles 

per hour) and longer walk time per cycle. Also detailed in Chapter 3, bicycle lanes can be 

constructed adjacent to the outside lanes and are given greater green time priority and face fewer 

conflicting movements at the main and U-turn intersections. 

One unique feature for designing for bicyclists at a MUT intersection is providing a bicycle box 

to facilitate direct left turns. Exhibit 7-9 illustrates a layout for a modified pedestrian island to 

accommodate a bicycle box.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

78

Exhibit 7-9. Bicycle box for left turn.

Transit

As discussed in Chapter 3, transit has similar operational impacts as a conventional intersection 

for most stop locations. Near-side stops on the major street can be placed in a location (in the 

long right-turn bay) such that bus stops would not impede through or U-turn traffic.

DESIGN GUIDANCE

MUT intersections may be used on divided streets or on undivided streets with special provisions 

for accommodating U-turns. The following sections will discuss the following geometric design 

guidance of MUT intersections: 

• Main intersection turn lanes 

• U-turn crossover with two-way crossovers or single-directional crossovers 

• Median widths and loons 

• Right-of-way requirements

• Design vehicle accommodations

• Spacing between the main intersection and U-turn crossovers

• Spacing between crossovers along a MUT corridor of intersections

• Pedestrians and bicycles

• Transit
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

79

Right-turn and shared through/right on minor street Right-turn lane from U-turn to intersection on major street

Exhibit 7-10. Typical right-turn lanes at MUT intersections.(10)

Main Intersection Turn Lanes

At the main intersection of a MUT intersection, the geometric design is similar to a conventional 

intersection. However, direct left turns are not permitted from either the major or minor 

crossroads. As a result, the right-turn lanes on the major street must provide storage for the 

typical right-turn volume from the major street, plus the additional left-turn volume from the 

opposing direction that used the U-turn crossover and returned to the intersection as a rightturning vehicle. 

Similarly, the right-turn lane on the minor street must provide storage for the typical right-turn 

volume from the minor street, plus the additional left-turn volume that will use the crossover in 

the major street median and pass back through the main intersection juncture to complete the 

indirect left-turn movement. As a result, approaches to the main MUT intersection juncture may 

have any combination of exclusive and shared through and right-turn lanes. 

It is not uncommon to have multiple and shared through/right-turn lanes on the minor street

approach to the MUT intersection. Multiple right-turn lanes allow the rightmost lane to be 

dedicated to right-turning vehicles and the leftmost lane to be dedicated to vehicles making Uturn movements at the downstream crossover in the median. On minor streets with at least two 

through lanes at the intersection, it is not uncommon to have a shared through/right-turn lane, as 

having two exclusive right-turn lanes would require additional right-of-way and additional 

pedestrian crossing distances; a shared through/right-turn lane often provides enough capacity 

for all approach movements. 

It is not recommended, however, to have through/right-turn lanes on the major street, as vehicle 

speeds are typically higher and through vehicles would have to slow down for right-turning 

vehicles. Where right-of-way is available, a continuous right-turn lane on the major street from 

the U-turn crossover to the main intersection is recommended. This provides adequate right-turn 

lane storage (typically several hundred feet) and allows the vehicles using the U-turn crossover 

to move over immediately to the right-turn lane and out of the through lanes of travel. 

Exhibit 7-10 provides examples of typical right-turn lanes at a MUT intersection. 

Channelized right-turn lanes are seldom used at MUT intersections, since the channelizing would 

require additional street width for the cross-section, longer crossing widths for pedestrians, and 

additional right-of-way. Also, channelized right turns would induce undesirable weaving 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

80

conflicts that otherwise would not occur if vehicles were forced to stop before turning right on 

red.

The typical MUT intersection restricts direct left turns from both the major and minor crossroads 

and constructs the median U-turn on the major crossroad. However, variations to the typical 

design are sometimes made depending on traffic volumes for the various movements and 

availability of right-of-way. For example, direct left turns may be made permissible from either 

the major or minor crossroad, and/or median U-turns may be constructed on the minor crossroad. 

U-turn Crossovers

MUT intersections require U-turn crossovers as secondary intersections. The U-turn crossover is 

typically located on the major crossroad to accommodate indirect left turns from the major and 

minor crossroads. U-turn crossovers be should have directionally exclusive lanes in advance of 

the crossover to provide deceleration and storage for U-turning vehicles. Guidelines for 

directional median U-turn crossovers have been developed by various state agencies, such as 

MDOT and by the AASHTO Green Book.(27,5) Exhibit 7-11, provided by the MDOT, illustrates 

the dimensions used for directional crossovers on a highway. 

Exhibit 7-11. Directional crossover design on highway.(27) 

For the design used by MDOT, drivers in passenger cars typically queue side-by-side in the 30-

foot-wide U-turn crossover and use it as a two-lane crossover. However, large trucks typically 

use the full 30-foot wide crossover when making U-turns. This is an understood practice in 

Michigan where drivers are familiar with this type of alternative intersection, although it is not a 

legal practice in some states. 

Newer applications in other states with drivers who may be unfamiliar with this type of 

intersection may require additional signing, striping, or design modifications to restrict this 

practice. In particular, this practice may be restricted for unsignalized U-turn crossovers due to 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

81

the potential for vehicles on the outside to block the view of the vehicle on the inside from oncoming traffic. Similarly, vehicles should not be permitted to queue side-by-side in the crossover 

at signalized U-turn intersections where LTOR movements are allowed and to avoid the situation 

of each turning vehicle selecting the same lane. Where a two-lane crossover is designed as such, 

MDOT provides two exclusive U-turn lanes in advance of the crossover with the crossover width 

increased to 36 feet.

In addition to the design guidance from MDOT, the minimum design of crossovers can be 

customized for any design vehicle by using the minimum turning path for the design vehicle plus 

a 2-foot clearance from the vehicle’s left and right sides as the lane width in the crossover.(27)

The same technique can be used in designing dual turning lanes, which will result in a 4-foot 

clearance between vehicles and a 2-foot clearance to the outside edge of each lane. Minimum 

turning paths for design vehicles are readily available in Chapter 2 (Design Controls and 

Criteria) of the AASHTO Green Book, or can be obtained from computer-aided design (CAD) 

programs.(5)

Median Width and Loons

The AASHTO Green Book provides guidance on minimum median widths for various design 

vehicles when designing for U-turns.(5) Exhibit 7-12 provides the minimum median width 

required for seven different types of design vehicles turning from the inside lane of a four-lane 

divided street to either (1) the inside lane in the opposing direction, (2) the outside lane in the 

opposing direction, or (3) the outside shoulder in the opposing direction. 

Where an exclusive U-turn lane of 12 feet in width is provided in the median, an additional 12 

feet should be added to the minimum median widths. Depending on the design vehicle and the 

resultant turning location when the U-turn is completed, median widths can range from a 

minimum of 8 feet (passenger car) to 69 feet (WB-67). Where the median width is not wide 

enough to accommodate the various design vehicles, loons can provide the additional width to 

complete the U-turn. Since most of the U-turning vehicles will make a right turn at the main 

crossing intersection after completing the U-turn, most of the U-turning traffic will need to be in 

the rightmost lane before the main crossing intersection. As a result, the optimal U-turn design 

will use the rightmost lane of the opposing through traffic as the receiving lane for U-turns where 

possible. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

82

Exhibit 7-13. Loon design serving a design vehicle.

(27)

Exhibit 7-12. AASHTO- minimum median widths for U-Turn crossovers.(5) 

Where U-turns cannot be completed using the existing pavement, providing additional pavement 

in the opposing direction of travel to will permit the U-turn to be completed and merge into 

traffic (see design example in Exhibit 7-13). The “ThrU” MUT intersection design used in Utah 

without a median directs all U-turning vehicles into a loon and has a dedicated receiving lane on 

the major street for vehicles exiting the loon. In certain instances where the U-turn cannot be 

accommodated on the major crossroad or on the major crossroad by using loons, consideration 

may be given to moving the U-turn crossover to the minor crossroad. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

83

Right-of-Way Requirements

MDOT uses median widths between 47 and 71 feet to accommodate design vehicles at U-turn 

crossovers without encroaching on outside curbs or shoulders. If 12-foot lanes are assumed and 

an additional 10 feet is provided beyond the edge of the travelled street for drainage and utilities, 

the right-of-way for Michigan streets with MUT intersections can vary from 139 feet for fourlane streets to 163 feet for eight-lane streets. Similarly, using Exhibit 7-4 (from the AASHTO 

Green Book) for minimum median widths, when designing U-turns and using the same lane 

width assumptions described above, the right-of-way requirements would range from 139 feet 

for four-lane streets and 165 feet for eight-lane streets.(6)

If a MUT intersection is located on a street with a median wide enough to accommodate U-turns 

by design vehicles (47 to 69 feet for a WB-67), right-of-way requirements are essentially the 

same as a conventional intersection. For streets with no medians or narrow medians, right-ofway for loons is required. If a new street is built with a wide median specifically to accommodate 

MUT intersections, the MUT intersection will require additional right-of-way compared to a 

conventional intersection. 

Exhibit 7-14 illustrates the estimated footprint for a MUT intersection compared to a 

conventional intersection. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

Exhibit 7-14. Footprint comparison of a MUT intersection versus a conventional 

intersection.

84
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

85

The right-of-way footprint may affect agency decisions on whether to construct this type of 

intersection. This may be of particular focus within an urban environment or other areas where 

right-of-way may be expensive or difficult to obtain. 

Design Vehicles 

The design vehicle’s turning movements at the U-turn crossover and the additional time required 

for design vehicles to complete this movement are the primary differences between the design of 

a conventional intersection and a MUT intersection. Where loons are not used, the medians 

typically need to be 47 to 71 feet wide to accommodate the turning radius and the width of a 

design vehicle’s turning path; medians at conventional intersections with dual-left turn lanes are 

typically 28 feet. Additionally, the lane width of the crossover must be increased to 

accommodate the turning path of the larger vehicles. 

Dual U-turn lanes can be implemented if vehicle demand supports it. Dual U-turn lanes require 

more than twice the area of a single U-turn lane to accommodate large trucks and buses in both 

lanes side-by-side, simultaneously. The size of the U-turn crossover may be reduced if large 

vehicles were limited to one lane by signing and regulation, eliminating the possibility of two 

large vehicles using the crossover at the same time.

Additional signal time must also be provided for heavy vehicles at the U-turn crossover. Studies 

have shown U-turns at conventional intersections require up to 17-percent more time for 

passenger cars to complete than a right- or left-turn movement.(38) Heavy vehicles may require 

more time to complete U-turns than passenger cars. 

Spacing Between Main Intersection and U-Turn Crossover

The distance between the main intersection and the U-turn crossover must be considered for both 

directions of travel on the major crossroad. 

There is some variation between the AASHTO Green Book and state guidelines for the distance 

between the main intersection and the U-turn crossover.(5) MDOT recommends a distance of 660 

feet ±100 feet, which is based in part on the deceleration length required for the major street

having a posted speed limit of 45 mph.(27) The AASHTO Green Book recommends a distance 

range of 400 to 600 feet.(5) The AASHTO Green Book also suggests that at locations where the 

U-turn crossovers were designed specifically for eliminating direct left turns at a major 

intersection, the crossover should be located downstream of the intersection, preferably midblock between adjacent crossroad intersections. 

Where the minimum required distance to the U-turn crossover plus the distance required for the 

next downstream left-turn lane are greater than the distance between the two adjacent 

intersections, the AASHTO Green Book recommends the U-turn crossover should be located 50 

to 100 feet in advance on the next downstream left-turn lane.(5)
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

86

The following describes each key distance that should be considered (see Exhibits 7-15 through 

7-17): 

• The distance for left turning vehicles passing through the main intersection to the U-turn 

crossover. This distance should include length for deceleration and storage for the leftturning vehicles for both the major crossroad and for those on the minor crossroads (those 

that were required to make a right turn onto the major crossroad). 

Exhibit 7-15. Spacing consideration for a major street left turn movement.

• The distance for right-turning vehicles (with a destination to the left on the major street) 

from the minor crossroad to move from the right side of the major crossroad after 

completing their right turn to the left side prior to the deceleration lane. While traffic laws 

vary among states, in some states right-turning vehicles are mandated to enter the 

rightmost lane available on the crossroad into which they are turning. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

87

Exhibit 7-16. Spacing consideration for minor street left turn movement.

• The distance for vehicles to decelerate on the major crossroad plus storage for rightturning vehicles from the major crossroad and for those from the opposing left-turning 

vehicles on the major crossroad that used the U-turn crossover. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

88

Exhibit 7-17. Spacing consideration for a right turn. 

Spacing Between U-turn Crossovers

On a corridor with multiple MUT intersections, the spacing between opposing directional U-turn 

crossovers should be sufficient to prevent operational conflicts. MDOT guidance suggests a 100-

foot minimum and 150-foot desirable distance.(27) 

Pedestrians and Bicycles

Chapter 3 provides guidelines to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists at MUT intersections. 

As for conventional intersection design, ADA guidelines provide guidance for designing 

crosswalks, pedestrian ramps, and sidewalks, which applies to both pedestrian and shared-use 

pedestrian/bicycle paths.(21) As discussed in Chapter 3, there are three basic ways a minor street 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

89

bicyclist could make a direct left-turn at a MUT intersection. The preferred option is to provide a 

bicycle box in front of far side, major street through lanes as shown in Exhibit 3-6. 

Transit

As discussed in Chapter 3, transit bus stops are located no differently than at a conventional 

intersection. Many MUT corridors have wide medians that could accommodate LRT or BRT, 

and the City of Detroit has selected median-running LRT as the locally preferred alternative for 

transit service on a MUT corridor. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

90

This page intentionally left blank.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

91

CHAPTER 8— SIGNAL, MARKING, SIGNING, AND LIGHTING 

CONSIDERATIONS

This chapter discusses signal, signing, marking, and lighing design criteria and best practices for 

constructing and operating MUT intersections. The guidance in this chapter supplements the 

national resources on intersection design highlighted in previous chapters, including the MUTCD

and local agency design criteria and policies.(7)

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH

Traffic signal design, signing, pavement marking, and lighting design at a MUT intersection can 

be different from a conventional intersection, particularly related to the left-turn prohibitions at 

the main crossing intersection. The following treatments need to be emphasized at MUT 

intersections:

• Provide signage and pavement markings to indicate the prohibition of left turns and 

alternative routing of left-turn movements 

• Provide one-way and wrong-way signage to supplement the channelization of U-turn

intersections

• Provide a means for direct or indirect bicycle left turns 

• Provide appropriate lighting at conflict points (i.e., main crossing and U-turn crossover 

intersections) within the MUT configuration to emphasize the presence of various users 

SIGNALIZED VERSUS UNSIGNALIZED U-TURN CROSSOVERS

Typically, the U-turn crossover upstream of the main crossing is signalized, allowing the U-turn 

and opposing major street through movements to alternate green phases in coordination with the 

main intersection signal. The U-turn volumes, which are a combination of left-turn volumes from 

both the main and minor streets, are typically high enough to warrant a signal. This is especially 

true at newer isolated MUT and “ThrU” intersections installed specifically to better serve high 

volumes compared to a conventional intersection. However, in a corridor of MUT intersections, 

there may be a lower volume minor street that meets warrants at the main intersection but not for 

the U-turn movement. The U-turn crossover intersection may operate as an unsignalized 

intersection if the volumes are low enough and sufficient gaps in the main street are available. In 

fact, most mid-block (between major crossing streets) U-turn crossovers operate as unsignalized 

intersections. The first U-turn crossover at the start of a corridor of MUT intersections is no 

different, but consideration should be given during design that this intersection may be upgraded 

to a signal in the future as volumes and safety history warrants. 

Operating the U-turn crossover as unsignalized typically has no effect on pedestrians since 

pedestrian crossings occur at the main crossing intersection. However, for bicyclists it makes 

navigating the U-turn following vehicle rules more challenging. Since there is no signal, a 

bicyclist navigating the U-turn must wait for a gap in traffic big enough to cross all lanes of 

traffic to get to the right side of the road. Allowing bicyclists to use pedestrian facilities at the 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

92

main crossing intersection, as discussed in Chapter 3, would provide bicyclists an alternative to 

using the unsignalized U-turn. 

Some signalized U-turn crossover intersections prohibit left turn on red (LTOR) to reduce Uturn/through movement conflicts. This can be done unilaterally or for certain peak periods of the 

day when traffic volumes are highest, which would reduce U-turn delay when opposing U-turn 

volumes are low. Also, while vehicle motor codes in most states allow LTOR from one one-way 

street onto another one-way street, there are several states that do not. In such states, the 

crossover U-turn movement would be prohibited on red unless special permission is granted and 

signing to permit this movement is enacted.

Exhibit 8-1: Example of signalized (left) and unsignalized (right) U-turn crossover 

intersections.

(4)

SIGNALS

Chapter 5 provides operational characteristics for potential signal phasing, cycle length, timing, 

and progression. The main crossing at a MUT intersection is typically signalized, and U-turn

intersections can be signalized or stop-controlled. Chapter 3 discussed pedestrian and bicycle 

elements at signals. 

Controllers

If U-turns are signalized, MUT intersections include multiple signals operating as a system. The 

number of signalized intersections in this system can range from three to five. In many cases, the 

signal controller technology will allow all intersections to be operated with a single controller, 

although multiple controllers can be used as well. Use of a single controller can be accomplished 

by programming the controller with more than the typical two-ring cycle, maximizing the 

flexibility in timing each intersection.

The advantages of single- and multiple-controller signal systems are described below. 

Advantages of multiple controllers include: 

• If one controller fails, the other intersections of the MUT configuration can still function
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

93

• Programming phases and signal timing is simpler to install and maintain

• Installations require shorter wire lengths (signal conductor wire/detector wire runs to 

local controller only) 

• Easier for signal maintenance in that each cabinet will likely be placed with visibility 

provided to the signal heads it controls

Advantages of a single controller include: 

• System requires fewer cabinets and controllers to purchase, install, and maintain 

• Interconnection is not required to keep signals coordinated 

• Only one controller is required to program and maintain 

• There is a single service point for power 

• There are fewer components to fail

• Vehicle detection may be easier to configure

Exhibits 8-2 and 8-3 show a MUT intersection with multiple controllers and a MUT intersection 

with a single controller. 

Exhibit 8-2. MUT intersection with multiple controllers.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

94

Exhibit 8-3. MUT intersection with single controller.

Signal Equipment Locations 

The placement of signal poles and signal heads for the main intersection of a MUT intersection 

are identical to those for conventional intersections with or without a median except that no 

direct left-turn lanes are provided. The location of signal poles and signal heads follow the same 

MUTCD guidance as with a conventional intersection, and new MUT intersection installations 

should include pedestrian signals and Accessible Pedestrian Signals/pushbuttons.(7) 

Currently, the MUTCD does not provide guidance for signal pole or signal head placement at the 

U-turn crossover of MUT intersections. Therefore, the same general guidance given in the 

MUTCD for conventional intersections should be applied to the U-turn crossover. The MUTCD 

requires signal heads to be placed no less than 40 feet beyond the stop bar, nor more than 180 

feet, unless a supplemental nearside signal face is provided.(7) Therefore, mast arm installations 

with signal heads will typically be located opposite the U-turn crossover on the outside of the 

opposing major street lanes. Where a span wire installation is used, the far-side strain pole will 

typically be located on the outside of the opposing major street lanes with the near-side strain 

pole located in the median. Two signal heads must be used for the “through” traffic in the 

crossover U-turn meeting the distances from the stop bar as required above. Exhibit 8-4 

illustrates an example of signal pole placement for the U-turn crossover at a MUT intersection. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

95

Exhibit 8-4: Signal pole placement for the U-turn crossover. 

Detection

Vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian detection can be implemented similar to a conventional 

intersection to “call-off” phases having extra green time and giving the excess time to other 

phases for additional green time. This technique is relatively simple in a MUT intersection since 

there are only two phases needing to be adjusted. This technique can be particularly effective in 

off-peak times by providing more efficient green time to the displaced left turns, mitigating the 

longer travel path. Exhibit 8-5 shows detector placements. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

96

Exhibit 8-5. Detector placements.

Pedestrian Signals

Pedestrian signals at a MUT intersection should be installed to accommodate a two-stage 

crossing, even if it is possible to make a single-stage crossing. This means a set of pedestrian

signal heads, push buttons, and accessible pedestrian signals would be provided in the median as 

well as on the roadside. Pedestrians who are slower or faster than the design value for walking 

speed may get caught in the median with a red signal. 

Bicycle Signals

Minor street bicyclists making direct left turns by using bicycle boxes or the crosswalks of a 

shared-use path can be controlled with bicycle signals displaying green, yellow, and red bicycle 

indications. These signals could assist bicyclists who are unfamiliar with the intended bicycle 

travel pattern at a MUT intersection.

SIGNING

Signing for MUT intersections follows the same industry practice and MUTCD guidelines for 

vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists as for conventional intersections. However, MUT 

intersection signing needs to allow a motorist to make decisions at appropriate locations to 

complete movements through the intersection. Motorists on the minor street, particularly on 

approaches with two or more lanes, must be informed they need to turn right at the main crossing 

intersection to make a left-turn movement. At a MUT intersection, drivers may not expect the 

direct left turn to be prohibited at the main intersection on the major and minor crossroads. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

97

Therefore, regulatory signing such as, “NO Left Turns” can be used to communicate this 

movement is prohibited. MUT intersections provide an alternate path serving as the equivalent of 

making a direct left turn. Therefore, signing in advance of the main intersection to guide leftturning vehicles to the U-turn crossovers is recommended. In addition, guide signs located 

between the main intersection and U-turn crossover direct users to the alternate turning routes, 

especially for motorists on the minor road. 

The MUTCD does not provide standard MUT signing concepts. States with MUT intersections 

use the standard regulatory signs to indicate “no left turns;” standard lane-use signs; and standard 

“one-way,” “do not enter,” and “wrong-way” signs. The regulatory signs are located at typical 

locations where these signs would be recommended for conventional intersection forms. Guide 

signing can use route marking installations (cardinal direction, route number, and arrow 

guidance) where the major or minor crossroad is a numbered route, or by making special guide 

signs for streets that are not on numbered routes. 

Since the overwhelming number of MUT intersections are in Michigan, other states and cities 

seeking to design and construct MUT intersections have looked to Michigan for practical 

experience and examples when developing guide signs. Typically, a minimum of two guide signs 

are used: an advance guide sign and a second guide sign located at the main crossing 

intersection, which confirms the message noted in the advance guide sign. While these signs may 

assumed to be experimental from a national perspective, the intent is to have them conform to 

the MUTCD with regard to color, letter size based on functional street type, amount of legend, 

type of destinations, and design of directional arrows.(7) 

Sign placement is based on providing the motorist adequate time and distance to react to their 

message. This is particularly important for motorists on a multi-lane minor crossroad who may 

have to move from the left lane of the street to the right lane, since the left turn onto the major 

street is made indirectly and begins with a right turn. MUT intersection signs on the approach to 

the main intersection address the separate needs for users on the major and minor streets and for 

motorists using the U-turn crossover. Exhibit 8-6 is based on MDOT practice and provides an 

example of the combined regulatory and guide signs and their placement at Michigan MUT 

intersections.(27) 

In lieu of the “crossover” sign at the top of Exhibit 8-6, MDOT uses an alternate crossover sign 

shown in Exhibit 8-7. The alternate crossover sign provides specific information to motorists on 

the major and minor crossroads that they are not able to make direct left turns. 

Additionally, MDOT uses the sign shown in Exhibit 8-8 as an advance guide sign on the major 

crossroad to the “1⁄4 mile” sign shown at the top of Exhibit 8-6. Exhibit 8-9 illustrates the 

traditional “fishhook” sign to advise drivers on the minor street how to perform right and indirect 

left turns on the major street, and alternatives used in Michigan (on MUT intersections) and Utah 

(at “ThrU” intersections).
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

98

Exhibit 8-6. Example of MUT intersection signing plan. 

Exhibit 8-7. Alternate crossover guide sign.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

99

Exhibit 8-8. Alternate major street advance guide sign.

Exhibit 8-9. Traditional fishhook (left), variation used in Michigan (center) and ThrU 

signage used in Utah (right). 

In addition to the signs shown in Exhibit 8-6, guide signs may be placed at or near the 

intersection on the major crossroad to inform motorists of an alternate path for making the 

equivalent left turn. Also, advance guide signs not shown in Exhibit 8-6 may be placed on the 

minor crossroad to inform motorists to: 

• Make a right turn at the main intersection

• Move to the left lanes on major crossroad

• Use the U-turn crossover upstream 

The signing concepts for pedestrian and bicycle accommodations follow industry practice for 

conventional signing that comply with the MUTCD and supplements pavement markings. Some 

concepts, such as bicycle turn queue boxes, accommodate two-stage turns at intersections.

However, bicycle queue boxes are currently experimental for MUT intersections. 

PAVEMENT MARKING

Pavement markings for the main intersection of a MUT intersection generally follow the same 

principles for those at conventional intersections (with or without medians), including markings 

for pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. However, no direct left-turn lanes are provided. The 

requirements within the MUTCD for edge lines, lane lines, pavement arrows, and words on the 

pavement are the same as with conventional intersection.(7)
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

100

The MUTCD does not provide guidance for pavement markings used at the U-turn crossovers 

for MUT intersections. However, MDOT has developed pavement marking standards for U-turn 

crossovers in Michigan.(27) Exhibits 8-10 and 8-11, developed by MDOT, provide typical 

pavement marking for U-turn crossovers with single and dual U-turn lanes, respectively. 

The pavement marking concepts from the figures follow the general pavement marking concepts 

in the MUTCD. While not specifically shown in Exhibits 8-10 and 8-11, stop bars could be 

placed across the lane(s) of the U-turn crossover. The MUTCD requires stop bars to be placed no 

more than 30 feet or less than 4 feet from the nearest edge of the pavement. 

Exhibit 8-10. Typical pavement marking at a directional crossover.(27) 

Exhibit 8-11. Pavement markings at a directional crossover with dual lanes.(27) 

LIGHTING

Lighting standards and specifications outlined in AASHTO’s Street Lighting Design Guide, 

FHWA’s Lighting Handbook, and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America 

(IESNA) publications including American National Standard Practice for Street Lighting can be 

used to determine optimal lighting for MUT intersections.(39,40,41) 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

101

Based on national lighting guidance, agencies establish street lighting design guidelines along 

their facilities based on national guidance documents, the road functional classification, and 

pedestrian conflict area classifications. Intersection lighting is typically 1.5 times the street

lighting along the approaches, or the street lighting of the two crossing streets are added together 

to determine the lighting guidelines for the intersection. 

Generally, MUT intersections are constructed on streets with high traffic volumes and, as a 

result, most street corridors that use MUT intersections probably already meet the corridor 

volume criteria for lighting. It is desirable to light the main crossing and U-turn crossover 

intersection according to the determined intersection light levels. Depending on the intersection 

spacing, the light levels for the road segments between the intersections may be reduced to the 

street segment light levels. If there is no lighting along the approaches, then transition coming 

from dark into light and vice versa may enhance the user experience and performance. Even with 

sufficient lighting provided for the overall intersection, additional supplemental lighting could be 

added in the median to illuminate the pedestrian refuge area. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

102

This page intentionally left blank.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

103

CHAPTER 9— CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

Constructing a MUT intersection follows a pattern that might be similar as conventional 

intersections with the overall goal to maintain non-motorized and motorized traffic while 

providing a safe work environment. The context of the project location will inform the staging 

and sequencing of construction. MUT intersection construction costs may be higher compared to 

conventional intersections given the extents of the intersection and the need for increased traffic 

control devices (if U-turns are signalized). This is especially true in retrofit situations where an 

existing intersection on an existing street is converted to a MUT intersection. The guidance in 

this chapter supplements the national resources on construction and maintenance, including the 

MUTCD and local agency design standards and policies.(7) MUT intersections have historically 

been built on roads with wide medians. These configurations may present fewer constraints for 

lane additions, temporary construction activities, and staging areas than streets without medians. 

However, some newer installations have included undivided streets. 

CONSTRUCTION

Michigan, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Indiana, Virginia, and Maryland have constructed MUT 

intersections in recent years. These agencies could serve as resource for construction planning 

guidance. As with any new type of street construction, additional communication and 

coordination with construction contractors may streamline project implementation. 

Understanding lessons learned from agencies having developed MUT intersections may reduce 

construction delays. 

One of the benefits of constructing MUT intersections, versus other alternative intersections, is 

their ability to be constructed relatively easily when being converted from a conventional 

intersection. This is especially true if a median widening does not occur at the same time. 

Conversion includes removing the exclusive left-turn lanes from the conventional intersection 

and constructing the new U-turn crossovers. Unlike other alternative intersections and 

interchanges that transpose traffic streams (such as diverging diamond interchanges and 

displaced left turn intersections), there is no coordination in moving traffic movements from the 

right side of the street to the left side of the street. Typically, MUT intersections do not require 

additional coordination in their construction phases than a conventional intersection. 

Intersection and/or Corridor Widening

Developing new MUT intersections, much like conventional intersections, may require 

additional lanes to be added at the following locations: 

• On the major crossroad in the center of the street for the exclusive U-turn movements

• To the right of the U-turn movements for through movements 

• On the far right for right turning movements 

Unlike a conventional intersection, which is primarily centered at the intersection of the two 

crossroads, MUT intersections extend approximately 1⁄4 mile on the major crossroad from U-turn 

crossover to U-turn crossover. Depending on the width of the existing right-of-way throughout 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

104

the entire length of the intersection and where additional lanes are required, it may be more 

favorable to widen symmetrically on both sides of the street or perform all widening exclusively 

on one side. Each widening approach might be considered depending on project specific 

features. Decisions on each widening approach will primarily depend on the geometric design, 

project cost, maintenance of traffic, and overall impact to adjacent land owners and the 

community if additional right-of-way must be purchased. 

Construction Staging

The sequencing of construction phases for a MUT intersection depends on the number of lanes 

and whether the street is divided or undivided for the existing street. While there are numerous 

variations to consider, three primary variations are provided below: 

1. Two-Lane Existing Street Widened to Multilane Divided Street

A. Maintain traffic through the existing intersection on the existing two-lane street

while constructing a new directional multi-lane street with a median separation on 

new alignment. (Assume the new directional street is for eastbound traffic.) 

B. Shift the existing two lanes of traffic to the newly constructed multi-lane street for 

eastbound traffic and continue to operate the new intersection conventionally in 

the same manner as the existing intersection.

C. Construct the U-turn crossovers and reconstruct the existing street, if required, to 

be used exclusively for westbound traffic.

D. Shift westbound traffic currently operating as two-way traffic in the new 

eastbound lanes to the exclusive westbound lanes and restrict direct left turns at 

the new intersection by shifting left-turning traffic to U-turn crossovers. 

2. Existing Conventional Intersection on Divided Street to MUT Intersection

A. Construct U-turn crossovers, including exclusive U-turn lanes, while maintaining 

operation of the existing intersection. 

B. Add or lengthen right-turn lanes on divided street, if required. 

C. Restrict direct left turns at the existing intersection and shift them to the newly 

constructed U-turn crossover. 

D. Convert the conventional intersection to a MUT intersection. This may require 

removing exclusive left-turn lanes at the former intersection.

3. Existing Conventional Intersection Undivided Urban Street to ThrU MUT 

Intersection

A. Clear and construct crossover loon(s) outside of existing pavement. 

B. Construct U-turn crossover lanes. 

C. Redirect traffic to use newly constructed ThrU intersection. 

D. Remove left turn lanes at main crossing intersection. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

105

Work Zone Traffic Control

Part 6 of the MUTCD provides guidance regarding signing and marking needs during 

construction and temporary street and intersection configurations.(7) MUTCD principles and 

applications for conventional intersections and streets would apply to constructing a MUT 

intersection.

Depending on the construction phasing and sequences, the work zone traffic control includes the 

following types of regulatory information: 

• Signalization, signing, and pavement markings to inform motorists travelling through the 

construction zone when they have the right-of-way and appropriate lane assignment

• Guidance information to inform unfamiliar motorists in making decisions whether to turn 

right or left or continue through the intersection

• Guidance information to inform motorists of changes in the operation (e.g. lane changes) 

of the intersection due to construction activities 

While there are numerous variations in constructing MUT intersections, the regulatory, guidance, 

and construction related functions must be provided throughout the construction phases and in 

accordance with MUTCD.

(7)

COSTS

The cost of converting a conventional intersection to an MUT intersection varies depending on 

the specific project context. The general considerations and elements affecting costs of a MUT 

intersection are similar to those at a conventional form. It may include the following 

considerations: 

• The number and length of additional lanes required 

• Utility impacts

• Modifications to the existing signal system

• Amount of additional right-of-way

• Access modifications

The most significant cost factor is right-of-way, which can vary greatly by geographical location 

and by value and density of adjacent land uses. 

Total project costs associated with developing a new MUT intersection may vary greatly 

depending on project specifics including right-of-way costs, displacements, and public outreach. 

While the cost to implement a MUT intersection is likely greater than the cost to construct a 

conventional intersection at the same project site, MUT intersections are considerably less 

expensive than a grade-separation alternatives. 

Historically, MUT intersection construction costs were tempered by the availability of land in 

reserved “super corridors” in southeast Michigan (where right-of-way costs were negligible).
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

106

More recent MUT intersection applications at singular intersections have varied costs by rightof-way and access impacts. At the Draper, UT and Plano, TX locations, project costs varied from 

$1.6M to $2.3M. In both of these projects, the project costs included constructing crossovers but 

required little modification to the main intersection. Exhibit 9-1 presents cost estimates from 

three MUT intersection installations.

Exhibit 9-1. Summary of costs associated with MUT intersections.

Location

Open to 

Traffic Cost Image

Legacy Drive at 

Preston Parkway, 

Plano TX 

Jul 27, 

2010 

$1.7 

million

12300 South and 

Minuteman,

Draper, UT

Nov 2011 $5.1 

million

Haggerty 

Connector, Novi 

MI1 

Nov 1, 

2002 

$21 

million

1 This project included a 2-mile, 8-lane boulevard on new alignment including two MUT intersections

MAINTENANCE

Maintaining a MUT intersection is similar to a conventional intersection. For through lanes at the 

main intersection and U-turn crossovers, maintenance requiring their closure may have reduced 

impacts as there is no adjacent left-turn lane, so there is less chance of vehicles traveling on both 

sides of the work zone simultaneously. 

Maintaining pavement and striping of the U-turn crossover lanes is similar to left-turn lane 

maintenance at a conventional intersection, although it can be more challenging due to the 

confined nature of the channelized area. In both cases, maintenance of left-turn lanes requires 

temporarily closing the lane and detouring traffic. Like other conventional streets, conducting 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

107

maintenance activities during off-peak times can minimize traffic disruptions. In addition, this 

process generally follows the appropriate work zone guidelines as for all conventional 

intersections. 

Where MUT intersections are part of a continuous corridor, maintenance can be done at one 

crossover while vehicles can use the next downstream crossover. Maintaining signals and 

lighting at MUT intersections is also similar to conventional intersection signal maintenance. In 

many cases, MUT intersections provide the advantage of being able to locate utility vehicles in 

the median to work on overhead signal and lighting fixtures, where utility vehicles at 

conventional intersections may have to block travel lanes or locate on private property to 

perform maintenance functions. 

Snow Removal

Snow removal for a MUT intersection is accomplished similar to a conventional intersection.

Through lanes are plowed as part of the corridor, and snow is systematically pushed to the 

outside of the street. Snow removal for the U-turn crossover is similar to a conventional left-turn 

lane. These are typically plowed after the through lanes and snow is pushed through the 

crossover to the opposite side of the street. The same technique is used for when a loon is part of 

the MUT intersection. Snow is pushed through the U-turn crossover to the opposite side of the 

loon.

LAW ENFORCEMENT 

There are unique law enforcement needs at a MUT intersection. There is nothing to physically 

prohibit direct left turns at the main intersection. Wrong-way movements and red-light running 

sometimes occur at crossovers. Enforcement during the periods after the MUT intersections are 

initially opened to traffic could help drivers become familiar with intended operations and help 

reduce illegal maneuvers. As the novelty effect of the new intersection operations subside, the 

need for extra enforcement will likely diminish.

The area within a loon, if used, must be kept clear of parked or stopped vehicles. “No parking or 

standing” signs prominently displayed and the presence of law enforcement could reduce parked 

or stopped vehicles. Establishing a policy of towing vehicles parked in loons will be a unique 

enforcement need not found in conventional intersection forms.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

108

REFERENCES

1. Google Inc. Google Earth. Accessed 2014. 

2. Bing Maps. Accessed July 2014.

3. Rodegerdts, L. Photo Credit.

4. Reid, J. Photo Credit.

5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). A Policy on 

the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2011.

6. Transportation Research Board (TRB). Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Washington, DC: 

TRB, National Research Council (NRC), 2010.

7. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), 2009.

8. AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual (HSM). Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2010.

9. FHWA. Alternative Intersection/Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR), Report No. 

FHWA-HRT-09-060. Washington, DC: USDOT, 2010.

10. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. 

USDOT: Washington, DC, 2013. 

11. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Synthesis of the Median U-Turn Intersection 

Treatment. USDOT: Washington, DC, 2007. 

12. Michigan Department of Transportation Geometric Design Unit. “Directional Crossovers: 

Michigan’s Preferred Left Turn Strategy,” December 1995.

13. Dorothy, P.W, T.L. Maleck, and S.E. Nolf, “Operational Aspects of Michigan Design for 

Divided Highways,” Transportation Research Record 1579, TRB, National Research Council, 

Washington, DC, 1997, p.18-26

14. Thompson, T., and Hummer, J.E, “A Preliminary Study in the Efficiency of Median U-Turn 

and Jughandle Arterial Left Turn Alternatives,” presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the 

TRB, Washington, DC, January 1993

15. Reid, J.D., and J.E. Hummer, “Analyzing System Travel Time in Arterial Corridors with 

Unconventional Designs Using Microscopic Simulation,” In Transportation Research Record 

1678 (1999).

16. Utah Department of Transportation, “Thru-Turn Intersection” informational brochure 

webpage. http://www.udot.utah.gov/5400south/dld/maps/Thru-Turn%20Map.pdf

17. Utah Department of Transportation, “Thru-Turn Intersection” informational video webpage. 

http://www.udot.utah.gov/5400south/dld/maps/Thru-Turn%20Map.pdf

18. DeGrood, J. “Express left’ will make intersections safer, more efficient.” Inside Tucson 

Business. Guest opinion. http://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com/opinion/columnists/ 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

109

guest_opinion/express-left-will-make-intersections-safer-more-efficient/article_3ab56aa2-3422-

11e2-8077-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=story 

19. FHWA, USDOT FHWA Information Videos, web page. 

https://www.youtube.com/user/USDOTFHWA

20. FHWA, Safety Program Informational Brochures, web page. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov. 

21. The United States Access Board, Accessible Public Rights of Way webpage. 

http://www.access-board.gov/

22. Ray, B., et al., NCHRP 15-34A: Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets, Contractor Final Report. Washington, DC: Transportation Research 

Board of the National Academies, 2014. 

23. FHWA and AASHTO. Results of Joint AASHTO/FHWA Context Sensitive Solutions 

Strategic Planning Process, Summary Report. Raleigh, NC.: Center for Transportation and the 

Environment, North Carolina State University, 2007.

24. URS Corporation. Detroit Department of Transportation, Woodward Avenue Light Rail 

Alternative Analysis, Concept Plans. 

25. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

26. Rodegerdts, L. A., Nevers, B., and Robinson, B., "Signalized Intersections: Informational 

Guide." FHWA-HRT-04-091, (2004) 

27. Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). Geometric Design Guide 670, Lansing, 

MI: MDOT, 1993. 

28. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). A Guide to Developing Quality Crash 

Modification Factors. USDOT: Washington, DC, 2010. 

29. Adams, J.C. and J.E. Hummer. “The Effects of U-turns on Left Turn Saturation Flow Rates,” 

In Transportation Research Record 1398 (1993). 

30. Reid, J.D., and Hummer, J. E, Travel Time Comparisons between Seven Unconventional 

Arterial Intersection Designs” In Transportation Research Record 1751 (2001). 

31. Bared, J.G. and Kaisar, E.I. (2002). “Median U-Turn Design as an Alternative Treatment for 

Left Turns at Signalized Intersections,” ITE Journal, 72(2), pp. 50-54. 

32. Stover, V. (1990). City Street Design-Short Course Notes, Texas Transportation Institute, 

Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 

33. Koepke, F.J. and Levinson, H.S. (1993). Case Studies in access Management, Prepared for 

Transportation Research Board, National Research council, Washington, DC. 

34. Savage, W F, Directional Median Crossovers, Journal of Traffic Engineering, Vol. 44, No. 

11, 1974. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

110

35. Maki, R.E. Directional Crossovers: Michigan’s Preferred Left-Turn Strategy. Lansing, MI: 

Michigan Department of Transportation, 1992. 

36. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Traffic Analysis Toolbox. 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/04038/index.cfm. 

37. Transportation Systems Institute (TSI). Capacity Analysis for Planning of Junctions. Version 

1.2. 2011. http://tsi.cecs.ucf.edu/index.php/cap-x 

38. Carter, D; Hummer, JE; Foyle, RS, Phillips, S, Operational and Safety Effects of U-Turns at 

Signalized Intersections, TRB: Journal of the TRB No 1912, 2005. 

39. AASHTO. Roadway Lighting Design Guide. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2005.

40. FHWA. Street Lighting Handbook. Washington, DC: USDOT, 1978. 

41. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). Recommended Practices for 

Roadway Lighting. New York, NY: IESNA, 2000.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

111

Appendix A CATALOG OF ALL KNOWN INSTALLATIONS IN THE 

UNITED STATES 

This appendix includes information on all know installations in the United States. Additionally, 

this appendix presents some background information on three MUT intersection projects. 

Exhibit A-1 presents location information for all known installations of MUT intersections in the 

United States. Exhibit A-2 presents location information for all known installations of MUT 

corridors in the United States. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

112

Exhibit A-1. Median U-turn intersections in the United States. 

Intersection City, State Description

Year

Open

Location 

Coordinates

US 280 at 

Valleydale 

Road 

Birmingham, 

AL

This MUT intersection, opened in 

November 2013 was one of the first 

portions of an overall $15M 

improvement plan for 26 intersections 

on US 280.

2013 33°25'12.37" N 

86°41'40.91" W 

West Ina at 

Oracle 

Road 

Tucson AZ 

The first ThrU-Turn intersection in 

Arizona opened in September 2013. 

Pima County DOT constructed the 

ThrU-Turn intersection to reduce 

congestion at this intersection that 

serves 96,000 cars/day; Project was a 

collaboration by Pima County, the RTA 

and Arizona DOT and cost $5M to 

construct as a portion of improvements 

along Oracle Road.

2013 32°20'13.77"N 

110°58'39.02"W

W Grant 

Rd at N 

Oracle Rd

Tucson AZ 

Tucson’s second ThrU-Turn intersection 

(TTI) was opened in October, 2013 built 

to reduce both travel time and car 

accidents at this intersection that passes 

70,000 cars/day. 

2013 32°15'0.72"N 

110°58'41.06"W

96th at 

Allisonville 

Road 

Fishers, IN

First Michigan Left intersection in 

Indiana. After several public meetings, 

Town of Fishers collected the public's 

input and planned the intersection 

improvement to minimize disruption 

and significantly improve traffic along 

Allisonville Road at 96th St. Design and 

Construction costs were locally funded. 

Project opened in May 2013 and cost 

$8.6M to design and construct.

2013 39°55'37.19" N 

86°03'57.79" W 

W 4700 at 

S 4000 Kerns, UT

Utah’s second ThrU-Turn intersection 

(TTI) was opened in November 2012. 

The TTI was constructed to remove a 

bottleneck on W4700 and reduce crash 

rates (twice the statewide average). 

Because the TTI required less property 

and fewer business relocations, the 

$1.5M project cost was considerably 

lower than a conventional intersection 

improvement alternative ($5M).

2012 40°40'3.23"N 

111°59'11.87"W
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

113

Intersection City, State Description

Year

Open

Location 

Coordinates

12300 

South and 

State Street

Draper, UT

Utah’s first ThrU-Turn (TTI) 

intersection was designed at this 

location because intersection is closely 

spaced with the I-15 interchange ramps 

and left turns from W12300 was 

backing up the interstate ramp. The 

project opened in November 2011 at a 

cost of $5M.

2011 40°31'36.34"N 

111°53'19.23"W

Legacy 

Drive at 

Preston 

Parkway 

Plano TX 

In July 2010, the City of Plano 

converted this intersection to a Median 

Left-Turn to manage the 73,000 

cars/day entering the intersection, and 

relieve traffic congestion, increase 

traffic flow and improve safety; was 

first intersection of this kind in Texas. 

2010 33° 4'14.74"N 

96°47'46.31"W

US-29 at 

University 

Boulevard 

Silver Spring 

MD

University Blvd has wide median at its 

intersection with US 29. Direct lefts 

from US-29 were eliminated and are 

made indirectly using crossovers on 

University. Direct lefts from University 

to US-29 are still permitted. Design is 

unique because businesses are located 

inside the median of the MUT 

intersection. 

Unknown 39° 1'13.12"N 

77° 0'45.79"W

M-37 at 

29th Street

Grand 

Rapids, MI 

Unique design as this indirect-left 

intersection is not part of a MUT 

corridor as is typical in Michigan. 

Narrow median on 29th Street requires 

large loons for U-turn crossovers. The 

intersection does not accommodate high 

left turn volumes like typical Michigan 

MUT and large trucks are not 

accommodated.

Unknown 42°54'32.82" N 

85°34'59.40" W 

I-196 Bus 

Loop at 

East Main 

Avenue

Zeeland, MI 

At this MUT intersection, right turns 

from southbound East Main conflict 

with eastbound U-turn traffic, requiring 

separate phases (3-phase signal) at the 

crossover intersection, reducing 

intersection efficiency.

Unknown 42°48'41.81" N 

85°59'31.84" W 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

114

Exhibit A-2. Median U-turn corridors in the United States. 

Primary 

Route City, State Description 

Location 

Coordinates

Rochester 

Road Troy, MI

6-lane MUT blvd from 16 to 17 Mile Road 

(approx 1.5 miles and 2 MUT intersections); 

plans to extend MUT to M-59 (dist of 3.5 miles)

42°34'9.21"N 

83° 7'40.72"W

W. 

Esplanade 

Avenue

Metairie, LA

4-lane MUT blvd from N Causeway Boulevard 

to Williams Boulevard (approx 5.5 mi and 5 

MUT intersections); drainage canals in wide 

median along entire corridor

30° 0'59.43"N 

90°11'30.25"W

Woodward 

Avenue (M1) 

Detroit to 

Pontiac, MI 

8-lane MUT blvd from 6-Mile Road to South 

Blvd (approx 17 mi and 20 MUT intersections) 

including interchanges with I-696 and 8-mile 

Road

42°32'48.46"N 

83°12'35.36"W 

Telegraph 

Road (US-24) 

Taylor to 

Pontiac, MI 

6 & 8-lane MUT blvd from Eureka Road to 

Orchard Lake Road (approx 30 mi and 32 MUT 

intersections) inc interchanges with I-94, I-96 & 

I-696

42°25'27.97"N 

83°16'39.36"W

Gratiot 

Avenue

(M-3) 

Detroit to 

Clinton 

Township, 

MI

6-lane MUT blvd from 8 Mile Road to 

Metropolitan Parkway (approx 10 mi and 14 

MUT intersections) including interchange with 

I-696

42°31'22.32"N 

82°55'11.78"W

8 Mile Road 

(M-102) 

Farmington 

Hills to 

Gross Point 

Woods, MI

8-lane MUT blvd from Grand River to Mack 

Road (approx 20 mi and 27 MUT intersections) 

including interchanges with I-94, I-75, M-37 & 

M-10 

42°26'47.30"N 

83° 7'42.16"W

Van Dyke 

Freeway (M53)

Sterling 

Heights, MI 

4-lane MUT blvd from 15 Mile Road to M-53 

Expressway (approx 4 mi and 5 MUT 

intersections

42°42'8.86"N 

83° 1'31.73"W

Haggerty 

Connector 

(M-5)

Commerce 

Township to 

Detroit, MI

8-lane MUT blvd from 13 Mile Road to North

Pontiac Trail (approx 3.5 mi and 3 MUT 

intersections

42°27'44.53"N 

83°24'43.91"W

Twelve Mile 

Road 

Southfield to 

Novi, MI 

4-lane MUT blvd from Novi Road to Burke Hill 

Drive (approx 5 mi and 5 MUT intersections); 

narrow median w/loons throughout corridor

42°29'51.67"N 

83°25'00.58"W 

Hall Road 

(M-59) Utica, MI

8-lane MUT blvd from I-94 to M-53 (approx 9

mi and 6 MUT intersections); very wide median 

for future expansion

42°37'42.02"N 

82°56'8.88"W

Ford Road 

(M-153) 

Dearborn, 

MI

8-lane MUT blvd from US-24 to Oakman 

Boulevard (approx 5.5 mi and 4 MUT 

intersections); includes several overpasses with 

crossing streets

42°19'44.97"N 

83°12'15.57"W
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

115

Primary 

Route City, State Description 

Location 

Coordinates

Big Beaver 

Rd/ Metro 

Pkwy

Troy to 

Harrison 

Township, 

MI

6-lane MUT blvd from Coolidge Hwy to 

Jefferson Avenue (approx 20 mi and 20 MUT 

intersections); includes interchange with I-75 

and several intersections with other MUT 

corridors

42°34'0.09"N 

83° 0'7.97"W

Mound Road Shelby to 

Detroit, MI

8-lane MUT from Caniff Street to E Auburn 

Avenue (approx 16 mi and 19 MUT 

intersections); interchanges with I-696 and M-53 

and intersections 8-mile and Metropolitan Pkwy 

MUT corridors 

42°31'42.36"N 

83° 2'51.71"W

M-44 East 

Beltline

Grand 

Rapids, MI 

Good example of first MUT crossovers 

upstream or downstream of every minor street 

crossing NOT needing to be signalized

42°58'42.17"N 

85°35'26.94"W

US-41 Marquette

4-lane MUT from S McClellan Avenue to SR 

492 (approx 3 mi and 5 MUT intersection); only 

MUT in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula

46°32'51.56"N 

87°25'52.56"W

US-31 Holland, MI 

4-lane MUT blvd (approx 23 mi and 20 MUT 

intersections); good example of loon application 

in narrow median to accommodate larger 

vehicles and unsignalized MUT intersections in 

mostly rural corridor

42°55'10.70"N 

86° 8'46.14"W

Michigan 

Ave

(US-12)

Ypsilanti, MI

4-lane MUT; concrete medians instead of 

landscaped or grass (approx 3⁄4 mile and 5 MUT

intersections)

42°14'27.68"N 

83°36'49.81"W

Grand River 

Avenue (M5) 

Redford 

Charter 

Township, 

MI

8-lane MUT from I-96 to Six Mile Road (approx 

3.5 mi and 8 MUT intersections) 42°25'53.55"N 

83°17'42.65"W

Northwestern 

Hwy (M-10)

Southfield, 

MI

6-lane MUT from Orchard Lake Road to M-10 

(approx 4 mi and 5 MUT intersections)

42°30'46.91"N 

83°19'48.95"W

Coolidge 

Highway Troy, MI

4-lane MUT from Square Lake Rd to Industrial 

Row Drive (approx 4.5 mi and 5 MUT 

intersections); intersection with Big Beaver 

MUT corridor

42°34'16.38"N 

83°11'14.55"W

Saginaw Hwy Lansing

4-lane MUT from I-69 to West Saginaw 

(approximately 3.5 mi and 5 MUT 

intersections); most U-turn crossovers are 

unsignalized

42°45'41.97"N 

84°26'11.13"W

M-45 thru 

Allendale

Allendale, 

MI

4-lane MUT from 68th Avenue to 24th Avenue

(approx 6 miles and 4 MUT intersections); most 

U-turn crossovers are unsignalized

42°58'19.30"N 

85°53'2.26"W
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

116

MUT Intersection Profile: Rochester Road, Troy MI 

Project Description

Exhibit A-3. Rochester Road corridor north of 16-Mile Road.

In November 2010, the City of Troy, Michigan finished construction of a Median U-Turn 

corridor on Rochester Road. The project extended from just north of 16-mile Road (which was 

already a Median U-Turn intersection with crossovers on all four approaches) north to Barclay 

Drive, a distance of 1.05 miles. Exhibit A-3 illustrates a segment of the MUT corridor. There is 

one major crossing street (Wattles Road) and that MUT intersection also has crossovers on all 

four intersection approaches. Rochester Road carries an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 

40,000 to 50,000, and Wattles Road carries an ADT of 20,000 to 25,000. The City has plans to 

extend the MUT corridor an additional 1.0 miles north in 2019 and a final 2.2-mile extension to 

M-59 is in the long range plan. 

Project Design

The six-lane MUT replaced a five-lane roadway in a 150-ft ROW. This is less than the typical 

ROW desired by Michigan DOT in other MUT corridors (16-mile Road is built in a 204-ft 

ROW), so the median width was reduced from a desired 60 feet to 40 feet along Rochester Road. 

This 40-foot median width generally supports a WB-50 design vehicle with small bulbout 

(loons) at the signalized intersections, as the planting strip between the road and sidewalk is 

eliminated in these areas so no additional ROW is required. Also, permanent easements were 

acquired to reduce what would otherwise been prohibitive ROW costs, and the ROW was set at 

the back of sidewalk, with a minimum offset to the road. 

The corridor runs through a predominant business area with small lots and numerous curb cuts. 

While driveway consolidations were made where possible, locations of the crossovers were 

difficult to accommodate access and ensure safety. While owners were familiar with the MUT 

concept being close to the 16-Mile MUT corridor and less public involvement was needed 

compared to other areas of the country where the MUT is a new concept, some education was 

needed on how customers would use the crossovers to gain access to individual properties. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

117

During construction, some business owners complained of losses, but those losses were more 

likely attributed to the construction activities and the economic downturn in the late 2000’s, as 

no businesses were lost and most business have returned stability during the economic upturn in 

the years that followed. Exhibit A-4 illustrates a major intersection on the MUT corridor. 

Exhibit A-5 illustrates pedestrian amenities implemented at this MUT intersection.

Exhibit A-4. Major intersection on the MUT corridor.

Exhibit A-5. Pedestrian amentities at Rocheter Road / 16-Mile Intersection. 

Project Construction

The project was constructed by the City of Troy using state and federal funds totaling $11.5M in 

construction costs (that included a new 78” storm sewer) and $6M in right-of-way. The project 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

118

was completed in one year, which included handling a major issue of contamination at a service 

station in the corridor. The existing lanes were largely maintained during construction, while 

one side was widened, then shifted to the new lanes while the other side was constructed. The 

center median was the last portion to be constructed. 

The MUT project followed on the heels of a 2008 project, sponsored by the Downtown 

Development Authority, that invested $1.4M into a pedestrian improvement project at the 

intersection of 16 Mile Road and Rochester Road (see photos to right). This project provided 

textured crosswalks, vegetative plantings and a new park in the northeast quadrant of the 

intersection. The signal timings at the MUT intersection allow crossing of the roadways into a 

landscaped refuge median in the center of each roadway. The city of Troy is committed to 

provide complete street concepts that include mid-block crossings, and the MUT corridor fits 

into these plans. 

Project Results

Although no definitive before-and-after study of traffic volumes and crashes was formally 

conducted, antidotal evidence and opinions point to a successful project, as businesses in the 

corridor continue to thrive, congestion on Rochester Road was substantially reduced and no 

crash concerns have arisen in the project corridor. 

MUT Intersection Profile: 12300 South and State Street, Draper UT 

Project Description

\Utah’s first-of-its kind ThrU-Turn intersection (adapted from the Median U-Turn intersections 

popular in Michigan) opened in November 2011 at the intersection of 12300 South and 

Minuteman Drive / State Street in Draper, Utah. The close proximity to the I-15 Interstate makes 

this an ideal solution to reduce existing queuing and turn lane storage deficiencies that can back 

up traffic onto the interstate during peak periods. UDOT engineers say that the ThrU Turns were 

selected for this intersection because they could relieve congestion while avoiding removing 

businesses at the crowded intersections for widening and could avoid even more expensive 

options such as building bridges 

The ThrU Turn intersection design does not permit direct left turns at the main intersection. The 

intersection redirects all left turns through signalized U-turn crossovers located on three of the 

four intersection legs and provides additional green time for traffic traveling through the 

intersection on both roadways. Motorists wanting to turn left must go straight through the 

intersection and make a U-turn at a new, signalized U-turn intersection a few hundred feet down 

the road. Because there are U-turn intersections on three approaches, most left turn movements 

can also be accomplished by turning right, making the U-Turn downstream and passing through 

the main intersection.

Exhibit A-6 illustrates a conceptual layout of the MUT intersection used for project team and 

public meetings. 
THRU TURN INTERSECTION 

Median U-Turn Informational Guide

119

Exhibit A-6. Project description materals created for the project.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

120

Extensive public involvement was undertaken before the project was designed. The public 

involvement process included the development of project informational materials (including the 

below project design schematic, simulation study results and preparation of a video detailing the 

project goals, simulation modeling resitl; and expected outcomes (posted on U-tube at 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHojQ_LppEw). A public meeting was held on November 3, 

2010 for City and UDOT engineers to receive comments from the public about the project. 

Exhibit A-7 illustrates the thrU-turn maneuver location. 

Exhibit A-7. ThrU-turn crossover on State Street.

Studies and Findings

The general impact to traffic at the intersection has been positive. Severe traffic congestion has 

largely disappeared, and the traffic flows much more quickly through the intersection and traffic 

no longer backs up onto the I-15 ramps. A post-construction study for UDOT conducted by the 

consultant team says “the ThrU Turn in Draper has helped to dramatically reduce congestion.” 

The study found that: 

• The ThrU-Turn reduces the average delay per vehicle at the intersection from 46 seconds 

to an average of 16 seconds. In other words, the intersection was improved from level of 

service (LOS) D to LOS B. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

121

• The largest time savings are for cars that travel straight through the intersection. 

However, in some directions, cars making any combination of right and U-turns to go left 

generally have increased delay – up to 51 seconds longer – than before construction. 

• Consumer savings in time and gasoline were estimated at $1.25 million for the first year. 

• Sales taxes collected by businesses in the area generally increased in the first six months 

after the ThrU Turn opened, so "there is no evidence that the ThrU Turn Interchange has 

reduced overall trips or that it has negatively impacted overall economic activity." 

• Despite the overall gain in sales tax, one service station along State Street closed within 

one year of the project opening. 

Anecdotally, the ThrU-Turn intersection appears to have decreased accidents as a result of 

reducing left-hand turns, but more statistically reliable data over time is needed to statistically 

verify any rate crash reductions attributable to the design.

Lessons Learned

Through extensive public involvement and public outreach, including educational materials and 

videos, Utah’s first ThrU-Turn intersection was constructed with general support from the 

public. The operational improvements predicted were realized, and the success of this project 

enabled UDOT to construct a second ThrU-Turn intersection in neighboring Kerns in 2012, with 

several more planned to be implemented in the coming year. 

MUT Corridor Profile: Preston Road (SH 289) at Legacy Drive, Plano TX 

Project Description

In 2010, the City of Plano installed a variation of the median U-turn intersection at the 

intersection of Preston Road and Legacy Drive in lieu of building an overpass. Preston Road 

was originally designed for freeway expansion and already had an unusually wide median 

(approximately 300 feet) at its intersection with Legacy Parkway.

The intersection was converted to a Median U-Turn intersection, the first intersection of its kind 

in Texas, in July 2010. The purpose of the project was to relieve traffic congestion, increase 

traffic flow and improve safety at this intersection that serves approximately 73,000 vehicles per 

day. Left turns from Legacy Drive onto Preston Road were converted to indirect left turns using 

the newly constructed left U-turn crossovers in the median of Preston Road. Vehicles on Preston 

Road could also make “advance” U-turns prior to the intersection with Legacy Parkway. Left 

turns from Preston Road onto Legacy Parkway remained as direct left turns at the intersection. 

Both signalized intersections were converted to two-phase signal operations. 

Exhibit A-8 provides an aerial view of the MUT intersection. Exhibit A-9 illustrates one of the 

locations for making the U-turn maneaver.. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

122

Exhibit A-8. Legacy Drive (east-west orientation) at Presto Road (north south orientation). 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

123

Exhibit A-9. View of Preston Road northbound U-turn crossover.

Studies and Findings

An initial study conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute1 found that in the six months 

after the project opened: 

• Total traffic‐flow through the Legacy Drive and Preston Road intersection increased 

• Vehicle queues longer than one signal phase were only found on the eastbound approach 

of Legacy Drive during the evening peak hour 

• Peak hour travel time for vehicles using the median left‐turn took up to 2‐minutes 20‐

seconds 

• Illegal U‐turns from Preston Road to Legacy Drive were still occurring after several 

months 

• A local Public Works study showed that new design provides increases in intersection 

capacity from 20 to 50 percent compared to the previous direct left turn intersection. 

 

1 TTI Technical Memorandum dated January 26, 2011 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

124

Project Performance

Despite the documented positive traffic operational benefits of the project, driver rejected the 

change. There was a lack of public acceptance from the start of the project and persistent public 

outcry from the public about the additional travel distance and confusion in making the indirect 

left turn movement. Many drivers found it confusing. Others simply began avoiding the 

intersection. It was estimated that 75 percent of people who would have turned left at the 

intersection simply found another route. The mayor of Plano admitted that “the public never 

accepted the concept” and said “it has been a very unfriendly thing for both the citizens of Plano 

and our visitors.” 

In 2013, a study was conducted showed that the average morning wait time for a driver going 

south on Preston Road was less than 20 seconds and that going back to the old system, delay 

would increase to 51.6 second on average. However, despite supporting operational data, the 

public outcry led Plano City Council to return to the traditional intersection design in February 

2014. 

Lessons Learned

Though detailed pre-project studies correctly identified the MUT as having potential to reduce 

congestion and delay (that were indeed realized), there appears to be insufficient stakeholder and 

public involvement to identify (and perhaps mitigate) public acceptance and impacts to access 

that ultimately led to the unsuccessful outcome of this project. Because of the failure of this 

project, two other similar projects in Plano have been canceled. 

 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

125

Appendix B SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY 

DETAILS 

This appendix documents studies comparing the operational performance of MUT intersections 

versus conventional intersections. Studies comparing conventional intersections with the MUT 

intersection, in general, found the MUT intersection has several possible operational benefits. 

Comparison of Travel Times between Conventional and MUT Intersections

Simulation studies have indicated that MUT intersections provided significantly lower than 

average travel times when compared to conventional intersections. 

Reid and Hummer compared MUT intersections to conventional intersections on four-lane 

collector roads with the CORSIM microsimulation package.(25) Entering volumes ranged from 

4,500 to 7,500 vehicles per hour. The change in overall travel times for all movements at the 

MUT intersections compared to the conventional intersections ranged from -21-percent to +6-

percent during peak hours. 

Bared and Kaiser compared MUT intersections to conventional intersections on a four-lane street 

intersecting a four-lane street with the CORSIM microsimulation package.(26) Total entering 

intersection volumes ranged from 2,000 to 7,000 vehicles per hour. Results indicate considerable 

savings in travel time for MUT intersections versus conventional intersections, especially where 

volumes entering the intersection exceeded 6,000 veh/h and left-turning vehicles were 10- to 20-

percent of the entering intersection volume. 

A simulation study by Dorothy et al. found consistently lower network travel times when fivelane streets with TWLTL and conventional intersections were converted to four-lane streets with 

MUT intersections with signalized crossovers.(9) Specifically, the results indicated when the leftturning percentage was 10-percent, the reduction in left-turn total travel time for MUT 

intersections compared to conventional intersections was 20, 40, and 150 seconds per vehicle at 

30-, 50-, and 70 percent of mainline saturation flow, respectively. Additionally, when the leftturning percentage was 25-percent, the reduction in left-turn total travel time for MUT 

intersections compared to conventional intersections was 20, 30, and 70 seconds per vehicle at 

30-, 70-, and 90-percent mainline saturation, respectively.

Comparison of Stops between Conventional and MUT Intersections

Simulation studies have also shown MUT intersections had fewer stops when compared to 

conventional intersections. Bared and Kaiser’s 2002 study also showed the proportion of 

vehicles stopping in the network, on average, was lower for the MUT intersection when 

compared to the conventional intersection.(26) Where 10-percent of the left-turning traffic was 

simulated, the MUT intersection had 20- to 40-percent fewer stops compared to the conventional 

intersection. At 20-percent left-turning vehicles, a reduction in the percentage of stops for MUT 

intersections became apparent when total entering intersection volumes reached 4,500 vehicles 

per hour. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

126

Comparison of Throughput between Conventional and MUT Intersections

Simulation studies have also shown MUT intersections significantly increase throughput 

compared to similar conventional intersections. A simulation study by FHWA, with similarities 

to the study by Bared and Kaiser, provided two geometric design cases for MUT intersections 

and compared them to a conventional intersection with the VISSIM microsimulation package for 

six sets of traffic volumes representing low, medium, and high volumes.(5,26) The results indicate 

the MUT intersection had an increase in throughput of 15- to 40-percent across the six sets of 

traffic volumes. 

Comparison of Critical Lane Volumes between Conventional and MUT Intersections

Several studies have shown Critical Lane Volumes (CLVs) are improved by approximately 10- 

to 20-percent for MUT intersections compared to conventional intersections. Stover analyzed the 

intersection of two, six-lane principle streets by computing CLVs.(27) The study considered single 

left-turn lanes on all approaches versus dual left-turn lanes on all approaches for a conventional 

intersection. Using a MUT intersection reduced CLVs by 17-percent and permitted two signal 

phases. Koepke et al.’s study of CLVs indicated MUT intersections provide approximately 14- to 

18-percent additional capacity over conventional intersections with dual left-turn lanes.(28) After 

accounting for overlapping traffic movements, the MUT intersection had a reduction of 

approximately 7- to 17-percent in CLVs compared to dual left-turn lanes for conventional 

intersections.

Comparisons of Corridor Capacity between Conventional Corridors (with TLWTLs) and 

MUT Corridors (w/Median Boulvards)

Studies have shown capacities of MUT corridors with median boulevards are 20- to 50-percent 

greater compared to conventional corridors with two-way center-turn lanes. 

Through field studies, Savage found a 20- to 50-percent increase in corridor capacity when a 

five-lane street with a TWLTL with conventional intersections was converted to a four-lane 

street with MUT intersections.(29) 

Also through field studies, Maki found a 20- to 50-percent increase in capacity when five-lane 

and seven-lane boulevards with TWLTLs with conventional intersections were converted to 

four-lane and six-lane boulevards with MUT intersections.(30)

Reid and Hummer compared streets with TWLTL and conventional intersections to principle 

streets with MUT intersections with the CORSIM microsimulation package.(11) The results 

indicated streets with MUT intersections resulted in a significant improvement in system travel 

times during peak hours without compromising system travel times during non-peak hours. 

Specifically, the corridor with MUT intersections had a 17-percent reduction in total travel time 

when compared to the corridor with TWLTL and conventional intersections. Average speeds in 

the corridor increased by 25-percent with the MUT intersections over the TWLTL with 

conventional intersections. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

127

Appendix C MARKETING AND OUTREACH MATERIALS

This appendix provides some examples of MUT Public Outreach Materials. 

FHWA has created alternative intersection and interchange informational videos and video case 

studies, which can be viewed on the FHWA YouTube channel 

(https://www.youtube.com/user/USDOTFHWA). Exhibit C-1 is an example of the type of 

information provided in the video for the Median U-Turn intersection. 

Exhibit C-1. FHWA Median U-Turn Intersection Informational Video.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

128

In addition, FHWA has developed alternative intersection brochures that can be found on the 

FHWA website ( http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov). An example of the Median U-Turn intersection 

brochure is shown in Exhibit C-2. 

Exhibit C-2. FHWA Median U-Turn Intersection Brochure.

Several examples from state and local agencies are provided below, although various others are 

available online for additional information and guidance. 

Educational Videos 

Several agencies have developed educational videos as part their outreach with MUT 

intersections. Examples weblinks are provided below for access to these videos. 

• Draper, UT ThrU intersection - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHojQ_LppEw 

• Fishers, IN Median U-turn - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-dDZoqv-Fc 

• Plano, TX MUT Intersection - 

https://forms.plano.gov/engineering/NoLeftIntersections.wmv

• Michigan DOT Information Page - http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-

9615_44557-161777--,00.html 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

129

Brochures and Fact Sheets

Several agencies have utilized brochures and fact sheets to help explain the MUT intersection. 

The following examples of outreach materials are provided on the next few pages: 

• Exhibit C-3 illustrates an open house flyer used by the City Council for the MUT 

intersection in Draper, UT.

• Exhibit C-4 illustrates the concept of making a left-turn from the minor street via a rightturn and U-turn movement at the crossover. 

• Exhibit C-5 illustrates the concept of making a left-turn from the major street via a 

through movement and U-turn movement at the crossover. 

• Exhibit C-6 illustrates the first page of a two-page fact sheet on the use of the MUT 

intersection at several locations in the Tucson, AZ region. 

• Exhibit C-7 illustrates the second page of a two-page fact sheet on the use of the MUT 

intersection at several locations in the Tucson, AZ region. 

• Exhibit C-8 illustrates a learn the turn brochure used in Tucson, Arizona. 

• Exhibit C-9 illustrates a thru-turn intersection information card with QR code from 

UDOT. 

• Exhibit C-10 illustrates a thru-turn informational graphic from UDOT. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

130

Open House The Draper City Council would 

like to invite you to attend an 

Open House on UDOT's pro12300 South ond Minute Mon Drive ThrU Turn Intersection posed ThrUTurn Intersection at 

12300 South and Minuteman 

Dote: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 Drive. Residents and business 

Time: 6:00 to 8:00 pm owners are encouraged to atLocution: Droper City Hull Council Chambers, tend the meeting to find out 

1020 E. Pioneer Rood (l2400 South) about the proposed project and 

have your questions addressed 

Questions? Coli Droper City Engineering (801) 576-6546 by Draper City Council members, 

City Representatives and UDOT 

staff. 

Project Overview: UDOT is in the 

design phase of a new intersecti?n at 

12300 South and Minute Man Dnve 1n 

Draper, Utah. UDOT is coordinating 

with Draper City in the development of 

this new and innovative intersection. 

The intersection will be called a ThrU 

Turn Intersection (TTl). 

The purpose of the TTl is to reduce the 

congestion and delay of this intersection 

and increase safety in the area. Th1s 

will be accomplished by redirecting all 

the left turn movements away from the 

intersection and utilizing three signalized 

u-tums approximately 500-600 feet 

away from the main intersection. One 

u-turn will be on State Street. one on 

Minute Man Drive and one on 12300 

South. 

Traffic studies show that in the future, 

this intersection will be so congested 

during peak travel times that delays of 

up to seven minutes may be required to 

make some left hand turns. This congestion will also have an impact on 1-15. 

By moving the left turns away from the 

intersection, more green time is dedicated to thru movements which will reduce the congestion at the intersection. 

For more information visit 

www.udot.utah.gov/go/thruturn 

or contact the proJect team at 

888-914-5454 or by email at 

thrUturn@utah.gov 

Exhibit C-3. Open house flyer used by the City Council for the MUT intersection in 

Draper, UT.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

131

Exhibit C-4. Concept of making a left-turn from the minor street via a right-turn and Uturn movement at the crossover. 

Exhibit C-5. Concept of making a left-turn from the major street via a through movement 

and U-turn movement at the crossover. 
www.grantroad.1nfo gmHMKf4MHM Sustainability 

DESIGN INNOVATIONS -

Indirect Left Turn 

FASTER • SAFER • GAS SAVING 

HOW THE INDIRECT LEFT TURN BENEFITS YOU ... A Shorter Wait at Light • Reduces the amount of time vehicles are stopped 

at the intersection by 42%. 

More Fuel Savings • Reduces fuel consumption by approximately 9% 

for all vehicles using the intersection. 

Safer 

• Reduces total crashes at intersections by 

16% and injury crashes by 30%. 

A traffic signal located 600·700 feet east and 

west of the intersection will stop approaching 

traffic to allow U-turns into a designated 

right-turn lane. Drivers then return to the 

intersection to complete their turn. 

The 'bulb out' allows 

large vehicles to easily 

make the U-turn. 

Smaller Intersections • Smaller intersection means less right-of-way 

needed, lower costs, and possibility of preserving 

existing businesses and reduces t he distance 

pedestrians have to cross by 20 feet. 

These traffic signals ----

are timed with the 

intersection to limit 

through traffic to 

one stop only 

Pedestrians cross safely here. 

Bicycles use a 'box turn' at 

the intersection. 

The Indirect Left will dramatically increase 

... ...,,__,__.. east-west mobility for vehicles and buses. 

The 'bulb out' allows U-turns 

for larger vehicles such as 

buses and semi-trucks. 

This is a project of the ReSional Transportation Authority. The voter-approved, $2.1 billion RTA plan will be implemented through 2026. Details about the full plan are available at www.RTAmobility.com. 

The Regional Transportation Authority has a nine-member board with representatives from local, state and tribal governments. This project will be managed by the City of Tucson. 

Median U-Turn Informational Guide

132

Exhibit C-6. First page of a two-page fact sheet on the use of the MUT intersection at 

several locations in the Tucson, AZ region. 
==-=:=!~!Jd'Mffa t Improving East-West Travel 

The Indirect Left Turn Intersection Design allows significantly more time to be given to 

traffic moving east-west along Grant Road. 

Indirect Left Turn 

Traffic Signal Timing 

Indirect Left Intersection 

Traditional 

Traffic Signal Timing 

Traditional Intersection 

The Indirect Left Turn is recommended for seven major intersections along Grant Road: 

• Swan Road • Alvernon Way • Country Club Road 

• Campbell Avenue • 1'1 Avenue • Stone Avenue 

• Oracle Road 

Median U-Turn Informational Guide

133

Exhibit C-7. Second page of a two-page fact sheet on the use of the MUT intersection at 

several locations in the Tucson, AZ region. 
RTA PROJEcTS 

e 

I ' 

Oracle and Grant Intersection- Grant Indirect Left Turn 

EFFECTIVE FALL 2013 

Oracle and Ina Intersection - Ina Indirect Left Turn 

EFFECTIVE FALL 2013 

How de vou make an Indirect len 11m:-

1) As you approach the intersection, merge to the left through lane. 

At the intersection, proceed straight ahead through the intersection. 

(No left turn is allowed.) 

Continue in the left through lane and merge into the left turn lane. 

2) The left turn lane will be managed by a traffic signal. \/\/hen the 

green arrow is illuminated, make a U-turn and enter the far right lane. 

3) Stay in the right lane to tum right at the intersection. 

SlmDIJ - Co through, make a I, than right at the light. 

Remember: No left turns for eastbound/westbound vehicles allowed at the 

intersection. (Exception: Emergency vehicles.) 

Indirect Left Benefits 

SAFER 

reduces total car crashes and injury crashes 

shortens crossing distance for pedestrians 

provides "bike spots" for safer bicycle turns 

allows room for turns made by buses and semi-trucks 

FASTER 

• improves overall efficiency for all movements through the intersection 

SAVES GAS 

• reduces fuel consumption with vehicles idling less at the intersection 

Project Management 

The Oracle and Grant Road intersection is part of the Grant Road, Oracle to Swan, 

widening improvement project in the $2.1 billion, 20-year Regional Transportation 

Authority Plan. The project is managed by the Crty of Tucson. 

Details: www.grantroadinfo or call (520) 624-4727; www.RTAmobility.com 

The Oracle and Ina Road intersection is part of the Safety Element of the RTA plan. 

The project is managed by Pima County. 

Details: www.roadprojects.pima.gov/lnaOracle; www.RTAmobility.com 

learn the Turn: Indirect left 

Median U-Turn Informational Guide

134

Exhibit C-8. Learn the turn brochure used in Tucson, Arizona. 

---
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

135

Exhibit C-9. Thru-turn intersection information card with QR code from UDOT. 

Exhibit C-10. Thru-turn informational graphic from UDOT. 
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

136

This page intentionally left blank.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

137

Appendix D SUPPLEMENTAL CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN 

DETAILS 

This appendix presents construction sequencing options for consideration during the construction 

of MUTs. A few plan sheets on construction and design details from recent MUT projects are

provided below. 

MDOT’s crossover geometry (includes Loon design for narrow median):

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot_geo670d.pdf

MDOT’s Pavement Marking Details:

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot_pave-985-b.pdf

MDOT’s Signal layout details (pg 20-21): 

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot_signal_head_placement_box_span.pdf

MDOT’s Signing Details (pg 87-90): 

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot_signing_%20design_placement_applic

ation_appendix.pdf
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

138

This page intentionally left blank.
Median U-Turn Informational Guide

139

This page intentionally left blank.
safety.fhwa.dot.gov

Publication Number FHWA-SA-14-069

nd back cover photos property of Federal Highway Administration Front a