Source: http://docplayer.net/257186-Geometric-design-of-major-minor-priority-junctions.html
Timestamp: 2019-01-20 21:14:41
Document Index: 786612223

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 6', 'art 6', 'ART 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6']

Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions - PDF
Download "Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions"
1 THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY TD 42/95 THE SCOTTISH OFFICE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THE WELSH OFFICE Y SWYDDFA GYMREIG THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR NORTHERN IRELAND Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions Summary: This Document gives advice and standards for the geometric design of major / minor priority junctions with regard to traffic operation and safety.
2 Volume 6 Section 2 Part 6 TD 42/95 Registration of Amendments REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS Amend Page No Signature & Date of Amend Page No Signature & Date of No incorporation of No incorporation of amendments amendments January 1995 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
3 Volume 6 Section 2 Registration of Amendments Part 6 TD 42/95 REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS Amend Page No Signature & Date of Amend Page No Signature & Date of No incorporation of No incorporation of amendments amendments PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED January 1995
4 DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES VOLUME 6 SECTION 2 ROAD GEOMETRY JUNCTIONS PART 6 TD 42/95 GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF MAJOR/MINOR PRIORITY JUNCTIONS Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 2. Form of Major/Minor Priority Junction 3. Siting of Major/Minor Priority Junctions 4. Safety 5. Road Users' Specific Requirements 6. Landscaping 7. Geometric Design Features 8. Assembly of Design Elements 9. References 10. Enquiries Annex 1 Annex 2 Calculation of Capacity Design of Channelising Islands January 1995 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
5 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 1 Part 6 TD 42/95 Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION General 1.1 The treatment of major/minor priority junctions has recently been the subject of a study sponsored by the Department of Transport. This study reviewed the existing advice given in Advice Note TA 20/84 on the Layout of Major/Minor Junctions, and made recommendations on the amendments and additions to the document based on research carried out since 1984, and on current good practice. 1.2 As a result of the study, this standard now provides details of the latest requirements and recommendations on general design principles and safety aspects of the geometric design of major/minor priority junctions. 1.3 This document replaces Advice Note TA 20/ Guidance on the selection of the most appropriate form of junction is given in TA 30 (DMRB 5.1) and TA 23 (DMRB 6.2). 1.8 Key safety issues are outlined, as are those particular design issues relating to landscaping and the specific requirements of road users. 1.9 Further recommendations are given on the geometric design of the important elements of the major/minor priority junction, and the way in which the individual components can be brought together to produce a good overall design. Implementation 1.10 This Standard shall be used forthwith on all schemes for the construction, improvement and maintenance of trunk roads, currently being prepared provided that, in the opinion of the Overseeing Organisations, this would not result in significant additional expense or delay progress. Design Organisations should confirm its application to particular schemes with the Overseeing Organisation. 1.5 The main changes and additions from TA 20/84 can be summarised as follows:- a. Visibility requirements are mandatory (paras ). b. The 15.5m long articulated goods vehicle with a single rear axle trailer has been replaced as the Design Vehicle by the 16.5m long articulated vehicle (paras ). c. The standard layouts in TA 20/84 have been replaced by figures which illustrate the design elements and their assembly. Scope 1.6 This Standard defines the main types of major/minor priority junction which can be used on new and improved trunk roads. Definitions 1.11 The major road is the road to which is assigned a permanent priority of traffic movement over that of the other road or roads A minor road is a road which has to give priority to the major road The three basic types of major/minor priority junction on single carriageways are defined in the following paragraphs Simple Junction. A T- or staggered junction without any ghost or physical islands in the major road, and without channelising islands in the minor road approach (Fig 1/1). 1.7 Advice is also given on the choice between the different types of major/minor priority junction, and on the siting of such junctions. January 1995 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 1/1
6 Chapter 1 Volume 6 Section 2 Introduction Part 6 TD 42/95 Figure 1/1 :Simple T-Junction (paras 1.14, 1.19) 1.15 Ghost Island Junction. An at-grade junction, usually a T- or staggered junction, within which an area is marked on the carriageway, shaped and located so as to direct traffic movement (Fig 1/2) Single Lane Dualling. An at-grade junction, usually a T- or staggered junction, within which central reservation islands are shaped and located so as to direct traffic movement (Fig 1/3). Figure 1 / 2 : Ghost Island Junction (para 1.15) Figure 1/3 : Single Lane Dualling (para 1.16) 1/2 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED January 1995
7 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 1 Part 6 TD 42/95 Introduction 1.17 In addition, there are four basic configurations Crossroads. An at-grade junction of two roads that cross approximately at right angles (Fig 1/4) T-Junction. An at-grade junction of two roads, at which the minor road joins the major road approximately at right angles (Fig 1/1) Skew or Y-Junction. An at-grade junction of two roads, at which the minor road approaches the major road at an oblique angle and terminates at the junction (Fig 1/5) Staggered Junctions. An at-grade junction of three roads, at which the major road is continuous through the junction, and the minor roads connect with the major road so as to form two opposed T-junctions (Fig 1/6). Figure 1/4 : Crossroads (para 1.18) Figure 1/5 : Left Hand Splay Skew Junction ( para 1.20 ) Figure 1/6 : Simple Right/Left Stagger (para 1.21) January 1995 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 1/3
8 Chapter 1 Volume 6 Section 2 Introduction Part 6 TD 42/95 Mandatory Sections 1.22 Sections of this document which are mandatory standards which the Overseeing Organisation expects in design, are highlighted by being contained in boxes. These are the sections with which the Design Organisation must comply or must have agreed a suitable departure with the relevant Overseeing Organisation. The remainder of the document contains advice and enlargement which is commended to designers for their consideration. Relaxations Departures from Mandatory Standards 1.24 In very exceptional situations Overseeing Organisations may be prepared to agree to Departures from Mandatory Standards where these seem unachievable. Design Organisations faced by such situations and wishing to consider pursuing this course shall discuss any such option at an early stage in design with the relevant Overseeing Organisation. Proposals to adopt Departures from Standard must be submitted by the Design Organisation to the Overseeing Organisation and formal approval received BEFORE incorporation into a design layout to ensure that safety is not significantly reduced In dificult circumstances, the Design Organisation may relax a mandatory standard set out in this document to that relating to the next lowest design speed step, unless this document specifically excludes it. However, in using any such relaxation, the Design Organisation shall give special attention to the effect this relaxation may have on the overall performance of the junction. This is particularly important in the situation where two or more relaxtions are incorporated into different components of the junction design. In all instances of relaxations, the Design Organisation shall record the fact that a relaxation has been used in the design and the corresponding reasons for its use. On completion of the design, the Design Organisation shall report all decisions to the Overseeing Organisation. 1/4 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED January 1995
9 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 2 Part 6 TD 42/95 Form of Major/Minor Priority Junctions 2. FORM OF MAJOR/MINOR PRIORITY JUNCTIONS General 2.1 Major/minor priority junctions are the most common form of junction control. Traffic on the minor road gives way to traffic on the major road and is normally controlled by "Give Way" signs and road markings. However, where there are severe visibility restrictions, "Stop" signs and road markings may be considered, with appropriate reference to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. 2.2 The advantage of all major/minor priority junctions is that through traffic on the major road is not delayed. However, high major road speeds or the possibility of major road overtaking traffic manoeuvres should not be encouraged at major/minor priority junctions. 2.3 For more heavily used junctions, more complex forms of junction layout are required. Due to the uncertainty of traffic forecasting, designers should always consider whether the layout they are designing could be upgraded to provide more capacity, if this should prove necessary in the future. Design Procedure 2.4 Junction design is a key element of the overall design process for trunk road schemes. The flow chart shown in Fig 2/1 outlines the design process for major/minor priority junctions in a series of interrelated design steps. 2.5 The decision to provide a major/minor priority junction rather than some other form of junction should be based on operational, economic and environmental considerations. [Step 1] Guidance on junction choice is provided in TA 30 (DMRB 5.1.6). However, sequences of junctions should not involve many different layout types. A length of route or bypass containing roundabouts, single lane dualling, ghost islands, simple priority junctions and grade separation would inevitably create confusion and uncertainty for drivers and may result in accidents. Safe road schemes are usually straightforward, containing no surprises for the driver. on a wide range of factors, taking into account design year traffic flow, the nature and proportions of large goods and passenger carrying vehicles, geometric and traffic delays, an initial estimate of entry and turning stream capacities, and accident costs. It should also be based on a consideration of the particular site characteristics such as development and topography. [Step 2] 2.7 The next step is to address all of the relevant safety issues to ensure as safe a design as possible, to take account of road users' specific requirements and to incorporate a preliminary landscape design within the junction. At this point, the key geometric parameters of the junction design should be assessed. [Steps 3a-3d] 2.8 Having established the various components of the junction design, the Design Organisation should check that the capacity of the junction is still adequate. This includes a check if the junction is located on a route which might experience a wide variation in flow and turning movements, particularly those having prolonged daily peak periods, over a day, week, or year. The check should be undertaken prior to assembling the component parts to form a complete junction. [Step 4] 2.9 Before proceeding to final design [Step 5], a "driveability" check should then be performed, to assess first the smooth assembly of the components of the junction design. This should include a visual assessment of the junction on all approaches from the driver's eye view. Secondly, the junction should be considered within the context of its adjacent links and those adjacent junctions on the particular route. As a whole, the layout should be designed to suit the traffic pattern, with the principal movements following smooth vehicular paths. This improves the smoothness of operation and makes it more readily understood by drivers. 2.6 The most appropriate type of major/minor priority junction to be used can be chosen from those described in Chapter 1. This decision should be based January 1995 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 2/1
10 Chapter 2 Volume 6 Section 2 Form of Major/Minor Priority Junctions Part 6 TD 42/95 Step 1 Choose most appropriate type of junction (TA 30/TA 23) Major/Minor (TD 42 - This Document) No Step 2 Choose most appropriate form and size of major/minor priority junction (Chapter 2) Is junction type appropriate for site characteristics? (Chapter 3) Yes Step 3a Address all relevant safety issues (Chapter 4) Roundabout (TD 16) Traffic Signals (TA 18) Grade Separated - Full - Local (this doc) - Compact (TD 22) (TD 42) (TD 40) 1st iteration - go to step 3 2nd iteration - go to step 2 3rd iteration - go to step 1 Step 3b Take account of road users ' specific requirements (Chapter 5) Step 3c Preliminary landscape recommendations (Chapter 6) Step 3d Assess key geometric parameters (Chapter 7) No Does the junction still have adequate capacity? Yes Step 4 Assemble design elements (Chapter 8) No Is "driveability" threshold satisfied? Yes Step 5 Final Design Figure 2/1 : Flow Chart Outlining Design Procedure ( para 2.4 ) 2/2 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED January 1995
11 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 2 Part 6 TD 42/95 Form of Major/Minor Priority Junctions 2.10 If, at any point in the design procedure, the junction design is unsatisfactory, then the designer should return to the previous step in the procedure to refine the design. In certain extreme cases, this process could result in a change in junction type or form. Choice of Major/Minor Priority Junction 2.11 Table 2/1 shows the major/minor priority junction forms considered suitable for various major road carriageway types in both urban and rural situations. This Table should be used as a starting point in choosing the most appropriate type of major/minor priority junction to use at a particular site. Carriageway Type Junction Type Simple Ghost Island Dualling Standard Location ; ;= > ; ;= > ; ;= > S2 Urban Yes Yes Maybe Yes Yes No Yes Yes No (D1) (D1) Rural Yes Yes Maybe Yes Yes No Yes Yes No (D1) (D1) WS2 Urban No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No (D1) (D1) Rural No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No (D1) (D1) D2 Urban No No No No No No Yes Yes No (D2) (D2) Rural No No No No No No Yes Yes No (D2) (D2) D3 No No No No No No No No No ; T Junction ;= Staggered Junction > Crossroads Table 2/1: Possible Junction Types for Different Major Road Carriageway Types January 1995 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 2/3
12 Chapter 2 Volume 6 Section 2 Form of Major/Minor Priority Junctions Part 6 TD 42/ Fig 2/2 may be useful when considering further 2.13 Ordinarily, the 2-way Annual Average Daily the options for a site. For single carriageway roads it Traffic (AADT) design year flows are used to shows approximately the various levels of T-junction determine the approximate level of junction provision which may be applicable for different combinations of for new junctions. However, if there is evidence in the flows. The information takes into account geometric area of the junction of high seasonal variations, or if and traffic delays, entry and turning traffic flows, and short, intense peaks in the traffic flows are likely, then accident costs. However, it must be noted that Fig 2/2 consideration should be given to using either the gives the starting point for junction choice and there are appropriate seasonal or peak hour flows in the initial other factors such as those indicated in para 2.6 to be capacity assessment detailed in para 2.6, or to justify a considered before a final decision is made. different type of junction The following principles can be identified from Table 2/1 and Fig 2/2. Minor Road Flow (2-way AADT) 8,000 7,000 Roundabout (or other type) 6,000 Single Lane Dualling 5,000 4,000 Ghost Island 3,000 Simple 2,000 1, ,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Major Road Flow (2- way AADT) Figure 2/2 : Approximate Level of Provision of T-junctions on New Single Carriageway Roads for Various Major and Minor Road Design Year Traffic Flows ( paras 2.2, 2.14 ) 2/4 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED January 1995
13 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 2 Part 6 TD 42/95 Form of Major/Minor Priority Junctions Simple 2.15 Simple junctions are appropriate for most minor junctions on single carriageway roads, but must not be used for wide single carriageways or dual carriageways. For new rural junctions they shall only be used when the design flow in the minor road is not expected to exceed about 300 vehicles 2-way AADT, and that on the major road is not expected to exceed 13,000 vehicles 2-way AADT At existing rural, and at urban junctions the cost of upgrading a simple junction to provide a right turning facility will vary from site to site. However, upgrading should always be considered where the minor road flow exceeds 500 vehicles 2-way AADT, a right turning accident problem is evident, or where vehicles waiting on the major road to turn right inhibit the through flow and create a hazard In those instances where the flow levels are not great enough to justify the provision of a right turning facility, and a right turning problem remains, consideration may be given to the use of a low cost remedial measure. Two such measures include a nearside passing bay, to allow through vehicles to pass those right turners waiting in the centre of the major road, albeit at a reduced speed, or a left hand diverging lane loop, which allows right turners to wait off the major road, and to make the crossing movement at right angles. These are shown in Figs 2/3 and 2/ The decision to provide a right turning facility shall be made in accordance with the warrants given in paras 2.15 and The choice of type of right turn facility to be used, however, will depend on the particular site characteristics. Ghost Island 2.19 The use of ghost islands on unrestricted rural single carriageway roads can, in certain circumstances, pose safety problems. In situations where overtaking opportunity on the major road on either side of the junction is restricted, the presence of a widened carriageway, albeit with hatch markings, could result in overtaking manoeuvres which may conflict with right turns into and out of the minor road Ghost islands shall be used on new single carriageway roads, or in the upgrading of existing junctions to provide right turning vehicles with a degree of shelter from the through flow. They are highly effective in improving safety, and are relatively cheap, especially on wide 2-lane single carriageway roads where very little extra construction cost is involved. Figure 2/3 : Major/Minor Priority Junction with Nearside Passing Bay (para 2.17) January 1995 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 2/5
14 Chapter 2 Volume 6 Section 2 Form of Major/Minor Priority Junctions Part 6 TD 42/95 Figure 2/4 : Major / Minor Priority Junction with Left Hand Diverging Lane Loop for Right Turns ( para 2.17 ) 2.21 Ghost islands shall not be used where overtaking opportunities on adjacent links are restricted or where traffic turning right out of the minor road would need to make this manoeuvre in two stages. Single Lane Dualling 2.22 Single lane dualling can be used on unrestricted rural single carriageway roads to prevent overtaking on the major road, and/or where it is desirable for the right turn out of the minor road to be carried out in two stages. However, even though overtaking is prevented, when major road drivers are presented with an improved highway layout and standard there may be a tendency to speed up through the junction where slow moving vehicles may be crossing or turning. Consequently, care needs to be taken when siting this type of junction, particularly at the start of rural bypasses Single lane dualling shall normally be used on rural single carriageway roads that have good overtaking opportunities on adjacent links, and shall be used in preference to ghost islands where overtaking opportunities on adjacent links are restricted and where traffic turning right out of the minor road would need to make this manoeuvre in two stages. Because of the detailed nature of the single lane dualling layout, it is only appropriate for roads with hard strips There are certain conditions under which a single lane dualling layout may be misinterpreted by drivers. Where a road contains alternating single and dual carriageway sections, a single lane dualling layout might lead drivers into mistaking the width of divided carriageway at the junction to think they are approaching a fully dualled section with overtaking opportunities. In addition, where a junction is proposed on a single carriageway within about 3 kilometres of the taper from a long length of dual carriageway, there may also be confusion if single lane dualling is introduced. In both of these cases, single lane dualling shall not be used. Single lane dualling shall not be used where there is a climbing lane in one direction through the junction Single lane dualling is formed by widening the major road to provide a central reservation, a right turning lane and space for vehicles waiting to turn right from the major road into the minor road (Fig 2/3). They also enable drivers of vehicles of nearly all lengths to undertake the right turn manoeuvre from the minor road in two stages. The limiting factor is the left hand sideways visibility from the driver's seat, which can be very restricted in some cabs and leaves the driver with no option but to make the manoeuvre in one stage. An important feature of this type of junction is that there is only one through lane in each direction on the major road. This form of junction is designed to prevent overtaking and excessive speeds through the conflict zones. 2/6 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED January 1995
15 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 2 Part 6 TD 42/95 Form of Major/Minor Priority Junctions Dual Carriageway Junctions 2.26 Major/minor priority junctions may also be used on dual carriageway, but should never be provided on D3AP roads. The upper limit for minor road flows should be taken as about 3,000 vehicles AADT 2-way when considering providing a major/minor priority junction on continuous D2AP roads in rural areas. However, short lengths of full dualling (D2AP) just to incorporate a junction on otherwise single carriageway roads shall not be provided. always be used at the first major junction in order to emphasise to drivers the changed character of the road. This has been found to reduce accidents. In addition, major/minor priority junctions should not be provided at locations where a dual carriageway section reduces to single carriageway standard, such as at the end of a town bypass, since the merging manoeuvres resulting from such a layout may lead to an increase in accident potential. There should be at least 500 metres between the end of the junction and the signs announcing the end of the dual carriageway. Crossroads 2.29 Crossroads are considered suitable only as 2.27 On continuous dual carriageways. major/minor simple junctions in urban and rural locations where the priority junctions are formed by widening the central minor road flows do not warrant a ghost island or single reserve to provide an offside diverging lane and waiting lane dualling. Staggered junctions are safer than space for vehicles turning right from the major road into crossroads where a significant proportion of the flow on the minor road (Fig 2/5). This allows vehicles of nearly the minor roads is a cross movement. all lengths turning right from the minor road into the major road to carry out the manoeuvre in two stages, Staggered Junctions but see the comment in para Where a long stretch of motorway or allpurpose carriageway with full grade separation becomes a D2AP with at-grade junctions, a roundabout should 2.30 Staggered junctions comprise of a major road with opposed T-junctions on either side. Right/left staggers (where minor road traffic crossing the major road first turns right, proceeds along the major road and then turns left) are preferred to left/right staggers because traffic turning between the minor roads is less likely to have to wait in the centre of the major road. Figure 2/5 : Dual Carriageway T-Junction ( para 2.25 ) January 1995 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 2/7
16 Chapter 2 Volume 6 Section 2 Form of Major/Minor Priority Junctions Part 6 TD 42/95 Capacity Assessment 2.31 For design involving flows greater than the low flows described in the preceding paragraphs, use should be made of the equations which are available for the prediction of possible minor road entry flows into a major/minor priority junction as a function of the flow/geometry at the junction. These equations are reproduced at Annex 1 and are applicable to all types of major/minor priority junctions including staggered junctions The range of reference flows developed should be used to produce trial designs for assessment. Consideration of a lower flow to capacity ratio (RFC) of 75% is recommended in Annex 1 as a general rule when considering single carriageways with design speeds of 100 kph and above or high speed dual carriageways. This is because formulae have not been developed for these latter types of road Manual or computerised methods such as PICADY/3 may be used to assess capacity. It is not realistic to calculate queue lengths and delays manually. 2/8 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED January 1995
17 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 3 Part 6 TD 42/95 Siting of Major/Minor Priority Junctions 3. SITING OF MAJOR/MINOR PRIORITY JUNCTIONS General 3.1 On new single carriageways where overtaking opportunity is limited, ghost island and single lane dualling junctions should be sited on non-overtaking sections, as defined in Departmental Standard TD 9 (DMRB 6.1.1). On existing single carriageway roads along which overtaking opportunity is very limited, the isolated local improvement of a junction to a ghost island could induce unsafe driver behaviour, since the short length of wider road thus created may be used by some frustrated drivers for overtaking. 3.2 Measures that have been found to reduce the number of such manoeuvres at existing ghost island or single lane dualling junctions include dualling junction, which gives a more confined impression to approaching drivers, as shown in Fig 3/1. b. The use of double white lines along the hatching boundary at ghost island junctions, as shown in Fig 3/2. c. The use of differential red coloured surfacing within the hatched area of the ghost island. 3.3 A saving in accidents may be achieved, and an improvement made in operational performance, by reducing the number of lightly trafficked minor road connections onto major roads. The cost effectiveness of connecting such routes together with a link road before they join a new major road should always be investigated. a. The application of diagonal hatched road markings in the metre strips at an existing single lane Figure 3/1 : Use of Hatching in Metre Strips to Eliminate Overtaking Manoeuvres (para 3.2) Figure 3/2 : Use of Double White Line Ghost Island Hatching Boundary to Eliminate Overtaking Manoeuvres (para 3.2) January 1995 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 3/1
18 Chapter 3 Volume 6 Section 2 Siting of Major/Minor Priority Junctions Part 6 TD 42/95 Horizontal Alignment 3.4 Ideally, major/minor priority junctions should not be sited where the major road is on a sharp curve. However, where the siting of a major/minor priority junction on a curve is unavoidable, the preferred alignment is where T-junctions are sited with the minor road on the outside of the curve. This is especially important for junctions on climbing lane sections or dual carriageways, to ensure that minor road traffic has a clear view of vehicles on the major road that may be overtaking through the junction. Junctions on the inside of sharp curves are most undesirable. 3.5 Problems have been experienced with major/minor priority junctions containing a skew minor road at the end of some town bypasses where the alignment is such that some drivers perceive that the minor road retains priority. In such circumstances, the minor road approach should be aligned so as to join the major road as near to right angles as possible in order to eliminate any driver confusion as to which route has priority. Vertical Alignment 3.6 The best locations for junctions are on level ground, or where the gradient of the approaches does not exceed 2% either uphill or downhill. Downhill approaches in excess of this figure, particularly on high speed roads, can induce traffic speeds above those desirable through the junction, and lead to a misjudgment of the approach speed by drivers entering from the minor road. Uphill approaches are also undesirable since it is difficult for drivers to appreciate the layout of a junction when they are approaching it on an up gradient. They cannot see the full layout from the lengths immediately on either side of the crest. 3.7 Where the minor road approaches the junction on an uphill gradient, drivers can often wrongly perceive the junction form, and will require a longer gap between vehicles to pull out onto the major road. This is undesirable, as is the case where the minor road approaches a junction on a downhill gradient, thus increasing the likelihood of vehicles overrunning the "Give Way" line. In such circumstances, a designer shall attempt to create a level section of at least 15 metres length adjacent to the major road. 3.8 Sections in the central reserve opening at single lane dualling and dual carriageway junctions should fall for drainage purposes, towards rather than away from, the minor road, particularly where there is superelevation across the main carriageway. In such instances where this does not occur, drivers may not be able to see the full width of the furthest carriageway from their position on the minor road. They may not immediately appreciate the road they are joining is a dual carriageway, particularly with single lane dualling. Fig 3/3 shows a computer simulated view of this situation. A form of optical illusion may also be created, whereby the width available in the central reserve, to make the right turn out of the minor road in two stages, appears insufficient to accommodate waiting vehicles. In this situation the minor road driver may attempt to perform the manoeuvre in one stage. It is better to have the outside edge of each superelevated carriageway at the same level. 3/2 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED January 1995
19 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 3 Part 6 TD 42/95 Siting of Major/Minor Priority Junctions Figure 3/3: Computer Simulated View of Minor Road Approach with Superelevation across the Main Carriageway January 1995 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 3/3
20 Volume 6 Section 2 Chapter 4 Part 6 TD 42/95 Safety 4. SAFETY 4.1 In 1991 there were 236,000 personal injury d. The application of hatching in the metre strips accidents in Great Britain. Approximately 51% of these at single lane dualling junctions has been shown to give accidents occurred at urban road junctions and 9% a more confined impression to approaching drivers and occurred at rural road junctions. Of the 51% that hence reduce speeds. occurred at urban junctions, over half occurred at major/minor priority junctions. Of the 9% that occurred e. The replacement of a rural crossroads by a at rural junctions, just under half occurred at staggered junction. This has been shown to reduce major/minor priority junctions. Therefore, accidents at a accidents by some 60%. major/minor priority junction accounted for approximately one third of the total number of road f. The installation of channelising islands on the accidents in Great Britain in However, balanced minor road approaches at rural crossroads. This has against these figures, 74% of rural trunk and principal been shown to reduce accidents (mainly minor road road junctions in Great Britain are major/minor priority overrun) by about 50%. junctions. g. The improvement of visibility. However, care 4.2 For the same flows a major/minor priority should be taken not to provide visibility to the right on junction will usually have a higher accident rate than the minor road approach much in excess of the desirable other junction types. These accidents will in themselves minimum as this can divert the driver's attention away be more serious than at other forms of control. They are from road users on the mainline in the immediate mainly associated with right turns and are exacerbated vicinity towards those approaching in the far distance. in number and severity by high major road speeds or the possibility of incautious overtaking traffic manoeuvres h. The provision and maintenance of good skid occurring on the major road. Accidents involving the resistant surfaces. right turn from the major road (22%) and the right turn out of the minor road (27%) are the most frequent at i. The conversion of urban major/minor priority major/minor priority junctions. junctions to traffic signal or roundabout control. The latter has been shown to reduce accidents by 30% or 4.3 Various methods which have been shown to more. enhance safety at these junctions in the past include:- j. The installation of pedestrian guard rails, a. The installation of a ghost island on single central refuges and pedestrian crossings in urban areas. carriageway roads to shelter right turning traffic and discourage overtaking. The study on rural T-junctions, k. On high speed dual carriageways, the summarised in TRL RR 65, demonstrated that the frequency of accidents involving a right turn from the major road is some 70% less at junctions with a ghost island, than at simple junctions. b. The use of double white line markings or raised rib markings along the hatching boundary, or the application of differential coloured surfacing within the major/minor priority junctions. The design of such layouts is covered more fully in Chapter 7 and in TD 40 hatched area at ghost islands to discourage dangerous overtaking manoeuvres at the junction. prevention of right turn crossing manoeuvres at the junction and use of a roundabout or a grade separated crossing close to the major/minor priority junction for the purpose of U-turns by the diverted traffic. Such a method of local grade separation eliminates the two manoeuvres contributing most to accidents at (DRMB 6.2) "Layout of Compact Grade Separated Junctions". c. For more heavily trafficked junctions on rural single carriageway roads, the installation of physical islands to achieve single lane dualling. Full dualling should not be used as this encourages high speeds and overtaking, which are undesirable at major/minor priority junctions. 4.4 More general advice on the safety of junctions is given in the Accident Investigation and Prevention Manual. January 1995 PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED 4/1
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 7, Issue 1, Jan-Feb 2016, pp. 248-259, Article ID: IJCIET_07_01_021 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?jtype=ijciet&vtype=7&itype=1
ADVICE ON Road crossings for horses
ADVICE ON Road crossings for horses 2 In providing specifications for ways and facilities for equestrians, The British Horse Society considers all equestrian users (those riding, leading or driving horses).
Department of Main Roads Chapter 13. Chapter 13. Intersections at Grade. October 2006 i
Department of Main Roads Chapter Chapter i Department of Main Roads Chapter Manual Contents Chapter 1 Framework of the Road Planning and Design Manual Chapter 2 Design Philosophy Chapter 3 Road Planning