Interchange and Comact Grade Separated Junction: Classifications' System Considerations, Traffic Safety, and Operations Overview
Shy Bassan *
Amy Metom Engineers & Consultants, Ltd., 55A Yigal Alon St., Tel Aviv 67891, Israel.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
The paper presents system considerations and classification criteria of interchange geometric design based on the new Israeli Interchange design guidelines (VOLUME III of geometric design standards for rural (interurban) highways and urban freeways).
The paper gives a methodological overview of interchanges systematical warrant in order to adjust and essentially construct an appropriate interchange that connects two intersecting highways. This warrant refers to the number of legs, partiality, functional classification, and access control type of intersecting highways zone (in the final stage of construction) based on highway classification. The paper also covers system considerations for implementing a compact grade separated junction (CGSJ) in a major highway, and traffic operation, safety, and public transport insights.
Keywords: Interchange, classification, safety, highway, system
How to Cite
Downloads
References
Kozlovsky R. Forking path: De-scripting interchange architecture at the Ayalon crosstown expressway. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 2019;8:332-347.
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: CD 122. Geometric design of grade separated junctions. UK; 2022.
Lopez-Lambas ME, Monzon A. Private funding and management for public interchanges in Madrid. Res. Transp. Econ. 2010;29:323–328. Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2010.07.041 (Reforming Public Transport throughout the World).
Bowers SP. All Change? Motorway interchanges for public transport. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Transport Vol. 164 Issue TR4. 2011;209-220.
Terzis G, Last A. GUIDE. ‘‘Urban Interchanges – A Good Practice Guide” (Final Report), European 4th RTD Framework Program; 2000.
Abreu e S, J, Bazrafshan H. User satisfaction of intermodal transfer facilities in Lisbon, Portugal: analysis with structural equations modeling. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board. 2013;2350:52-57. Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2350-12
Hernandez S, Monzon A, de Oña R. Urban transport interchanges: A methodology for evaluating perceived quality. Transportation Research Part A. 2016;84:31-43.
Hamaoka H, Matsubara R. Cause of wrong way driving on expressway by the classification of its pattern. Journal of the eastern Asia society for transportation studies. 2019;13:2027-2037.
Li Y, Zhao X, He Q, Huang L, Rong J. Comprehensive evaluation and classification of interchange diagrammatic guide signs’ complexity. Journal of advanced transportation. 2018;2018, Article ID 9865305:11. Available:https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9865305.
Doctor M., Merritt G., Moler S. Designing complex interchanges. Public Roads. 2009;73(3):1-15. FHWA-HRT -10-001.
Sadia R, Polus A. Interchange complexity model and related safety implications. Journal of Transportation Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers. 2013;139:458-468.
Yue R, Yang G, Tian Z, Xu H, Lin D, Wang A. Microsimulation analysis of traffic operations at two diamond interchange types. Journal of advanced transportation. 2019;2019, Article ID 6863480:11. Available:https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6863480.
Jones EG, Selinger MJ. Comparison of operations of single-point and tight urban diamond interchanges, Transportation Research Record. Transportation Research Board. 2003;1847(1):29–35.
Leisch JP, T. Urbanik T. II, Oxley JP. A comparison of two diamond interchange forms in urban areas. ITE Journal. 1989;59(5):21-27.
Fowler BC. An operational comparison of the single-point urban and tight-diamond interchanges. ITE Journal. 1993;63(4):19-24.
Bared JG, Powell A, Kaisar E. Traffic planning models for single point and tight diamond interchanges. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board. 1847;102–110.
Selinger MJ, Sharp WH. Comparison of of SPUI and TUDI interchange alternatives with computer simulation modeling. ITE 2000 Annual Meeting and Exhibit, Nashville, Tenn; 2000.
IRC 92. Guidelines for the design of interchanges in urban areas. Indian Roads Congress; 2017.
TAC-ATC. Transportation Association of Canada. Geometric design guide for Canadian Roads. Chapter 10: Interchanges; 2017.
AASHTO. A policy of geometric design of highways and streets. 7th edition; 2018.
AASHTO. A policy of geometric design of highways and streets. 6th edition; 2011.
Bassan S. Country report Israel: interchange design guidelines in Israel. 6th International Symposium on Highway Geometric Design. Amsterdam, Netherlands; 2022.
Bassans S, Zilbershtein R, Frischer B. Israel Country Report. 5th International Symposium on Highway Geometric Design. Vancouver, Canada; 2015.
Bassan S. Highway design policy insights for target speed: an Israel perspective. Traffic Engineering and Control. 2016;57(4):155- 158.
Leisch JE. dynamics of highway design for safety. Transportation. 1977;6:71-83.