1. Intersection & Interchange Geometrics (IIG) Innovative Design Considerations for All Users Module 8 Intersection- Interchange Evaluation Process

2. INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION (ICE)  Process to determine the “best” intersection design/traffic control for a given location  All alternatives are considered  An evaluation of safety, operational, financial and political impacts are compared

3. HISTORICAL “DEFAULTS”  Almost all intersection “problems” are solved by installing a traffic signal  Traffic Signal Warrants/Justification  Separate process for other alternatives  Historical default is to only consider traditional countermeaures  traffic signal  all way stop

4. ICE PROCESS  All alternatives are considered  Initial screening for feasibility  Technical Analysis  Safety  Capacity/Operations  Costs – Benefit Costs  Right of Way impacts  Public/Political Considerations  Selection of preferred alternative  “Best” alternative  Documented in report  Subject to available funding, other projects, project readiness, etc

5. BENEFITS OF ICE  Quantification of “Best” alternative  Decision is documented  Potential for better decision making  Important Criteria are analyzed  Safety (quantitative)  Capacity (quantitative)  Construction, ROW and Maintenance Costs (quantitative)  Political and Public acceptability (qualitative)

6. MINNESOTA ICE  Developed in 2007 with the desire to include roundabouts as an alternative to traffic signals  Safety and Capacity Analysis is required using acceptable methods  Report documenting findings and recommendations must be submitted and approved by the District Traffic Engineer http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/ice/ index.html

7. WISCONSIN  Facilities Development Manual  11-25-3 Intersection Control Evaluation  ICE Worksheet  Documents the technical and financial analysis of alternatives  Project using Federal or State funding must complete the worksheet  Two Phases (Scoping/Alternative Selection  Decision is documented

8. INDIANA  Intersection Design Guide (2013)  First a “need” must be determined to evaluate solutions to  All alternatives are considered, including “no build”  Decision Trees help determine feasibility, eliminate alternatives  Safety, Capacity and Costs are all considered as well as other factors

9. CALIFORNIA  Traffic Operations Policy Directive (2013)  Updates evaluation procedures for determining effective traffic control strategies for subject intersection  Assessment Phase – Identification of one or more strategies that will meet the “need” for control  Engineering Analysis – Safety, Capacity and Life-Cycle Costs  Establishment of District ICE coordinators  All users are considered

10. http://dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/liaisons/ice.html CALIFORNIA

11. SIX STEP METHODOLOGY Ch 10 Alternative Intersection Assessment

12. FITS WITHIN EXISTING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The needs identified in prior planning studies should “inform” (not dictate) the identification, development, and evaluation of intersection control and geometry concepts. It is critical to understand the project context and intended outcomes prior to developing potential solutions so that options may be tailored to meet project needs within the opportunities and constraints of a given effort.

13. Step 1 – Establish Objectives  Having a clear understanding of the purpose and need is a fundamental step in evaluating alternatives “Why are we building this project?”  Stakeholder outreach is critical to developing meaningful and appropriate objectives  Project goals and objectives (i.e. performance characteristics) should be specific, they should be measurable and directly relate to the purpose and needs

14. Step 2 – Multi-modal User Assessment When considering intersection alternatives, integrate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit needs at an early stage of the project planning process. The unique characteristics of intersection options produce variations in the physical geometry and traffic control schemes which can introduce both benefits and challenges to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users.

15. Step 3 – ROW & Context Assessment Assess the overall corridor (or isolated intersection) context including the built, natural, and community environment and the intended performance outcomes of the intersection form Document the intended context, and how operations, safety, and geometry fit the context for each alternative including intended users (pedestrians, bicyclists, passenger cars, transit vehicles, freight, emergency responders, and over size/over weight vehicles) Compare the ROW needs and economic impacts of practical alternatives

16. Step 4 – Access Management Assessment Access management considerations: Driveway spacing Adjacent signal spacing U-Turns

17. STEP 5 – SKETCH LEVEL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS TOOL OVERVIEW Planning-level analysis, such as critical lane volume and Capacity Analysis for Planning of Junctions (CAP-X) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Analysis Microsimulation analysis

18. Step 5 – Sketch Level Traffic Analysis

19. CAP-X SPREADSHEET

20. Step 6 – Detailed Traffic Analysis of Viable Alternatives Detailed traffic simulation analysis of the most promising alternatives

21. 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. Quality of service may also include the perceived quality of travel by design vehicle users such as truck or bus drivers.

22. INTERPRETING RESULTS Hypothetical Cost-Effectiveness Graph of Four Alternatives Cost Performance Measure i.e. Intersection Delay Minimum Desirable LOS Alt A Alt G Alt R Alt B

23. QUESTIONS