<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Safety Performance of Split Versus Lead-Lag Traffic Signals in Abu Dhabi</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1289541</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In Abu Dhabi City, United Arab Emirates, the traffic signals of a total of 38 signalized intersections have been modified. The old design was a split phasing system for all intersections’ approaches while the new system is protected-only lead-lag phasing system on the two major-road approaches and split system on the minor-road approaches. This modification was done for operations and capacity reasons and occurred in years 2009 and 2010. Same intersections have also experienced changes in the phasing system to include end-of-green flash interval in year 2009 besides changes in the speed limit. Analysis of crash data has indicated traffic safety deterioration after the signals modifications; especially with left-turn movements. The main objective of this study is to examine the influence that the occurred changes may have on the intersection safety performance. Out of the 38 intersections, only 17 have been considered since major geometry changes have been implemented for the rest of intersections. Severe crashes from years 2008 to 2012 have been used for this reason. Results indicated that 86 % of crashes in year 2012 at those intersections were classified as right-angle between left turn and opposite through movements. For such crashes, drivers on the left-turn were described as at-fault. Those crashes resulted in 9 fatalities only in year 2012. Results showed that intersections within the central business district (CBD) experienced an increase of 300% for crashes between left-turn and through movements. Moreover, intersections’ approaches outside CBD that have experienced changes in the speed limit from 60 km/h to 80 km/h after the signal changes experienced an increase of 350 % for the same crash type.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:06:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1289541</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Influence of Signal Phasing Sequence and Spacing on Signal Coordination</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1136953</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article provides quantitative analyses from several perspectives of signal timing that are related to progression bandwidth. These analyses included: (1) the influence of signal phasing sequence; (2) the impact of intersection spacing; and (3) the impact of the number of signals in a particular system. A large number of arterial scenarios were randomly generated and optimized to simulate a wide range of traffic signal systems that are likely to exist in the real world. After comparing the effectiveness of four phasing sequences, the article concludes that lead-lag or lag-lead phasing was used 5% more than leading or lagging. However, there was no significant difference between leading and lagging or between lead-lag and lag-lead. The impact of intersection spacing was analyzed by comparing uniformly and randomly spaced signal systems. The article shows how uniformly spaced signal systems did not provide better progression bandwidth than non-uniformly space systems. In fact, leading and lagging phasing sequences showed higher likelihood to be used at non-uniformly spaced systems. The article also finds that the number of signals had a significant impact on bandwidth attainability. When the number of intersections exceeded 16, there were practically no two-way bandwidth solutions, which suggests that the bandwidth based signal timing approach may not be feasible at this time.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:58:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1136953</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Five Years of Observations of the Flashing Yellow Arrow Display</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/925081</link>
      <description><![CDATA[By now the Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) display form of protected-permitted left-turn phasing should be well known among traffic engineers. It has been a topic of interest over the past few years following studies and planned inclusion in the next release of the MUTCD. Studies have shown the FYA to be more easily understood by drivers than standard Protected-Permitted (PPLT) displays that had been traditionally used. Just as important, the FYA solves the problem of the yellow trap thus allowing lead-lag phasing with PPLT and allows both protected-only and permitted-only operation. This paper describes observations and lessons learned in the preparation and implementation of 33 FYA locations throughout the City of Kennewick. The paper will describe phasing options, timing elements, and detection methods as well as some lessons learned that will be valuable for other engineers who are contemplating or just starting to use the FYA.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:08:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/925081</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Methods for Operation and Detection of the Flashing Yellow Arrow Display</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/921218</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) display is a form of protected-permitted left-turn phasing (PPLT) approved in 2006 by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and is anticipated for inclusion in the next release of the MUTCD. The FYA display eliminates the yellow trap, allows lead-lag phasing with PPLT, and allows time of day selection of protected-only or permitted-only phasing. This paper describes operational and efficiency benefits of the Flashing Yellow Arrow display and how they are achieved by selection of phasing, timing elements, and modified detection methods. In addition, the paper will describe some lessons learned that will be valuable for other engineers who are contemplating or just starting to use the FYA. The question then becomes how the traffic engineer should utilize the power and flexibility of the FYA display and when to exercise restraint. The real power of the FYA becomes available when the engineer starts to break away from “leading lefts only” phasing typically required by traditional PPLT. This paper will discuss different phasing options with the FYA and the pluses and minuses of each in terms of what existing problems they might solve or mitigate. Along with this will be a discussion of detection strategies from simple to complex that can greatly improve the efficiency of the FYA. Finally, there will be a description of a “perceived” yellow trap that can occur in some circumstances with the FYA and how to recognize when it may be a problem.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:28:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/921218</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Safety in Numbers: A Corridor Case Study</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/921430</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Is simply retiming a busy arterial enough in this day of capacity lacking roadways that are filled with aggressive drivers? Which arterial should take precedence over the other at an intersection … should either? Can Red Light Running occurrences and collisions be reduced by coordinating a corridor instead of individual arterials that intersect one another? Are there appreciable benefits to using Lead/Lag phasing along corridors versus Lead/Lead? What is a Dump Plan; no not a Dumb Plan? This paper addresses the real-life conditions of a roadway corridor, rather than simply reviewing a simulation and implementing new timing plans along individual arterials. Furthermore, it accounts for the operational benefits of Lead/Lag phasing, as well as demonstrates the use of “Dump Plans” on a scheduled basis.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:28:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/921430</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Determining Lengths of Left-Turn Lanes at Signalized Intersections Under Different Left-Turn Signal Schemes</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/910986</link>
      <description><![CDATA[An analytical procedure was developed to determine the lengths of left-turn lanes at signalized intersections. A large body of literature exists about this subject; however, most examine the case when the left-turn and through movements take place during the same signal phase (split phase). Many state departments of transportation base their guidelines on this case also. The general framework was developed for determining the lengths of the left-turn lanes that prevent lane overflow and blockage of the entrance of the left-turn lane by the queued through vehicles. The framework considers many factors: arrival rates and the sequence of left-turn and through vehicles, different signal schemes (the split-phase, permissive-only, protected-only leading, protected-only lagging, and protected-permissive left-turn phases), and intersection capacity. All possible queue patterns (including the leftover from the previous cycle) were identified, and the probabilities of lane blockage and lane overflow were obtained for different combinations of the parameters. The recommended lengths that prevent lane overflow and blockage of more than 95% of the cycles were developed. The lengths suggested by the existing guidelines were useful within certain ranges of combinations of left-turn and through volumes. Suggestions are made for determining the lengths for outside this limited range of combinations. The framework and suggested lengths should be useful for identifying the options of extending lane length or changing the signal scheme to manage lane overflow and blockage and for evaluating the adequacy of the current length.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:38:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/910986</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Safety of Special Time-of-Day Protected/Permitted Left-Turn Signal Control Display</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/881541</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper provides a safety evaluation of a special protected/permitted left turn signal control that has been implemented in the urbanized area of Las Vegas, Nevada.  The special left turn display provides protected only left turns during certain times of day by suppressing the permitted green ball and yellow ball displays.  During other time periods, the signal resumes standard five-section protected/permitted operations.  This special operation allows the use of lead-lag phasing during protected only control to improve progression and standard protected/permitted control for improving capacity and minimizing delays during low-volume time periods.  Before and after studies were conducted using the crash data from 10 intersections that have implemented the special left-turn display.  Results from the analyses indicated that there is no apparent increase in crashes, thus indicating no obvious safety concerns due to use of the special display.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:56:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/881541</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Modified TTI-4 Phasing Scheme to Control Diamond Interchange Locations with Heavy Off-Ramp Right-Turn Demand</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/882427</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Signalized diamond interchanges with heavy right turn demand at one the interchange off-ramps can be seen in many interchange locations in the United States. At such locations, and if geometry allows more than one travel lane is usually dedicated for the heavy right turn movement, and no right turns are allowed to be made on red for safety concerns. Many phasing schemes have been developed for diamond interchanges to address its unique traffic flow patterns and geometric characteristics. However, none of the available phasing schemes addresses the issue of diamond interchanges with heavy off-ramp right turn demand. This paper documents the development of a diamond interchange phasing scheme that specifically addresses the issue of heavy off-ramp right turn demand at diamond interchanges. The developed phasing scheme is based on the famous TTI-4 phasing scheme. To identify those traffic volume conditions under which the developed phasing scheme would be most suitable, a total of 24 traffic volume scenarios representing a wide variety of traffic flow patterns at a diamond interchange were created and assigned to specific diamond interchange configuration. The heavy off-ramp right turn demand is a common factor in all traffic volume scenarios. The optimal (minimum average delay per vehicle) timing plans for the interchange is then identified using PASSER III-98 for seven different phasing schemes (Basic Three Phase, Extended Three Phase, TTI-4 Phase, Lag-Lag, Lag-Lead, Lead-Lag, and Lead-Lead). The optimal (minimum average delay per vehicle) timing plan is also identified using the modified TTI-4 phasing scheme procedure. Finally, SimTraffic microscopic simulation is used to compare all 8 timing plans for each of the 24 volume scenarios. The scenarios under which the developed phasing scheme achieved minimum average delays are identified. The signal control concept introduced in this paper can be easily adopted and tested by traffic signal engineers at diamond interchange locations with heavy right turn demand.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:56:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/882427</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Traffic Signal Systems</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/878558</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This collection of 13 papers examines the following aspects of traffic signal systems:  the preempt trap of the highway-railway interface; fully actuated versus nonactuated coordinated phases; effectiveness of lead-lag phasing on progression bandwidth; high-resolution gueue discharge and the effect on signal phasing; integration of real-time pedestrian performance measures into traffic signal systems; microsimulation of split-cycle offset optimization technique and coordinated actuated traffic control; piecewise optimum delay estimation for improved signal control; microsimulation of traffic operations at intersections in malfunction flash mode; variable maximum green time to improve rural traffic signal operations; stopping behavior at urban signalized intersections; traffic controller performance of coordinated actuated signal systems during time-of-day transition; unacceptable video detector performance for dilemma zone protection; and robust synchronization of arterial actuated signals.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:15:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/878558</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Effectiveness of Lead–Lag Phasing on Progression Bandwidth</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/847823</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Quantitative assessments are provided on two signal timing issues related to progression bandwidth maximization: the effectiveness of using lead–lag phasing and the effect of the number of signals on progression bandwidth. A computer program was developed to generate multiple signal system scenarios randomly and to provide maximum bandwidth solutions. The randomly generated signal system scenarios represented various signal systems likely to be seen in the real world. On the basis of these randomly generated system scenarios and their associated maximum bandwidth solutions, conclusions were drawn regarding the two issues. Lead–lag phasing had a significant advantage over the leading-left-turn and lagging-left-turn phasing schemes to provide maximum bandwidth solutions. At any signal in a system, lead–lag phasing was used in more than 70% of the cases compared, with about 20% for leading-left-turn phasing and 10% for lagging-left-turn phasing. The number of signals had a profound impact on bandwidth attainability, exhibiting a nonlinear decline in attainability and bandwidth with an increasing number of signals in a system.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 07:05:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/847823</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Study of Collisions with Lead Versus Lag Left-Turn Phasing: Additional Data and Analyses</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/814872</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper reports on a study comparing 8 years of collision data for intersections with leading and lagging left-turn arrow operations in two Arizona cities.  Collision experience is compared at 13 intersections with lagging left-turn arrows and 9 intersections with leading left-turn arrows.  Results showed that lagging left-turn arrows had a statistically significant lower collision rate than leading left-turn arrows for all collisions, collisions involving left-turning vehicles and collisions involving left-turning vehicles with opposing through vehicles.  There was no statistically significant difference between lagging left-turn arrow operation and leading left-turn arrow operation in the rate of collisions that did not involve left-turn vehicles.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:00:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/814872</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Multi-modal Traffic Signal Optimization – It’s Not Only About Vehicular Traffic</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/793508</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper describes how traffic-signal optimization traditionally refers to the efforts being made to improve motor-vehicular-traffic flow. However, the optimization philosophy for Arlington, Virginia differs substantially from that of most jurisdictions as its vision of creating urban villages focuses on reducing automobile dependency and encouraging the use of mass transit, walking and biking. The County has recently completed the optimization of 190 signals with the primary emphasis on improving pedestrian mobility and multi-modal safety, while also improving traffic flow for autos, buses and bicyclists, and reducing fuel consumption and emissions.  By performing a thorough review of the pedestrian intervals, the newly implemented time for pedestrians to cross the streets increased by an average of over four seconds per crossing. To further improve the pedestrian operations, an exclusive all-red phase and additional pedestrian overlaps were implemented at selective locations. Among other multi-modal improvements, new vehicular clearances were implemented to enhance traffic safety; “Walk” intervals were increased at selective bike crossings to improve the bicycle flow; an additional left-turn phase was added and the offsets were specially designed near the metro stations to improve bus flow; and time-of-day lead/lag operations were implemented to improve the peak directional traffic flow. Despite the increases in clearance intervals, efforts were made to maintain the historically low cycle lengths in Arlington. A significant effort was made to adjust the splits and also fine-tune the offsets using the time-space diagram that resulted in improved bi-directional progression and a reduction in existing traffic problems such as left-turn spill-over, blockage of upstream intersections, stacking issues on short links, etc. These improvements are truly multi-modal --- for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders --- consistent with Arlington’s commitment to transportation investment that supports improved access for all modes of travel and environmental sustainability.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:21:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/793508</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ASSESSMENT OF MULTIPLE LEFT-TURN PHASING STRATEGIES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/696487</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Left-turn movements at an intersection affect the capacity of that intersection.  As the left-turning volume at an intersection continues to grow, the green time required to meet the left-turn demand increases.  This, in turn results in longer cycle lengths.  Also with the increase in the left-turn volume, the queues lengthen resulting in greater storage length requirements.  The combinations of these effects tend to increase delay at the intersection and lower the level of service.  Installation of multiple left-turn lanes (dual and triple) can result in the reduction of vehicle queue lengths, delays and left-turn storage length.  In Missouri, multiple left-turns are gaining popularity.  However, the installation of these multiple left-turns raises questions for which the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has not yet developed answers.  Specifically, MoDOT seeks guidance on: criteria for determining when to install double and triple left-turns; the type of phasing to be used for dual and triple left-turn lanes; whether to use "Dallas" or permitted lead-lag phasing for any left-turn lanes; and where to begin reducing the number of receiving lanes downstream of an intersection with multiple left-turn lanes.  Based on the current practices being followed by various state DOTs and from the review of literature, the following recommendations are being made:  (1) Capacity analysis should be used to determine the set of conditions for upgrading left-turn lanes from single to dual and dual to triple; (2) If it is not feasible to perform capacity analysis due to a lack of resources, the following rules of thumb may be used for determining the point of upgrade: when left-turning volume is greater than or equal to 300 vph, upgrade from single to dual left-turn lane, and when left-turning volume is greater than or equal to 600 vph, upgrade from dual to triple left-turn lane; (3) Protected only phasing should be used for dual and triple left-turn lanes; (4) "Dallas" phasing should be used instead of lead-lag protected + permissive phasing for single left-turn lanes along with R10-12a (combined R10-10L and R10-12) sign to avoid confusion to the adjacent through traffic; and (5) For downstream lane drop distance, consider the solution by Shen as shown in Table 2 of this report.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/696487</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A STUDY OF ACCIDENTS WITH LEAD VERSUS LAG LEFT-TURN PHASING</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/645097</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article details findings from an Institute of Transportation Engineers Arizona Section Traffic Safety Committee Project that aimed to compare accident rates at intersections with leading left-turn phasing to accidents at intersections with lagging left-turn phasing. Eight intersections with lead left turning and 14 intersections with lag left turning were studied. Findings from this research suggest that decisions concerning the use of lead or lag left-turn phasing should be based on considerations other than left-turn head-on accident potential.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2003 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/645097</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A METHOD FOR THE SIMULATION OF COORDINATED LEAD-LAG LEFT-TURN PHASING IN CORSIM</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/693259</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Protected left-turn phasing can take on several different forms, including leading or lagging left, or lead-lag phasing, where the left turn on one approach is protected at the beginning of the green phase and the opposing left is protected at the end. The use of any of these is based on factors such as design or traffic volume at an intersection. When using protected left-turn-phasing timing in a coordinated system, caution must be exercised as it can affect the ability to provide progression through a corridor. Lead-lag, left-turn-phase sequencing can be a useful method of protecting left-turn movements in a coordinated system because it is very flexible and usually provides the widest bandwidth for major-street through movements. Under actuated control, the coordinated progression of the through phases can be affected by the extension of early termination of the noncoordinated phases. Accurate analysis of actuated control within a coordinated system can be difficult, and microscopic traffic simulation programs like CORSIM have been widely used for this purpose. However, the procedures recommended to model these events when using lead-lag in CORSIM do not reflect real-world operations in an accurate way. In this paper, a new procedure is presented that allows CORSIM to realistically model actuated lead-lag left-turn phasing in a coordinated system. Details are provided on a test case illustrating the benefits of this new methodology.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2001 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/693259</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>