<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>Developing a Guideline for Selecting Appropriate Treatment Options for Approaches with Two
Left Turn Lane</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2601432</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Dual left turn lanes are crucial for increasing capacity at busy intersections during peak hours with high left turn volumes; however, they can lead to an increase in delays for all intersection users during low traffic demand periods. This increased delay is experienced since most intersections with dual left turn lanes in North Carolina utilize protected-only left turn signal phases. The protected mode can result in additional delays during off-peak hours due to (a) not being able to utilize gaps in opposing traffic due to the lack of a permissive phase, (b) longer cycle lengths as a result of the additional protected left-turn phases, and (c) increased lost time from additional signal phases. In North Carolina, lost time per signal phase can average around five to six seconds; therefore, adding phases can affect overall intersection efficiency. Despite the importance of selecting the appropriate treatment options for dual left turn lanes in minimizing delays and travel times, there are notable research gaps in the existing literature, and comprehensive guidelines are lacking to inform the decision-making processes.

The primary objective of this research is to develop guidelines and a spreadsheet-based tool to assist North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in selecting the most appropriate treatment options for approaches with dual left turn lanes. The research team will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of various  treatments, including protected-only, permissive, and protected-permissive phasing and a “dynamic left-turn intersection” (DLTi) approach. The research team will also consider exploring other innovative time-of-day treatments similar to DLTi. The project team is aware of potential issues of DLTi with accommodating pedestrians and will look into them in coordination with the steering and implementation committee.​]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 00:53:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2601432</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Developing Efficiency Attributes for Right-Turn Flashing Yellow Arrow on Impeding through and Opposing Left Phases Using a Multinomial Logit Model</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1874137</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The right-turn flashing yellow arrow (FYA) signal display is still considered a new signal practice in the United States. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD; 2009) allocates a signal phasing section for the right-turn FYA, which requires a four-section configuration. It supports multiple phase indications that guide the motorists through permissive, protected, or permissive or protected phases. However, there are no right-turn FYA or protected permissive right turn (PPRT) guidelines in place with a focus on operational efficiency. In this paper, the authors investigated two permissive right-turn FYA phases in various traffic conditions and signal timing plans. The first permissive right-turn FYA phase is the right turn on impeding through (RTOIT) taking place during cross-street through movement. The second permissive right-turn FYA phase occurs during opposing left-turn movement and is thus called right turn on impeding left (RTOIL). The authors aimed to develop warrants leading to the efficient implementation of permissive right-turn FYA phases based on a microsimulation analysis. The response, the average maximum right-turn throughput (MRTT) per cycle, was categorized into three categorical variables represented as the nonefficient (NE), low efficient (LE), and efficient (E) categories depending on the number of executed right turns per cycle. A multinomial logit model was developed to establish a decision support system that predicts the efficiency attributes of the permissive RTOIT and RTOIL FYA phases that can help traffic management center operators in planning and operational-level applications.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:25:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1874137</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Analytical evaluation of the use of left-turn phasing for single left-turn lane only</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1512123</link>
      <description><![CDATA[At most traditional signalized intersections, three types of phasing can be provided to left turns: protected only phasing, permitted only phasing, and a combination of protected and permitted phasing (protected/permitted phasing). While numerous guidelines for the selection of left-turn phasing have been developed, there is no widely recognized guideline or criterion for the use of left-turn phasing under specific traffic conditions especially for a single left-turn lane. Focusing on the inherent mechanism of the dynamic nature and uncertainty of left-turn queues under different left-turn phasing, this paper develops a left-turn queueing model with uncertain second vacation to analytically evaluate the performance of left turns for different left-turn phasing, which considers various factors including the type of left-turn phasing, signal timing, left-turn volume, opposing through volume, type of left-turn lane, number of opposing through lanes, and number of sneakers, etc. For different left-turn phasing, the left-turn queues formation and dissipation with different characteristics of vacations (i.e., server absences during the red time and uncertain blocked time caused by the opposing through flow during the permitted green time) are formulated, and the queue length distributions of left turns along with the time within one cycle and at an arbitrary time are derived. Furthermore, three sets of left-turn performance measures are obtained: primary queueing measures, fuel-consumption (or emissions) related measures, and safety related measure. On the basis of these performance measures, an analytical evaluation framework for left-turn queues is established, which can provide a more accurate and detailed basis for evaluating and improving the use of left-turn phasing. Model validation indicates that the proposed model can be an effective tool to evaluate the use of left-turn phasing under different traffic conditions. In addition, numerical experiments are also performed to theoretically identify the factors that could affect the performance of left turns and thus help to determine the left-turn phasing selection under different conditions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2018 17:20:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1512123</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Dynamic Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA): A Study on Variable Left Turn Mode Operational and Safety Impacts</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1286469</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Accommodating left turns at signalized intersections has been a challenge for traffic engineers as they seek balance between two conflicting goals; capacity and safety. The use of a four-section head for the left-turn lane only with a flashing yellow arrow indication for permissive left turns has been deemed to be the new standard for signalization. With the advent of this new signal configuration, there was the opportunity to take the protected-permitted left-turn mode to a new level of operation. Although numerous studies have developed warrants and guidelines for selecting left-turn control types, to date there are no clear or uniform standards for the implementation of a variable left-turn mode, changing by time-of-day. Hence, there is a need to develop an interactive and efficient framework to serve as a decision support system (DSS) for the evaluation of left-turn phasing alternative based on intersection conditions. This framework will allow (1) an interactive evaluation of  left-turn phasing and ultimately recommend phasing mode by time-of-day and (2) Traffic Management Center (TMC) data to be fed into the DSS so that intersections requiring attention/modification of left-turn mode can be flagged. The current study develops an interactive DSS for assessing the likely benefits of warranting a permitted left-turn phase using custom design approach. The developed DSS is designed to predict these benefits based on multilevel factorial parameters that are practical and applicable to assist TMCs in evaluating the efficiency of a permitted left-turn phase by time of day.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:38:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1286469</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Use of Flashing Yellow Operations to Improve Safety at Signals with Protected-Permissive Left Turn (PPLT) Operations</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1225280</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2009 Edition suggests the use of Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) indication in replacement of green ball indication for permissive left-turn (PPLT) signal in presence of separate signal heads. Currently, there is no clear guidance on how to implement flashing yellow operations with PPLT in Texas. The objective of this research project is to developed guidelines for FYA with PPLT operations. To fulfill this goal, the researchers (1) reviewed and synthesized national and peer state practices on FYA PPLT; (2) surveyed traffic engineers and drivers ; (3) deployed FYA PPLT operation at five selected intersections in Texas cities; (4) identified software and hardware issues associated with the deployment of FYA PPLT; and (5) evaluated the safety performance of  FYA PPLT based on the historical crash data analysis and field traffic conflict studies. According to the findings of this research, it is recommended that FYA signal indication can be used at most of signals with PPLT operations to improve intersection safety and to comply with the requirements of the MUTCD. However, FYA PPLT operation is not recommended at busy intersections that have high left-turn volumes and opposing volumes, and it should be implemented with great caution at intersections where lead-lead left-turn phasing is used.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:26:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1225280</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Training Strategies and Materials: Use of Flashing Yellow Operations to Improve Safety at Signals with Protected-Permissive Left Turn (PPLT) Operations</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1214002</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) project 0-6568 “Use of Flashing Yellow Operations to Improve Safety at Signals with Protected-Permissive Left Turn (PPLT) Operations” has developed guidelines for implementation of Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) PPLT displays including general guidelines on the FYA PPLT operation and guidelines on the installation of FYA signals. To facilitate the implementation of the guidelines developed by this project, training strategies and materials have been developed for providing a training session for TxDOT signal operations and Transportation Management Center (TMC) personnel. This document consists of two parts. Part I “Training Strategies” provides details on the purpose, method, scheduling and location for the training. Part II “Training Materials” provides a list of the developed training materials along with the printouts of these training materials.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:56:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1214002</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Development of Guidelines for Pedestrian Safety Treatments at Signalized Intersections</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1131524</link>
      <description><![CDATA[For intersections with a permissive or protected-permissive left-turn mode, pedestrians cross during the permissive period. This operation requires the left-turn driver to yield to both opposing vehicles and pedestrians, prior to accepting a gap and completing the turn. Pedestrian crash risks are increased in these complicated driving conditions because left-turn drivers sometimes fail to yield to pedestrians. This document summarizes the research conducted and the conclusions reached during the development of guidelines for pedestrian safety treatments at signalized intersections. The guidelines are focused on treatments that alleviate conflicts between left-turning vehicles and pedestrians. One treatment addressed in the document is the use of protected or protected-permissive left-turn operation. The guidelines are based on consideration of pedestrian safety and vehicle operation. These considerations include the road-user costs associated with pedestrian-vehicle crashes and vehicle delay. The guidelines were incorporated in the Traffic Signal Operations Handbook. The guidelines were also incorporated into a spreadsheet that was developed to accompany the Handbook. The Handbook was previously developed for Project 0-5629. It provides guidelines for timing traffic control signals at intersections that operate in isolation or as part of a coordinated signal system.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1131524</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Traffic Signal Operations Handbook, Second Edition</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1124287</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This handbook provides guidelines for timing traffic control signals at intersections that operate in isolation or as part of a coordinated signal system. The guidelines are intended to describe best practices, as identified through interviews with engineers and technicians, and to identify conditions where alternative practices are equally workable. The handbook is intended to make resource investment in signal timing maintenance cost effective and signal operation more consistent on an area-wide basis. It is likely to be most useful to engineers that desire quick-response methods for maintaining or improving the operation of existing signalized intersections. The second edition of the handbook includes new material focused on pedestrian safety at signalized intersections. One element of the new material is presented as guidelines for determining whether protected left-turn operation is appropriate based on consideration of pedestrian-vehicle crashes and vehicle delay. A second element is presented as guidelines for determining whether an exclusive pedestrian phase is needed. A third element is presented as a new appendix that describes alternative pedestrian treatments that can improve pedestrian safety at signalized intersections.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:53:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1124287</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Development of Left-Turn Operation Guidelines at Signalized Intersections</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/917281</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project developed guidelines for recommending the most appropriate left-turn phasing treatments at signalized intersections. It investigated all aspects of left-turn operations, including the mode of left-turn signal control, the sequence of left-turn phasing, and left-turn signal displays. Both the operational and safety impacts of different types of left-turn signal operations were analyzed. In the operational impact analysis based on teh results of traffic simulation, cross products of left-turn and opposing through volume (CPOV)-based criteria for selecting the left-turn mode between the protected-only and protected/permissive left-turn modes were developed. In the safety impact analysis, by analyzing the historical accident data collected from more than 100 intersections, the safety performances of different types of left-turn signals phasing treatments and signal displays were ranked. In addition, this project also evaluated the benefits of regional standardization of left-turn operations. It was found that the mixed application of left-turn signal operations, including signal control modes, phasing sequences, and displays, increases the risk of accidents at intersections.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 14:08:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/917281</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>Development of Left-Turn Operations Guidelines at Signalized Intersections</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/890550</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project developed guidelines for recommending the most appropriate left-turn phasing treatments at signalized intersections. It investigated all aspects of left-turn operations, including the mode of left-turn signal control, the sequence of left-turn phasing, and left-turn signal displays. Both the operational and safety impacts of different types of left-turn signal operations were analyzed. In the operational impact analysis, based on the results of traffic simulation, cross products of left-turn and opposing through volume (CPOV)–based criteria for selecting the left-turn signal mode between the protected-only and protected/permissive left-turn modes were developed. In the safety impact analysis, by analyzing the historical accident data collected from more than 100 intersections, the safety performances of different types of left-turn signal phasing treatments and signal displays were ranked. In addition, this project also evaluated the benefits of regional standardization of left-turn operations. It was found that the mixed application of left-turn signal operations, including signal control modes, phasing sequences, and displays, increases the risk of accidents at intersections.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:11:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/890550</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of Safety and Development of Guidelines for Protected/Permitted Left-Turn Signal Controls</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/887888</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This research addresses two particular issues associated with protected/permitted left-turn signal controls:  the safety of a special protected/permitted left-turn control display implemented at several intersections in the Las Vegas area, and the selection of appropriate left-turn control types.  The safety of the special protected/permitted left-turn control was evaluated based on the crash statistics from before-after implementation of the special left-turn control.  Guidelines were developed using a multiple attribute decision-making approach to determining left-turn control types.  The guidelines were tested in a case study based on intersections selected from three major transportation agencies in the State of Nevada.  Results from the before-after safety analyses did not reveal any obvious safety concerns about the special protected/permitted left-turn display.  However, the crash data were drawn from a very small sample size, thus additional analyses may be necessary to enhance the research findings and conclusions.  The additional analyses may require more observation years for the "after" period to increase the sample size, or the analyses may be conducted from other perspectives such as surveying drivers' understanding of the special display.  The left-turn control guidelines developed in this research are sensitive to the weighting-and-scoring scheme employed in the guidelines, which can be modified to tailor agencies' specific policies.  Based on the results from the case study, the current weight-and-scoring scheme included in this report tends to favor a more restrictive control policy when both protected/permitted control and protected control are plausible; there a protected control is more likely selected.  Such a difference in policy was clearly shown among the three agencies in Nevada, where the City of Reno adopts a more restrictive control policy while the City of Las Vegas adopts a less restrictive policy.  The City of Sparks, however, adopts a somewhat moderate policy.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:09:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/887888</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guidelines for Multicriterion Decision-Based Left-Turn Signal Control</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/881305</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There are three main types of left-turn control at signalized intersections: permitted, protected, and protected–permitted. Determining left-turn signal control types is one of the major elements in traffic signal design and operations, and it is a systematic approach involving complex decision rules. Existing guidelines for determining left-turn signal control have been primarily based on traffic volume, delay, geometry, crash experience, and other related factors. Such guidelines are generally presented in a flowchart format. One of the major shortcomings of the existing guidelines is that a single variable could dominate the decision process and thereby prevent a balanced consideration of all other important variables. A new guideline for determining left-turn control types mostly applicable to conventional left-turn displays is presented. The current format is designed for a four-leg intersection configuration; however, it can be easily adapted to the other formats. The guideline is based on the principles of multicriterion decision analysis and provides an index-based recommendation: a numerical scale is used to compare each type of left-turn control with the others instead of an absolute left-turn control type. With the data collected from the field, it is shown that the proposed guideline can be calibrated and tailored to specific left-turn control policies. Therefore, the guideline can be easily adapted by any jurisdiction.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:45:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/881305</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guidelines for Selecting Left-Turn Signal Control Mode</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/881723</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study is to develop guidelines for selecting the most appropriate left-turn signal control mode for a signalized intersection. Left-turn signal phasing is a critical component for the safe and operation of an intersection. The selection of left-turn signal control mode among Permissive-only (Per), Protected-Only (PO), and Protected/Permissive left turn (PPLT) is complex because both the safety and operational efficiency of the intersection must be considered. In this study, traffic volume based criteria for selection between the PO and PPLT modes were developed by using a traffic simulation method. Then, by combining the developed criteria with existing criteria and guidelines for left-turn signal phasing, a comprehensive flowchart was developed for use in making decisions concerning which left-turn signal control mode should be used.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:56:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/881723</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NEW APPROACH FOR DEVELOPING WARRANTS OF PROTECTED LEFT-TURN PHASE AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/688679</link>
      <description><![CDATA[One of the most complicated issues in signal timing design of at-grade signalized intersections is to accommodate left turn movements on all approaches safely and efficiently.  This paper presents a new approach for developing guidelines for the installation of a protected left-turn phase at signalized intersections when permissive-only left-turn operation is present.  The goal of the approach is to maintain intersection traffic operation at optimum efficiency.  Three analyses are presented and discussed.  They involve the use of the new approach on some hypothetical basic scenarios at a four-legged intersection with single lane in each approach.  The first scenario involves exclusive left-turn lane operation while the other two scenarios involve shared-lane operation.  Exhaustive signal optimization analyses were conducted using a signal optimization software package called "Signal Expert". Regression models were developed from optimization results that allow the analyst to make the decision on protected left-turn phase installation using the basic input data of signal timing design without the need to perform field measurements.  The regression results show that the transition from permissive to protected/permissive left-turn operation, based on system optimization, is mainly a function of traffic conditions and that this transition (interface) is predictable.  The results also suggest that these warrants are of reasonable accuracy when compared with those in the current practice.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/688679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>