<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>INTERCHANGE VERSUS AT-GRADE INTERSECTION ON RURAL EXPRESSWAYS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/382623</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The economic benefits and costs of replacing a two-way stop-controlled intersection on a rural expressway with either a signalized intersection or a conventional diamond interchange were compared.  Economic benefits were based on the difference in road user costs among alternatives.  Road user costs were composed of five components:  delay, idle fuel, acceleration-deceleration delay, speed-change running costs, and accident costs.  The benefit-cost analysis of the signalized intersection and interchange under rural expressway conditions indicated that the interchange was a more economically viable alternative than the signalized intersection.  The signalized intersection's main benefit is a reduction in accidents; however, this benefit is generally negated by the signal's higher operational costs whenever the minor road demand is less than one-half that of the major road.  Three geometric scenarios were formulated for the intersection and interchange.  The first considered a four-leg junction with a two-lane minor road.  The second considered a four-leg junction with a four-lane minor road.  The third considered a three-leg junction with a two-lane minor road.  Three figures were developed relating the major and minor road daily traffic demands that would economically justify an interchange in terms of a benefit-cost ratio.  Whenever the major road demand is about 4,000 vehicles per day (vpd) or more, the minor road demands that provide a 2.0 benefit-cost ratio are about 4,000, 6,500, and 8,000 vpd for the three scenarios, respectively.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 1993 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/382623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>