Volume 1

Part 6
Design for Priority Intersections
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Disclaimer
The State of Qatar Ministry of Municipality and Urban Planning (MMUP) provides access to the
Qatar Highway Design Manual (QHDM) and Qatar Traffic Control Manual (QTCM) on the web and
as hard copies as Version (1.0) of these manuals, without any minimum liability to MMUP

Under no circumstances does MMUP warrant or certify the information to be free of errors or
deficiencies of any kind.

The use of these manuals for any work does not relieve the user from exercising due diligence
and sound engineering practice, nor does it entitle the user to claim or receive any kind of
compensation for damages or loss that might be attributed to such use.

Any future changes and amendments will be made available on the MMUP web site. Users of
these manuals should check that they have the most current version.

Note: New findings, technologies, and topics related to transportation planning, design,
operation, and maintenance will be used by MMUP to update the manuals. Users are encouraged
to provide feedback through the MMUP website within a year of publishing the manuals, which
will be reviewed, assessed, and possibly included in the next version.

Copyright © October 2014. All rights reserved.

VOLUME 1
‫‪VOLUME 1 PART 6‬‬
‫‪DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS‬‬

‫تنويه‬

‫قامت وزارة البلدية والتخطيط العمراني ي دولة قطر بتوف ﺮ دليل تصميم الطرق لدولة قطر ) ‐ ‪Qatar Highway Design Manual‬‬
‫‪ (QHDM‬ودليل قطر للتحكم املروري )‪ (Qatar Traffic Control Manual ‐ QTCM‬ع ى شبكة اإلن ﺮنت وكنسخ مطبوعة باعتبارها‬
‫اإلصدار رقم )‪ (1.0‬من هذﻩ األدلة وذلك دون ادنى مسؤولية ع ى وزارة البلدية والتخطيط العمراني‪.‬‬
‫ُ‬
‫يجب التأكيد ع ى إن وزارة البلدية والتخطيط العمراني‪ ،‬وتحت أي ظرف من الظروف‪ ،‬ال تج أو تتعهد أو تصادق ع ى أن تكون املعلومات‬
‫املتضمنة ي هذين الدليل ن خالية من أي نوع من األخطاء أو العيوب‪.‬‬

‫إن استخدام هذﻩ األدلة ألي عمل ال يعفي املستخدم من إتباع العناية الواجبة أو الفائقة واملمارسة الهندسية السليمة‪ ،‬كما أنه ال يخول‬
‫ُ‬
‫للمستخدم املطالبة أو استالم أي نوع من التعويض عن األضرار أو الخسائر ال يمكن أن تعزى إ ى هذا االستخدام‪.‬‬

‫سوف تكون أي تغي ﺮات او تعديالت متاحة ومتوفرة ع ى موقع اإلن ﺮنت الخاص بالوزارة‪ .‬ويتوجب ع ى املستخدم ن التحقق بشكل متواصل بأن‬
‫لد م أحدث إصدار من هذﻩ األدلة‪.‬‬

‫مالحظة‪ :‬ستقوم وزارة البلدية والتخطيط العمراني بمواصلة تحديث وتعديل ِكال الدليل ن مع األخذ بع ن االعتبار االكتشافات الجديدة‬
‫ُ‬
‫والتكنولوجيات الحديثة واملواضيع املستجدة ال تتعلق بتخطيط وتصميم وتشغيل وصيانة النقل والطرق واملرور‪.‬‬
‫ُ‬
‫إن الوزارة تشجع املستخدم ن ع ى تقديم املالحظات واإلق ﺮاحات والتعليقات وردود األفعال‪ ،‬خالل سنة من اصدار ِكال الدليل ن‪ ،‬وذلك من‬
‫خالل موقع الوزارة حيث سوف يتم مراجعة هذﻩ املالحظات واإلق ﺮاحات ومن ثم تقييمها وإدراجها ضمن اإلصدار القادم من األدلة‪.‬‬

‫‪VOLUME 1‬‬
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Contents Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................. vii

1 General Design Guidance ................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 General Design Considerations ................................................................................... 1
1.3 Application of Priority Intersections to the Qatar Road Network ............................... 2

2 Priority Intersection Types ..............................................................................................3

2.1 Priority Intersection Types........................................................................................... 3
2.2 Priority Intersections for Two-Lane Collectors and Local Access ................................ 4
2.2.1 Simple T-intersection ................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 T-intersection with Ghost Island .................................................................. 4
2.2.3 Channelized Left-Turn Lanes for T-Intersections on Two-Lane Roads (Single
Lane Dualling) ............................................................................................... 6
2.2.4 Crossroads (Four-Leg) Intersections .......................................................... 10
2.2.5 Staggered T-Intersections .......................................................................... 11
2.2.6 Skew or Y-Intersections .............................................................................. 16
2.3 Priority Intersections for Multi-Lane Arterials and Collector Roads ......................... 17
2.3.1 Priority Intersection with Two-Lane Minor Road ....................................... 17
2.3.2 Priority Intersections between Two Multi-Lane Roads .............................. 18
2.3.3 Unsignalized Median U-Turns .................................................................... 21
2.4 Accommodating Pedestrians at Multi-Lane Priority Intersections............................ 22

3 Design Procedure for Priority Intersections ...................................................................23

3.1 Priority Intersection Design Procedure ..................................................................... 24
3.2 Choice of Simple, Ghost or Channelized Left-Turn Priority Intersection................... 26
3.2.1 Guidelines for the Operational Viability of Priority T-Intersections .......... 27
3.3 Reconstruction of Priority Intersections.................................................................... 30

4 Design Controls for Priority Intersections ......................................................................31

4.1 Design Speed ............................................................................................................. 31
4.2 Design Vehicles .......................................................................................................... 31
4.3 Design Level of Service .............................................................................................. 33
4.3.1 Level of Service Definitions for Priority Intersections ................................ 33
4.3.2 Level of Service Analysis and Intersection Type Selection ......................... 34
4.4 Locating Priority Intersections ................................................................................... 34
4.4.1 Major Road Alignment ............................................................................... 35
4.4.2 Minor Road Alignment ............................................................................... 35
4.4.3 Skewed Crossroads .................................................................................... 38
4.4.4 Y-Intersections ........................................................................................... 39
4.5 Vertical Alignment ..................................................................................................... 40
4.6 Spacing of Intersections............................................................................................. 41
4.7 Visibility ..................................................................................................................... 41

VOLUME 1 PAGE I
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5 Geometric Design Details for Priority Intersections ....................................................... 47

5.1 Corner Radii ............................................................................................................... 47
5.1.1 T-Intersection Corner Radii ........................................................................ 47
5.1.2 Corner Radii for Channelized Right Turns .................................................. 49
5.2 Roadway Widths ........................................................................................................ 50
5.2.1 Through-Lane Widths ................................................................................. 50
5.2.2 Widths of Minor Road Approaches ............................................................ 50
5.2.3 Widths around Corners .............................................................................. 51
5.3 Diverging and Merging Auxiliary Lanes and Tapers ................................................... 52
5.3.1 Right-Turn Diverge Auxiliary Lanes and Tapers .......................................... 53
5.3.2 Merging Auxiliary Lanes and Tapers ........................................................... 57
5.4 Major Road Left-Turn lanes ....................................................................................... 61
5.4.1 Channelized Major Road Left-Turn Lanes .................................................. 62
5.5 Turning Roadways ...................................................................................................... 66
5.5.1 Turning Roadway Width ............................................................................. 67
5.5.2 Turning Roadway Merge Nose ................................................................... 67
5.5.3 Sight Distance through Turning Roadways................................................. 68
5.6 Channelizing Islands ................................................................................................... 68
5.6.1 Principles .................................................................................................... 68
5.6.2 Function of Islands...................................................................................... 69
5.6.3 Raised versus Flush Island Types ................................................................ 69
5.6.4 Design of Islands ......................................................................................... 70
5.7 U-Turns ...................................................................................................................... 80
5.7.1 Safety at U-Turns ........................................................................................ 81
5.7.2 U-Turn Elements ......................................................................................... 82
5.8 Service Roads ............................................................................................................. 85
5.8.1 Service Road Diverge and Merge ............................................................... 86
5.8.2 Service Road Direct Connection ................................................................. 88
5.8.3 Local Grade Separation .............................................................................. 88
5.9 Pavement Markings ................................................................................................... 90
5.10 Traffic Control Devices ............................................................................................... 90
5.11 Intersection Lighting .................................................................................................. 90

6 Other Design Elements ................................................................................................. 91

6.1 Driveways and Major Private Entrances .................................................................... 91
6.1.1 Location and Classification ......................................................................... 91
6.1.2 Visibility at Driveways and Private Entrances ............................................ 91
6.2 Priority Intersections in Residential Areas ................................................................. 91
6.2.1 Typical Configurations ................................................................................ 91
6.2.2 Older Residential Areas .............................................................................. 93
6.2.3 Corner Plots at Priority Intersections ......................................................... 94
6.3 Pedestrian and Bike Facilities .................................................................................... 95
6.3.1 Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................................... 95
6.3.2 Wheelchair Ramps and Mobility Impaired Users ....................................... 96

PAGE II VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

6.3.3 Bike Facilities .............................................................................................. 96

6.4 Landscape .................................................................................................................. 97
6.5 Rail Consideration ...................................................................................................... 97
6.5.1 General ....................................................................................................... 97
6.5.2 Grade Separation ....................................................................................... 98
6.5.3 At-grade Crossings ..................................................................................... 98
6.5.4 Horizontal Alignment ............................................................................... 100
6.5.5 Vertical Alignment .................................................................................... 100

References ........................................................................................................................... 101

VOLUME 1 PAGE III

VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Tables

Table 2.1 Predicted Annual Crash Frequency Savings by Adding a Left-turn Lane to a
Simple T-Intersection........................................................................................... 9
Table 2.2 Minimum Stagger Distance for Right/Left Staggered Intersection ................... 13
Table 4.1 Guidance for Selection of Design Vehicles at Intersections .............................. 32
Table 4.2 Level of Service Criteria for Two-Way, Stop-Controlled Intersections .............. 33
Table 4.3 Effect of Intersection Skew Angle on Crash Frequency at Unsignalized
Intersections ...................................................................................................... 35
Table 4.4 Minimum X and Y Visibility Distances from the Minor Road ............................ 45
Table 5.1 Circular Corner Radii .......................................................................................... 48
Table 5.2 Minimum Corner and Curve Radii and Roadway Widths .................................. 52
Table 5.3 Minimum Auxiliary Lane Lengths on Priority Intersection Diverge ................... 55
Table 5.4 Minimum Auxiliary Lane Lengths on Priority Intersection Merge .................... 59
Table 5.5 Taper Length on Priority Intersection Merge .................................................... 60
Table 5.6 Minimum Channelized Left-Turn Deceleration Length (Ldl) .............................. 64
Table 5.7 Guidelines for Estimating Number of Vehicles Stored in Major Road Left-Turn
Lane at Priority Intersections............................................................................. 65
Table 5.8 Stopping-Sight Distance and Horizontal Offset Requirements for Inside of
Right-Hand Turning Roadways .......................................................................... 68
Table 5.9 Offset from Traffic Lanes to Island Curbs .......................................................... 70
Table 5.10 Channelizing Island Offset ................................................................................. 71
Table 5.11 Design of Radius R1 ............................................................................................ 72
Table 5.12 Tapers for Divisional Islands .............................................................................. 75
Table 5.13 Visibility Distances at U-Turns ........................................................................... 81
Table 5.14 Direct Taper Length for U-Turns (d) .................................................................. 82
Table 5.15 Minimum Turning Widths Needed for U-Turns (M) .......................................... 83
Table 5.16 Deceleration Length for U-Turns (c) .................................................................. 83
Table 5.17 Minimum Merge/Diverge Weaving Length ....................................................... 87
Table 6.1 Chamfer Length at Corner Plot .......................................................................... 95

PAGE IV VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figures

Figure 2.1 Simple T-Intersection ........................................................................................... 4

Figure 2.2 Ghost Island T-Intersection .................................................................................. 5
Figure 2.3 Layout of Left-turn Lanes for Right/Left Staggered Ghost Island
Intersection .......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.4 Priority T-Intersection on Two-Lane Highway with Major Road
Left-Turn Lane ...................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2.5 Channelized Left-Turn Urban Priority T-Intersection ........................................... 7
Figure 2.6 Predicted Annual Crash Frequency for Simple Priority T-Intersections ...............8
Figure 2.7 Crossroads .......................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.8 Simple Left/Right and Right/Left Staggered Intersections .................................12
Figure 2.9 Left/Right and Right/Left Staggered Intersection with Ghost Island
Left Turn Lane..................................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.10 Left/Right and Right/Left Staggered Intersections with Left-Turn Lanes ..........15
Figure 2.11 Priority Left-Skew T-Intersection with Major Road Left-Turn Lanes ..................16
Figure 2.12 Priority Right-Skew T-Intersection with Major Road Left-Turn Lanes ...............17
Figure 2.13 Priority T-Intersection on Multi-Lane Roadway with Median Separation .........18
Figure 2.14 Priority Intersection between Two Multi-Lane Roads .......................................19
Figure 2.15 Minor Road Approach Reduced through U-Turn Facility (Urban Use Only) ......20
Figure 2.16 Unsignalized Median U-Turn .............................................................................. 21
Figure 3.1 Flowchart Outlining Design Procedure .............................................................. 25
Figure 3.2 Approximate Level of Priority Intersection Provision for Varying Traffic
Flows in Urban Conditions ................................................................................. 27
Figure 3.3 Level of Service by Delays to the Minor Road Left-Turning Traffic ....................28
Figure 4.1 Priority Skewed T-Intersection with Major Road Left-Turn Lanes .....................36
Figure 4.2 Priority Skewed T-Intersection with Major Road Left-Turn Lanes and
Auxiliary Lane for Major Road Right Turns......................................................... 37
Figure 4.3 Design Solutions for Skewed Crossroads ........................................................... 38
Figure 4.4 Design Solutions for Y-Intersections .................................................................. 39
Figure 4.5 Y-Intersection Hidden by Crest Curve ................................................................ 40
Figure 4.6 Minor Road Approach Gradient ......................................................................... 41
Figure 4.7 Visibility Criteria at Priority Intersections .......................................................... 44
Figure 4.8 Visibility Criteria with a Curved Major Road ......................................................44
Figure 5.1 Circular Corner Radii Incorporating Tapers ........................................................48
Figure 5.2 Circular Corner Radii Incorporating Compound Curve.......................................49
Figure 5.3 Typical Layout of Channelized Right Turn ..........................................................50

VOLUME 1 PAGE V
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.4 Minor Road Approaches .................................................................................... 51

Figure 5.5 T-Intersection with Channelizing and Right-turn Auxiliary Lanes ..................... 53
Figure 5.6 Right-Turn Auxiliary Lane on Diverge of Multi-Lane Priority Intersection ........ 53
Figure 5.7 Alternative Taper Diverge.................................................................................. 57
Figure 5.8 Auxiliary Lane on Merge .................................................................................... 58
Figure 5.9 Alternative Taper Merge ................................................................................... 60
Figure 5.10 Right-Turn Approach Where an Auxiliary Lane Is Not Provided ....................... 61
Figure 5.11 Priority Ghost Island T-Intersection with Left Turn Lane .................................. 62
Figure 5.12 Priority T-Intersection with Left-Turn Lane ....................................................... 63
Figure 5.13 Turning Roadways at Priority Intersections ...................................................... 67
Figure 5.14 Channelizing Island Design for T-Intersection ................................................... 71
Figure 5.15 Priority Intersection with Skewed Minor Road ................................................. 73
Figure 5.16 Divisional Ghost Island Development ................................................................ 74
Figure 5.17 Divisional Physical Island Development ............................................................ 75
Figure 5.18 Typical Layout of Right-Turning Island with Turning Roadway ......................... 76
Figure 5.19 Typical Layout of Right-Turning Island without Turning Roadway .................... 77
Figure 5.20 Typical Urban Divisional Island with Pedestrian Refuge ................................... 78
Figure 5.21 Typical Layout of Corner Island with Turning Roadway .................................... 79
Figure 5.22 Typical Layout of Corner Island without Turning Roadway ............................... 80
Figure 5.23 Unsignalized Median U-Turn ............................................................................. 84
Figure 5.24 Service Road Diverge with Taper ....................................................................... 86
Figure 5.25 Service Road Diverge/Merge with Auxiliary Lane ............................................. 86
Figure 5.26 Weaving Length ................................................................................................. 87
Figure 5.27 Turning Roadways at Termination of Service Road........................................... 88
Figure 5.28 Local Grade Separation...................................................................................... 89
Figure 6.1 Multiple Access Local Roads Joining a Major Road ........................................... 92
Figure 6.2 Access Roads Consolidated Prior to Access to the Major Road ........................ 93
Figure 6.3 Development of Chamfer at Corner Plot ........................................................... 94
Figure 6.4 Bike Crossings at Minor Roads .......................................................................... 97

PAGE VI VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AADT annual average daily traffic

ADT average daily traffic

CMF crash modification factor

HCM Highway Capacity Manual

HSM Highway Safety Manual

kph kilometers per hour

LOS level of service

m meter

m/s/s meters per second per second

QTCM Qatar Traffic Control Manual

R1 radius

RIRO right-in, right out

SSD stopping sight distance

vpd vehicles per day

vph vehicles per hour

WB wheelbase

VOLUME 1 PAGE VII

VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

This page intentionally left blank.

PAGE VIII VOLUME 1

 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

1 General Design Guidance

1.1 Introduction
The Qatar road and street system is established to provide a level of mobility in priority
based on the functional classification of each road, within an overall framework that
has traffic safety as its basis. The term “priority” refers to the designation of one
roadway over another in terms of the favoring traffic flow. The safety component of
the framework is in the applicability of the various types of intersections with respect
to the most significant intersection crash risks:

• Crossing conflicts are inherent to intersections. At high speeds, crossing conflicts

produce severe (fatal and injury) crash types.

• Left turns comprise the second most significant multivehicle crash type. Left-turn
movements from both major roads and minor roads represent potential conflicts.

• Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts are a significant concern. Pedestrians crossing

intersections are vulnerable; most crashes involving pedestrians result in severe
injury or fatality.

1.2 General Design Considerations

Control at priority intersections is by the provision of either “Yield” or “Stop” signs with
corresponding road markings as necessary. The selection of control to be used for a
particular intersection shall be determined by the ability of the design to meet the
applicable geometric criteria. Where the design criteria are not met or there is a
particular safety concern then stop control shall be provided.

All priority intersections have the advantage that major road traffic is not delayed.
However, care must be taken to ensure that very high speeds and overtaking
maneuvers are not encouraged in the area of the intersection, and that intersection
design, particularly where traffic predictions are uncertain, should allow flexibility for
efficient upgrading in the future.

The guidance contained in Part 2, Planning, shall be considered in assessing the

appropriate use of major/minor priority intersections within the Qatar roads hierarchy.

This part describes one of the core intersection types applied to the Qatar road
network, it outlines the types of priority intersection utilized on the Qatar road
network, their applicability to a particular location and the geometric design of the
individual elements used in combination to assemble them.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 1
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Many of the elements of a priority intersection are dealt with separately and the
designer should work systematically through the design procedure prior to assembling
the component parts. This is an iterative process, and it may be necessary to alter part
of the intersection design covered previously in order to achieve a satisfactory solution.

1.3 Application of Priority Intersections to the Qatar Road

Network
As introduced in Part 4, Intersections and Roundabouts, the determination of the
priority intersection as the appropriate type of intersection for a particular location is
based on the functional classification of the intersecting roads, design speeds, and the
expected or forecast design-year traffic. The planning process for determining
intersection type favors selection of the priority intersection because of the high quality
of service provided to the major road and the cost and efficiency of the intersection
form.

However, there are limitations to the traffic-carrying capability of the priority

intersection. Given the rapid and continuing growth in activity and traffic in Qatar, care
should be taken in the planning and design of priority intersections. Traffic demand
forecasts may be uncertain, thus, flexibility for future upgrading of the intersection may
be needed, such as the setback of the right-of-way reservations to allow for the
reconstruction and possible signalization in the future.

PAGE 2 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

2 Priority Intersection Types

2.1 Priority Intersection Types
A priority intersection is one in which both the continuity and traffic control establish
and reinforce the priority of traffic flow for one roadway over the other. At a priority
intersection, the traffic flow for the major roadway is continuous and not stopped by
traffic control. The minor roadway terminates or intersects with the major roadway,
with the minor road traffic controlled by yield or stop control. The major road where
traffic is unimpeded is the priority road.

The figures in this part are drawn with yield control, with the exception of those
intersections where stop control is specifically required.

Priority intersections are central to reinforcing the primacy of traffic flow for the higher
classification facilities.

There are five basic types of priority intersections:

• T-type
• Crossing, or 4-leg
• Staggered
• Skew, or Y-type
• Right-in, right-out (RIRO) divided highway

The Qatar road network is purposely configured to minimize unsignalized 4-leg minor
road crossings of major roads and unsignalized left turns from minor roads to divided
priority roads. With such a network, the T-type priority intersection is the most
common intersection encountered by drivers.

T-type and staggered priority intersections provide a variety of options for the designer
based on approach vehicular volume and type including simple, ghost island and
channelized left-turn lanes for the major road turning traffic.

Y-type priority intersections should be avoided for new roads in Qatar; refer to
Clause 4.4.4 for guidance.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 3
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

2.2 Priority Intersections for Two-Lane Collectors and Local

Access
2.2.1 Simple T-intersection
A T-intersection is the simplest form of priority intersection. In this form, a single minor
road gives way to the major road, intersecting at a 90-degree angle. To the extent
possible, the intersecting angle at a T-intersection shall be between 70 and 110 degrees
(an angle of skew of no more than 20 degrees). Simple T-intersections have no painted
or physical islands in the major road and no channelizing islands in the minor road
approach. As shown on Figure 2.1.

This form is appropriate for most priority intersections on two-lane minor rural roads
with lower traffic volumes. Left turns are very infrequent for such roads, and sufficient
gaps are available, assuming the road geometry provides sight distance for such gaps.
It is also an appropriate form of intersection for most local access roads in urban areas,
where traffic flows are, and will remain, low even after full development of the area.
Where pedestrian movements in some urban locations are high, there may be a benefit
to adding a raised channelizing island to the minor road to act as a refuge.

Figure 2.1 Simple T-Intersection

2.2.2 T-intersection with Ghost Island

When a simple T-intersection is no longer the appropriate solution, the next option is
to introduce widening on the major road to accommodate a ghost island, which
incorporates an extra central lane for turning traffic. The minor road approach should
also have a channelizing island to direct vehicles to the correct position for turning
movements. Refer to Figure 2.2.

Ghost islands will enhance safety of the intersection by giving shelter to left-turning
traffic from opposing vehicles and vehicles approaching from behind. Measures to
discourage overtaking at ghost island widening could be the use of physical traffic
islands, solid yellow “no overtaking” lines, different colored surfacing and ceramic
studs.

PAGE 4 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

However, ghost islands shall not be positioned where the overtaking opportunity is
restricted either side of the intersection because drivers may use the wide ghost island
hatching and central lane as a place to overtake. If a ghost island has to be positioned
at these locations then an alternative intersection arrangement such as physical islands
and channelizing the major road left-turn movement should be considered, also known
as single lane dualling.

Ghost island intersections shall not be used where traffic turning left out of the minor
road needs to make the maneuver in two stages. This can occur when the major road
flow exceeds 18,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT) (two-way). Intersection design
is a key element of the overall design process for road projects.

Figure 2.2 Ghost Island T-Intersection

2.2.2.1 Guidelines for Designing Ghost Islands

For new intersections, the desirable width of a ghost island turning lane shall be 4.0 m,
but a relaxation to 3.0 m is permissible. At urban and suburban intersections, it can
sometimes be advantageous to use a greater width not exceeding 5.0 m to allow a
degree of shelter in the center of the road for large goods vehicles turning left from the
minor road to execute the turn in two separate maneuvers.

For improvements to existing intersections, where space is very limited, a reduced

width may be unavoidable. The width of ghost island shall not be less than 2.5 m.

At right/left staggered intersections, the deceleration lengths would overlap but the
width of the ghost island shall not be increased to make them lie side by side. The
starting points of the left turning section shall be joined by a straight line, which will
mean at higher design speeds, the full width of the turning lane will not be developed
until the end of the diverging section (as shown in Figure 2.3). The width of the turning
lane shall be the full width of the ghost island.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 5
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 2.3 Layout of Left-turn Lanes for Right/Left Staggered Ghost Island
Intersection

2.2.3 Channelized Left-Turn Lanes for T-Intersections on Two-Lane Roads

(Single Lane Dualling)
When major-road turning traffic or major-road through traffic increases such that the
left-turn movement causes delays and potential rear-end conflicts, a priority
intersection designed with physical islands to protect and channelize left-turn lanes
may be necessary. Figure 2.4 shows this form of priority intersection for a two-lane
rural highway, and Figure 2.5 shows a simplified form for a two-lane urban road.

On two-lane rural roads raised, physical islands are used to shelter left-turning traffic
on the major road and prevent overtaking in the opposing direction. A median width of
10 meters (m) or greater is sufficient for passenger-vehicle traffic turning left out of the
minor road to make the maneuver in two stages: first crossing oncoming traffic from
the left, then waiting in the median area for a gap in traffic from the right to complete
the maneuver.

The length of the major road left-turn divisional island shall be based on driver
deceleration from the design speed to an assumed stop condition while waiting for a
gap in opposing through traffic to make the turn.

The physical nose of the islands and pavement markings on their approach serves to
provide notice to drivers of the intersection. In cases where the major road approach
is on a significant upgrade such that the intersection is hidden, the divisional island
should be lengthened beyond the crest of the vertical curve to provide advance notice
to drivers. Advance warning signs for major road traffic such as “No
Passing/Overtaking” shall be coordinated with the channelization. Where possible,
channelized left-turn lanes shall be lit.

PAGE 6 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 2.4 Priority T-Intersection on Two-Lane Highway with Major Road

Left-Turn Lane

With the introduction of physical islands, roadway widths shall provide for passing of
stalled or otherwise parked vehicles. On rural highways with paved shoulders, a 4 m
lane width and 1 m offset to the median island is sufficient. In urban areas with curbed
roadways, 1 m offsets both left and right of the 4 m lane width provide sufficient
operating width.

Right-turning deceleration lanes for traffic from the major road to minor road may be
included with this intersection form, and example of this is illustrated in Figure 4.2.
These are particularly desirable for intersections on roads with design speeds greater
than 80 kilometers per hour (kph). Right-turn acceleration lanes from minor roads onto
two-lane major roads are not allowed.

On urban two-lane roads where the density of traffic is higher, speeds are low, and the
right-of-way is limited, this form of priority intersection with a channelized major road
left turn can be reduced in scale to simple raised refuge islands and a reduced width for
the major road left turn. Figure 2.5 shows the form of channelized left-turn urban
priority T-intersection.

Figure 2.5 Channelized Left-Turn Urban Priority T-Intersection

VOLUME 1 PAGE 7
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

2.2.3.1 Guidelines for Designing Priority T-Intersections with Left-Turn Lanes

In general, a separate left-turn lane from the major, priority road is desirable because
it provides protection for decelerating, turning vehicles from higher-speed through
traffic approaching in the same lane. Providing a left-turn lane, however, increases the
construction cost of the intersection including right-of-way. The relative importance
and value of the left-turn lane can be characterized by the expected safety performance
of the T-intersection with and without the left-turn lane.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (2010) describes the expected safety performance of
unsignalized (stop-controlled) T-intersections on rural roads. Figure 2.6 shows the
modeled crash frequency per year for the equivalent of a simple T-intersection as a
function of the AADT of both the major and minor roads. For example, a minor road
with 1,000 vehicles per day (vpd) intersecting a major road with 10,000 vpd can be
expected to have an average of 2.2 crashes per year. The HSM also suggests that the
addition of a left-turn lane from the major road can reduce total intersection crashes
by 44 percent.

Table 2.1 shows the potential savings in crashes per year by designing a priority
intersection with a channelized left-turn lane, as shown on Figure 2.4, compared with
a simple T-intersection, as shown on Figure 2.1.

Source: HSM Figure 10-4, Volume 2 Chapter 10 (AASHTO, 2010)

Figure 2.6 Predicted Annual Crash Frequency for Simple Priority T-Intersections

PAGE 8 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Table 2.1 Predicted Annual Crash Frequency Savings by Adding a Left-turn Lane
to a Simple T-Intersection
AADT on a Major Road (vpd)

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

500 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.20 0.23 0.27 0.30 0.34 0.37 0.40

AADT 1000 0.09 0.16 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.52 0.57
on a 1500 0.11 0.19 0.27 0.34 0.40 0.46 0.52 0.58 0.64 0.69
Minor
2000 0.13 0.22 0.31 0.39 0.46 0.53 0.60 0.67 0.73 0.80
Road
(vpd) 2500 0.14 0.25 0.34 0.43 0.51 0.59 0.67 0.74 0.82 0.89

3000 0.16 0.27 0.38 0.47 0.56 0.65 0.73 0.81 0.89 0.97
Notes:
Savings of less than 1 crash in 5 years
Savings of up to 1 crash in 4 years
Savings of up to 1 crash in 3 years
Savings of up to 1 crash in 2 years
Savings of up to 1 crash per year
Source: Based on Figure 2.6 above and Table 10-13, “Crash Modification Factors (CMF) for Installation of
Left-turn Lanes on Intersection Approaches” in HSM, Volume 2, Chapter 10 (AASHTO, 2010).
AADT = annual average daily traffic vpd = vehicles per day

The following guidance is suggested by Table 2.1:

• For cases in which the design-year approach volumes are sufficiently low that the
expected savings for including a left-turn lane are less than one crash in 5 years, as
shown in light green in Table 2.1, a simple T-intersection typically will suffice. For
example, for minor road approach volumes of up to 500 vpd and major road
approach volumes of up to 1,500 vpd the savings are less than 0.2 per year, which
translates to less than one crash in 5 years.
• For cases in which the combination of design-year approach volumes produces
potential savings of up to one crash in 4 years, shown in green in Table 2.1, a simple
T-intersection is generally acceptable. However, designers may choose to
incorporate a left-turn lane where the possibility of exceeding design-year traffic is
a concern and when doing so is readily achievable due to cost and right-of-way
availability. A simple T-intersection may be built, but the right-of-way may be
reserved for future improvement.
• For cases in which the combination of design-year approach volumes produces
savings of up to one crash in 3 years, as shown in yellow in Table 2.1, the designer
should generally favor inclusion of a left-turn lane over a simple T-intersection.
However, if the costs of including the right-of-way are significant, the construction
of a simple T-intersection may be acceptable. When such a decision is made, the
Overseeing Organization should be advised so they can monitor the safety
performance of the location over a 5-year time period following its construction.
• For cases in which the combination of design-year approach volumes produces
savings of up to one crash every 1 to 2 years, as shown in orange and red in
Table 2.1, the designer shall design the intersection to include a left-turn lane. In
these cases, the added construction and right-of-way costs clearly will be justified
by the improved safety performance over time.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 9
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

The Overseeing Organization shall approve the decision to include or not include a
left-turn lane at a two-lane road priority intersection on a case-by-case basis.

2.2.4 Crossroads (Four-Leg) Intersections

A “crossroads” is the crossing of a minor road intersecting with the major road, as
shown on Figure 2.7. Traffic on the major road, shown from left to right on the figure,
is through traffic and is not stopped. A simple crossroads intersection consolidates
multiple potential conflicts at a single location. One conflict in particular is unique to
this form, the right-angle crossing conflict.

Figure 2.7 Crossroads

As the crossing conflict is potentially among the most severe, the design philosophy in
Qatar is to avoid or minimize the use of priority (unsignalized) crossroads. The
occurrence of crossroads should be limited to lower volume and lower speed
(operating or posted speeds). Staggered T-intersections, discussed in Section 2.6, are a
typical means of providing access to both sides of a major road as an alternative to
crossroads.

2.2.4.1 Crossroads on High-Speed Rural Roads

Crossroads intersections produce the potential for serious right-angle crashes. For this
reason, crossroad intersections on rural roads, where the posted speed is 80 kph or
greater, shall not be constructed in Qatar. Existing crossroads intersections are
potential candidates for reconstruction based on observed safety performance.
Alternative solutions include construction of a roundabout or conversion to staggered
T-intersections.

2.2.4.2 Crossroads on Lower-Speed Urban Roads

Along local urban roads, posted speeds are 50 kph or lower and rights-of-way are
generally more limited. However, the risk of right-angle crashes at crossroads applies
in urban contexts as well as rural contexts. Roundabouts are often a desirable
alternative with regard to vehicle safety. However, they may not be practical because
of land take requirements in urban intersections.

PAGE 10 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

For cases in which the design-year minor road traffic entering the intersection is less
than 15 percent of total entering traffic from all approaches, a roadway with a single
crossroad intersection may be considered.

However, because of the sensitivity of minor road traffic volume to crash risk, care
should be taken when considering or designing crossroad intersections. Future,
unforeseen development that causes traffic increases on minor roads beyond projected
flows is likely to lead to an increase in total crashes. In some instances, all-stop control
may be appropriate.

2.2.4.3 Crossroads with All-Stop Control

There may be cases on minor urban roads where a crossroads intersection should have
all-stop control. In context zones where pedestrians are prevalent and their mobility
and safety is the paramount concern, implementing all-stop control can produce
meaningful benefits to pedestrians. This solution may also apply where intersection
sight distance is insufficient because of immovable buildings, walls or other
obstructions outside the right-of-way.

The HSM suggests the following safety benefits of converting a two-way stop controlled
intersection to an all-stop on urban minor roads:

• 75 percent reduction in right-angle crashes (all severities)

• 18 percent reduction in rear-end crashes (all severities)
• 43 percent reduction in pedestrian crashes (all severities)

2.2.5 Staggered T-Intersections

A staggered T-intersection refers to the design of two priority T-intersections with the
minor road forming the T intersecting on opposite sides of the major, priority road. This
design is intended to serve access to land uses on both sides of the major road without
the less-desirable crossroads configuration discussed above. The design and operation
of staggered T-intersections should be viewed as a single unit. Key considerations
include the arrangement of the minor road T-intersections relative to each other,
spacing between the intersections, and the channelization needed for operation of
each intersection.

There are two basic configurations for staggered T-intersections, referred to as

“left/right” and “right/left.” The configuration can be used both with and without
channelized left-turn lanes from the major road. Either configuration may be
appropriate, depending on the context. The two configurations differ considerably in
their operation and resulting design requirements. They are illustrated on Figure for
simple staggered T-intersections and Figures 2.9 and 2.10 for more complicated
T-intersections with a left-turn lane.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 11
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 2.8 Simple Left/Right and Right/Left Staggered Intersections

PAGE 12 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

2.2.5.1 Design and Operation of Left/Right Stagger

With the left/right stagger, the left-turn movements from the major road occur on the
“outside,” i.e., the approach to each minor roadway. The major road left-turn
channelization thus occurs on the “outside.” This allows for somewhat lesser spacing
between the intersections. Stagger distances shall be sufficiently large for drivers to be
able to navigate and make decisions, treating each intersection independently.
A center-to-center stagger distance of 50 m or more is generally the minimum required
for simple left/right staggered T-intersections on local access roads.

The capacity of a staggered T-intersection will be less under the left/right stagger
compared to a right/left stagger. The most critical movements are left turns from the
minor road; in the left/right stagger the left turns from each minor road consist of both
the left-turn volumes and the minor road “through” (minor road to minor road)
volumes.

2.2.5.2 Design and Operation of Right/Left Stagger

At right/left staggered intersections, the major road left turns occur on the “inside,”
i.e., between the two minor road intersections. The left-turn lane requirements,
including deceleration and development of tapers adds up to a much greater minimum
stagger distances between the minor roads.

Minimum dimensions for staggered intersections with channelized left-turns are

provided in Table 2.2, in which the two sets of left-turn lanes are designed essentially
back-to-back and comprise the sum of the two deceleration lengths lying side-by-side
plus the turning lengths and queuing lengths, as appropriate. The minimum dimensions
are shown in parenthesis in Table 2.2 comprising the deceleration length and two
turning lengths at each end. The queuing length is assumed to be 0 m in the minimum
case.

The right/left stagger has greater capacity than the left/right stagger in that the critical
left-turn movement from the minor roads only consist of left-turn demand. The minor
road “through” traffic (minor road to minor road) operates as a right turn from the
minor road and a left turn from the major road to the other minor road. Major road
left-turn capacity is generally very high, and additional major road left-turning traffic
will not pose significant operational problems.

Table 2.2 Minimum Stagger Distance for Right/Left Staggered Intersection

Stagger Distance (m) Stagger Distance (m)
Design Speed (kph)
Ghost Island Left-turns Channelized Left-turns
50 70 (10+50+10) Not applicable
60 95 (10+75+10) Not applicable
70 120 (10+100+10) Not applicable
80 150 (10+130+10) 150 (10+130+10)
100 220 (10+200+10) 220 (10+200+10)

VOLUME 1 PAGE 13
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

2.2.5.3 Safety Effects of Staggered T-Intersections

Staggered T-intersections have a superior safety performance to crossroads when
minor road traffic is greater than 15 percent relative to total entering traffic.

Figure 2.9 Left/Right and Right/Left Staggered Intersection with Ghost Island Left
Turn Lane

PAGE 14 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 2.10 Left/Right and Right/Left Staggered Intersections with Left-Turn Lanes

VOLUME 1 PAGE 15
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

2.2.6 Skew or Y-Intersections

Skew intersections are created when a minor road joins a major road at an angle of
70 degrees or less, this is also sometimes referred to as a Y-intersection. Skew
intersections may be left or right handed.

The acute angle of minor road approach creates particular difficulties for vehicle
turning movements and poor conditions for minor road driver visibility. Large vehicles
in particular will require an extensive area of road surface to accommodate their swept
path and starting on an acute turn will also increase the time taken to clear the
intersection.

By channelizing the minor road with islands and road markings, the approach can be
improved on safety grounds by increasing the intersection angle to 90 degrees and
controlling the conflict points.

Skew intersections could occur in a variety of combinations including simple, ghost

island and channelized left-turn lanes for the major road turning traffic. Refer to
Figure 2.11 and Figure 2.12 for typical left skew and right skew intersections.

Figure 2.11 Priority Left-Skew T-Intersection with Major Road Left-Turn Lanes

PAGE 16 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 2.12 Priority Right-Skew T-Intersection with Major Road Left-Turn Lanes

2.3 Priority Intersections for Multi-Lane Arterials and

Collector Roads
Design and operation of priority intersections on divided roads is significantly different
from two-lane, un-divided roads. The additional risks associated with greater traffic
volumes and width of exposure to conflicts are such that higher risk left-turn
movements are prohibited at multi-lane priority intersections. The prohibition of left-
turn movements is established by the continuation of a raised median.

The prohibition of left turns into and out of the minor road has implications on local
access, circulation, and street network function. Where multi-lane priority intersections
exist, there must be suitable proximate locations for the prohibited movements to
occur. U-turns can be made at signalized intersections, and roundabouts.

When designing a road network of intersections, the traffic demand effects of such
restrictions should be understood and accounted for in the sizing, design, and operation
of proximate intersections.

2.3.1 Priority Intersection with Two-Lane Minor Road

Figure 2.13 shows a typical multi-lane priority intersection commonly known as RIRO.
Major or minor priority intersections without signalization are only permitted where
the left-turn maneuver to and from the minor road is prevented by the median, and a
RIRO configuration is used. The operation of the right-turning movements will typically
yield, except in cases where the presence of pedestrians along the major road sidewalk
is sufficient to warrant a signalized stop for minor road traffic.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 17
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 2.13 Priority T-Intersection on Multi-Lane Roadway with Median

Separation

Right-turning traffic to the minor road is generally provided with a deceleration

auxiliary lane to separate the decelerating traffic from the higher speed through traffic.
Similarly, an acceleration auxiliary lane is generally provided for right-turning traffic
entering the priority roadway.

These auxiliary or acceleration and deceleration lanes to and from the minor road are
based on the design speed of the major roadway. Chapter 5 contains advice on those
requirements.

2.3.2 Priority Intersections between Two Multi-Lane Roads

In some cases, a multi-lane road may begin or terminate at a multi-lane major road,
with the intersection being unsignalized. This special case of a priority intersection
between two multi-lane roads is illustrated on Figure 2.14.

Multi-lane roads are generally associated with design year average daily traffic (ADT) of
15,000 vpd or more. Turning movements to/from the minor road will thus be higher
volume. Consequently, the right turn from the major approach forming the diverge leg
of the minor road shall be designed with an auxiliary lane that is dropped at the right
turn.

2.3.2.1 Minor Road Approach

The terminating approach to the intersection shall be merged into one lane of traffic
on the approach to the intersection. As major road traffic is not stopped, this right turn
shall be designed as an additional lane wherever possible to maximize discharge
capacity. Note that the ability to develop an additional lane and the capacity of this

PAGE 18 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

right turn will be greatly influenced by a proximate downstream intersection. In ideal

settings, right-turning traffic will have 400 m or more to merge and change lanes as
necessary.

Figure 2.14 shows the taper and geometry of the terminating two-lane section merging
to one lane. The preferred approach is to merge the left lane to the right lane, given
that most traffic will be in the right lane, and the merging maneuver is consistent with
the next maneuver, the right turn.

Upstream of the priority intersection, drivers may expect that they will be able to make
a left turn at the next intersection, given they are on what appears to be a major road
(multi-lane). If a convenient U-turn movement, such as illustrated in Figure 2.15, cannot
be provided, it is important to communicate the turn restriction through signing well
upstream of the intersection, ideally directing drivers to where they can go to make the
desired maneuver.

Figure 2.14 Priority Intersection between Two Multi-Lane Roads

VOLUME 1 PAGE 19
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 2.15 Minor Road Approach Reduced through U-Turn Facility

(Urban Use Only)

2.3.2.2 Diverge Approach from Major Road

The major road right-turning roadway forms the beginning of the multi-lane minor
roadway departing the intersection. The diverge should include a deceleration auxiliary
lane, given the expectation of substantial traffic volume, but the turning roadway
should be designed for only one lane of right-turning traffic. Development of the second
lane can occur at a convenient location, considering driveways and other intersections,
downstream of the turning roadway.

During periods of high traffic volume, some queue building on the right turn may be
expected. The capacity of a right-turn from an auxiliary lane under ideal conditions will
be approximately 1,000 vph.

PAGE 20 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

2.3.3 Unsignalized Median U-Turns

In exceptional cases, a system analysis of access and circulation traffic may result in the
need to consider midblock unsignalized median U-turns, as shown in Figure 2.16. The
reasons for such a solution may include any of the following:

• A downstream signalized intersection is considered too far away, increasing out-of-

direction travel for the left-turning traffic.
• Left-turning demand translated to the next downstream signalized intersection
may require so much additional time for the left-turn/U-turn phase such that the
overall LOS of the intersection is significantly degraded.
• Particular critical land uses or activities are present, requiring more direct access
than through downstream U-turns.

The presence of the U-turn movement as the way to make a left turn shall be signed on
the minor road approach to the intersection. Junction approach sight distance shall be
provided on the major road approach to the location of the U-turn opening from which
traffic will enter the major road. The U-turn movement shall be 130 to 200 m
downstream of the intersection.

The Overseeing Organization may choose to implement a median U-turn, given

site-specific needs and conditions.

The geometric design of U-turns is covered in Section 5.7.

Figure 2.16 Unsignalized Median U-Turn

VOLUME 1 PAGE 21
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

2.4 Accommodating Pedestrians at Multi-Lane Priority

Intersections
In many locations, such as boulevards, there may be a significant and continual
presence of pedestrians. Provision for safe pedestrian mobility crossing intersections
will be important. As a minimum, well-marked pedestrian crossings with drop curbs
should be provided. Where pedestrians are present through much of the day, it may
be appropriate to implement the following:

• Pedestrian-actuated signalization, with signal control for both lanes of right-turning

vehicles
• Pedestrian crossing pavement markings, as defined in the latest edition of the
Qatar Traffic Control Manual (QTCM) for pedestrian crossing points.

In low speed locations, these may be combined with raised tables to provide a level
crossing for pedestrians and encourage traffic to approach slowly.

PAGE 22 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

3 Design Procedure for Priority

Intersections
The overall aim in designing a priority intersection shall be to provide drivers with
layouts that have consistent standards and are not likely to confuse them. Wherever
practical, the layout shall be designed to follow the traffic pattern with the principal
movements being the easiest paths. This improves the smoothness of operation and
makes the traffic pattern more readily understood by drivers. Unduly sharp radii or
complex paths involving several changes in direction shall be avoided.

Design dimensions, details, and guidance in this part should be sufficient for the
detailed design of most priority intersections. Every intersection is unique with respect
to the local context (e.g., terrain, location, adjacent land uses, and right-of-way
availability) and the volume and pattern of design-year traffic. The design controls
described in this part require development of design-year traffic to a level of detail
sufficient to characterize individual turning-movement demands. Some dimensions are
based directly on vehicular demands and, as such, one single design value cannot be
published.

The design speed of the roadway, design level of service (LOS) of the priority
intersection, and the selected design vehicles must also be considered during
intersection design. Since these factors often vary, a tailored intersection design is
required.

The final intersection layout shall be looked on as a whole. It is important that on

entering an intersection, drivers should be able to see and understand, both from the
layout and advanced traffic signage, the path they should follow and the likely actions
of crossing, merging, and diverging vehicles.

The designer shall aim to achieve the best balance between the separate design
components to produce an overall intersection that works safely and efficiently. The
final assessment of the design of a priority intersection can only be carried out when
looking at the intersection both as a whole and in the context of those links and
adjacent intersections along the route. The designer shall consider the design from all
the potential road users’ point-of-view and trace through the possible movements. In
particular, the demands placed on the driver shall be considered, keeping in mind what
preceded arrival at the intersection and what will follow. It is particularly important to
determine what will be visible to the driver as they approach the intersection.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 23
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

3.1 Priority Intersection Design Procedure

In selecting the appropriate form of intersection, designers shall refer to Part 2,
Planning, relating to the permitted form of intersection on each route classification.
The flow chart in Figure 3.1 shows the design process for major and minor priority
intersections in a series of interrelated design steps.

The most appropriate type of major or minor priority intersection can be chosen from
those described in this part. The decision should be based on a wide range of factors,
taking into account design-year traffic, including the nature and proportions of large-
goods and passenger-carrying vehicles, their geometry, and an initial estimate of entry
and turning-stream capacities. The designer should also consider the particular site
characteristics, such as development and topography.

The next step is to determine the key geometric parameters design controls, for
example, design speed, vehicles, and LOS. Relevant safety issues, such as traffic control
and sight lines, should be considered. The designer should take account of road users’
specific requirements and incorporation of the preliminary landscape design within the
intersection.

Having established the various components of the intersection design, the designer
should size the intersection or verify that the capacity of the intersection will provide
the desired LOS for design traffic. This may include evaluation of multiple times for
intersections with highly variable total volumes or patterns of turning traffic.

In the concept-level design, designers should verify that alignment and channelization
details are appropriate; curbs, edge elevations, and slopes will provide for drainage;
and traffic control devices can be located where necessary to meet the requirements
of the latest edition of the QTCM. Before proceeding to final design, a drivability check
should then be performed to assess first the assembly of the components of the
intersection design. This should include a visual assessment of the intersection on all
approaches from the driver’s view. Secondly, the intersection should be considered
within the context of its adjacent links and adjacent intersections on the route. As a
whole, the layout should suit the traffic pattern, with the principal movements
following readily drivable vehicular paths.

PAGE 24 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 3.1 Flowchart Outlining Design Procedure

VOLUME 1 PAGE 25
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

3.2 Choice of Simple, Ghost or Channelized Left-Turn Priority

Intersection
For two-lane urban roads, Figure 3.2 provides guidance on the various levels of
T-intersection that may be applicable for different combinations of entry and turning
traffic flows and different roadway geometry and traffic delays.

However, other factors, particularly in relation to route classification and design speed,
also need to be considered before a final decision is made.

There are three types of priority T-intersection applicable in Qatar:

• Simple
• Ghost island
• Physical islands with channelized left turn from the major road

Simple T-intersections apply where the intersection serves a small development or

subdivision with little traffic generation such that the minor road flow does not exceed
300 vehicles per day (vpd) and the major road flow does not exceed 13,000 vpd.

As both major and minor road traffic increases, providing space for major road
left-turning traffic off the through lane becomes more important. A left-turning facility
such as a ghost island should be considered where the minor road flow exceeds
500 vpd. Ghost islands shall not be installed where major road flows exceed 18,000 vpd,
because it will force minor road left-turning traffic to make the turn in two movements.
At this point wide physical divisional islands will be required to provide protection for
minor road left-turning traffic to make the maneuver in two stages.

T-intersections with physical divisional islands and major road channelized left turns
are appropriate for major road traffic volumes up to 15,000 vpd and minor road traffic
of less than 5,000 vpd.

For situations in which the minor road is a multi-lane road, other alternative
intersection concepts may be more appropriate than a priority intersection.

PAGE 26 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Source Design Manual for Roads and Bridges UK TD 42/95

Figure 3.2 Approximate Level of Priority Intersection Provision for Varying Traffic
Flows in Urban Conditions

3.2.1 Guidelines for the Operational Viability of Priority T-Intersections

The capacity of simple T-intersections can be influenced by the presence of upstream
and downstream intersections, including signal-controlled intersections that can alter
the typical traffic pattern of random arrivals at the simple intersection. For major-road
traffic from 12,000 to 15,000 vpd, mainline gaps for turning traffic are fewer during
peak periods, resulting in longer delays for minor-road traffic and the potential for left
turn from the major road to also create delays and rear-end conflicts.

The operational acceptability of a priority intersection is based on two considerations:

1. The ability of left-turning traffic from the major road to do so in a manner that does
not create conflicts with the major road opposing through traffic
2. The ability of traffic from the minor road to select gaps from a stopped position and
enter the major road, accelerating into traffic safely.

Research on gap acceptance behavior at stop-controlled intersections shows that time

gaps of 7.5 seconds are sufficient for most passenger car drivers to make a left turn
from a minor, stopped condition onto the priority road. Drivers of single-unit trucks
were observed to accept longer time gaps of 9.5 seconds.

The Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (2010) includes
methods for estimating the LOS of stop- or signal-controlled T-intersections. LOS
analysis of unsignalized intersections is based on the priority of those movements that

VOLUME 1 PAGE 27
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

are controlled or should yield to higher-priority movements. The two most critical
movements evaluated are the left turn from the major road (which must yield to
oncoming traffic in the opposing direction) and left turns from the minor road (which
must yield to major road through traffic in both directions and to left turns from the
major road). LOS is based on estimated time delays to these movements. Figure 3.3
summarizes the effect of traffic on both roadways for a typical simple intersection.

Figure 3.3 Level of Service by Delays to the Minor Road Left-Turning Traffic

The HCM methodology assumes the intersection is isolated and arrivals on approaches
are random. The assumed conditions are tangent mainline and approaches, 90-degree
angle of intersection, and unlimited sight distance.

Figure 3.3 provides general, planning-level information to help evaluate the operational
acceptability of T-type priority intersections based on the delay and LOS to minor road

PAGE 28 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

traffic and left-turning traffic from the major road. The values are based on two
assumptions for turning traffic from the major road:

1. The top table is for a lower volume of turning traffic, 10 percent of approach
volume.
2. The bottom table is for a higher volume of turning traffic, 30 percent of approach
volume.

Both tables assume a 50/50 distribution of turning traffic from the minor road. Use of
the table is demonstrated as follows:

For major road approach design hour volume of 500 vehicles per hour (vph; one
direction of travel) and minor road approach volume of 200 vph LOS of the minor
road left turn Vml would be:

• LOS D for the case in which major road left turns, VML are small (10 percent) per
the top table
• LOS E for the case in which major road left turns, VML are greater (30 percent) per
the bottom table

In both cases, the LOS for the left turn from the major road, VML is LOS A.

Note that the LOS is highly sensitive to both major road and minor road traffic volumes.
As major road approach volumes increase beyond 500 vph in one direction, the number
of gaps for minor road left turns decreases such that even relatively low approach
volumes of 50 to 100 vph would encounter long delays and LOS E to F. Note also that
major road left-turning traffic can operate reasonably (LOS B) under even high volume
conditions.

The approach hourly volumes in Figure 3.3 will typically be approximately 5 to 6 percent
of average daily traffic (ADT). For example, a one-way design year approach volume of
600 vph may be consistent with a design year volume of 8,300 to 12,000 ADT. The
typical practical capacity of a two-lane road is approximately 15,000 to 18,000 vpd.

Figure 3.3 can be referenced with interpolation to gain an understanding of the

operation of the proposed intersection, but best practices in documenting a design
decision are to conduct a location-specific analysis using the HCM or a similar method
and design-year traffic. Judgment is also necessary to account for potential effects of
proximate intersections or major private accesses and driveways on the pattern of
arrivals and flow through the intersection.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 29
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

3.3 Reconstruction of Priority Intersections

When design-year traffic increases such that left turns off the priority road become
more difficult and delays increase, upgrading the design to provide a left-turn lane from
the major road shall be considered. Operation may be acceptable through much of the
day, but during peak traffic periods, LOS E or F may occur, which may not be acceptable.
Delays can be measured and crash histories can be reviewed to determine the need for
adding a left-turn lane.

PAGE 30 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

4 Design Controls for Priority

Intersections
4.1 Design Speed
Geometric standards for intersections are related to the traffic speed of the major road.
Refer to Part 3, Roadway Design Elements, to determine the appropriate design speed.

4.2 Design Vehicles

The design vehicle selected for design of a priority intersection will affect both the
radius of turns and the entry width. Selection of an appropriate design vehicle is a
choice by the designer and shall be approved by the Overseeing Organization. It shall
reflect a balance between providing for the largest vehicles that may use the
intersection and shall consider the costs, right-of-way, crossing distance for
pedestrians, entry and exit speeds of vehicles on the minor road, and how drivers may
perceive and drive through the intersection.

The design of every intersection shall enable entry or use by emergency vehicles. In
addition, some form of heavy vehicle or truck will use the intersection, even if only
infrequently, for deliveries and servicing the surrounding properties. In residential
areas, a school bus may use the intersection. For a minor road serving an industrial
area, the largest truck, which may be a semitrailer, would be an appropriate design
vehicle.

Table 4.1 shows guidance for selection of the appropriate design vehicle for use in
developing the intersection geometry. Designers shall use design software that
replicates the swept-paths of the design vehicles.

Where lanes are greater than 50 m long, an additional light vehicle passing a stranded
design vehicle shall be considered within the lane geometry.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 31
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Table 4.1 Guidance for Selection of Design Vehicles at Intersections

Design Condition Roadway Type Design Vehiclea

Parking lot entry/exit Local road, collector road Passenger car

Local road intersection Urban local road, collector road Single-unit truck or bus
(unsignalized)

Local road entry/exit Rural arterial (priority) Single-unit truck or bus

Collector road entry/exit Rural arterial (priority) Single-unit truck or bus

Signalized intersection Minor or major arterials WB-20, single-unit truckb

Two-lane roundabout Minor or major arterials WB-20, single-unit truck

Signalized intersection or Freeway or expressway WB-20

roundabout interchange ramp terminal

U-turn movement Signalized intersection Passenger car or single-unit truck

or bus

Notes:
a Emergency vehicles shall be able to access all conditions.
b More than one design vehicle may be used if patterns and types of traffic vary by approach leg.

WB = wheelbase

Geometric parameters for use in the design of a priority intersection allow for a 16.5 m
long articulated vehicle. This type of vehicle has a greater turning width than most other
vehicles that are likely to use these intersections regularly. If the major or minor priority
intersection being designed is in an area where there is likely to be regular use by large
vehicles, the designer shall complete the design to allow for these vehicles.

The composition and turning movements of traffic will influence the geometric layout
adopted. For example, a high proportion of heavy trucks will dictate the minimum lane
width and corner radii to be adopted at the intersection. A high proportion of turning
traffic may require the provision of a segregated or dedicated turning lane at the
intersection to provide adequate traffic capacity.

Allowance shall be made for the swept turning paths of long vehicles where they can
reasonably be expected to use an intersection. Consideration shall be given to the
maneuvering characteristics of these vehicles in the design of staggered intersections.

Where buses or other long rigid vehicles constitute a significant part of traffic during a
typical day, then corner radii and lane widths shall be increased to facilitate their swept
width requirements.

In urban situations, where the major road design speed is 80 kph or less and the
proportion of heavy trucks is low, the intersection may be designed for a single unit or
smaller truck, resulting in occasional encroachment onto opposing lanes for the
infrequent larger vehicles. In such cases, increasing the offset of signs, lights, or other
roadside furniture shall be considered as a prudent measure against errors, should a
larger vehicle encroach on the curb.

PAGE 32 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Part 2, Planning, contains further information on the characteristics of design vehicles.

4.3 Design Level of Service

The analysis of capacity and LOS is one of the most important considerations in the
design of intersections. The capacity or traffic-carrying capability of the urban road
network largely depends on the capacity of its intersections.

4.3.1 Level of Service Definitions for Priority Intersections

In new road and intersection design, a selected LOS forms the basis for sizing the
roadway and its elements. For priority intersections, the LOS is based on delays to
drivers along the minor or yield/stopped intersection approaches. With stop-controlled
intersections, the main road traffic undergoes no delay. LOS refers to the ability of
minor road traffic to find gaps and turn onto the major road. Table 4.2 summarizes the
definition of LOS for unsignalized, two-way, stop-controlled intersections replicating
the critical operation of priority intersections.

Table 4.2 Level of Service Criteria for Two-Way, Stop-Controlled Intersections

Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio

0–10 A

>10–15 B

>15–25 C

>25–35 D

>35–50 E

>50 F

Source: Transportation Research Board. HCM. Exhibit 19-1. 2010.

Each location is unique. Traffic often is not random but is affected by upstream
conditions along both major approaches. Indeed, one potential solution to improve the
operation of a priority intersection is to adjust signal timing of an adjacent signalized
intersection to create time gaps for traffic.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 33
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

4.3.2 Level of Service Analysis and Intersection Type Selection

Part 2, Planning, summarizes the LOS for roadway design that are the basis for planning
and design decisions. LOS is not among the 16 criteria subject to the Departure from
Standards process. Although the selection of an appropriate LOS should follow the
guidance in Part 2, Planning, the definition of LOS is different for each facility type and
set of conditions. With respect to priority intersections, the following applies:

• The majority of traffic through the priority intersection is either free flowing, for
example, major road through traffic, or marginally delayed very little, such as,
minor road right-turning traffic and major road left-turning traffic. Such operations
are the intent of the principle behind a priority intersection.
• A LOS less than that specified for the condition (e.g., LOS D versus C) in the case of
priority intersections means that the critical left-turning traffic from the minor road
may undergo 10 more seconds of delay (e.g., 25 to 35 seconds of delay rather than
15 to 25 seconds of delay), as shown in Table 4.2.
• LOS analysis for design purposes is performed for the critical design-hour traffic
(typically workday peak hours). Operation of unsignalized intersections during
off-peak conditions will typically be much better than during the peak hours.
• Strict adherence to the LOS guidance may, in the case of priority intersections, lead
to selection of a more costly solution, when LOS D or even LOS E during short time
periods may be acceptable.
• HCM analysis methodologies include many assumptions. Decisions on the type of
intersection should, to the extent possible, include understanding of site-specific
conditions that may affect the actual operation of the intersection.
• Predicted or expected safety performance may represent a more significant factor
in the design decision making process.

4.4 Locating Priority Intersections

The intent of priority intersections is to allow for local access and turning movements
to occur safely to or from a major road with minimal impact to traffic flow on the major
road. In siting such intersections, the designer shall balance the many physical controls
and constraints with traffic operational and design requirements.

Locating the intersection itself will generally be associated with siting the minor
roadway. For roads on new alignment, locating the new road itself will often be based
on following property lines and avoiding adverse impacts to existing developed land
uses.

In locating priority intersections, alignment and geometry that provide clear lines of
sight for drivers on the minor road approaches are the most important considerations.

PAGE 34 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

4.4.1 Major Road Alignment

Ideally, major and minor priority intersections shall be sited on major road tangents.
Research into human factors demonstrates that drivers misjudge the speed and time
gap of oncoming traffic approaching on a curve. In addition, the turning maneuver and
acceleration itself is more difficult and time-consuming on a curve.

For cases in which a major or minor priority intersection on a curve is unavoidable, the
preferred alignment is for T-intersections to be sited with the minor road on the outside
of the curve, and within a 20-degree skew angle from a right angle to the major road.
This is especially important for intersections in which multiple lanes are approaching
on the major road. In such cases, this provides for clear sight lines to both major road
traffic streams from the minor road traffic.

On two-lane rural highways, passing or overtaking shall be prohibited on the

approaches to and through the priority intersections.

4.4.2 Minor Road Alignment

Intersecting roads shall generally meet at or nearly at right angles. Roads intersecting
at acute angles require extensive turning roadway areas. In addition, drivers have
limited peripheral vision, and acute angles can make the perception of crossing traffic
difficult. Research has shown that older drivers have limited ability to turn their heads
and hence have difficulties with acute-angled intersections. Truck turning maneuvers
can also be difficult, because when a large vehicle turns through an obtuse angle, the
driver has areas of poor visibility on the right side of the vehicle. In addition, acute-
angled intersections increase the exposure time for the vehicles crossing the main
traffic flow.

Skewed intersections, ones in which the angle of intersection is significantly different

from 90 degrees, present special design challenges. To the extent possible, these
should be avoided. However, context constraints may require a designer to accept
some skew. Table 4.3 shows the potential additional crash risk for priority
T-intersections designed on skews.

Table 4.3 Effect of Intersection Skew Angle on Crash Frequency at Unsignalized

Intersections

Angle of Skew Crash Modification Factor

Crash Types
(degrees)a 3-Leg 4-Leg
10 Fatal plus injury 1.2 1.4
20 Fatal plus injury 1.4 1.57
45 Fatal plus injury 1.58 1.76
75 Fatal plus injury 1.7 1.83
aAngle of skew is measured from 90 crossing (0 degrees of skew).
CMF expresses the effect of the angle of skew compared with a base condition, which is 90 degrees
(0 degrees of skew). For example, a crash modification factor of 1.4 means that the intersection is
expected to have a crash frequency of 1.4 times, or 40 percent, more than the base condition
Source: HSM, Volume 2, Chapter 10 (AASHTO, 2010)

VOLUME 1 PAGE 35
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 4.1 illustrates a skewed priority T-intersection with major road left-turn
channelization. Either a left- or right-hand skew may be designed.

In designing the intersection, designers should strive to bring the minor road approach
to as close to 90 degrees as possible right at the intersection. Where a skew is
unavoidable, designers should incorporate left-turn channelization regardless of the
approach traffic volumes in order to provide clarity of the intersection arrangement to
drivers through channelization of the vehicle flows.

The design favors the left-turn movement from the major road over the right turn from
the major road in the opposing direction. For cases in which the left-turn volume from
the major road is significant, the use of an auxiliary deceleration lane for the
right-turning movement should be considered to provide room for queued right turns
to yield outside of the through traffic lane. This is illustrated on Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.1 Priority Skewed T-Intersection with Major Road Left-Turn Lanes

PAGE 36 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 4.2 Priority Skewed T-Intersection with Major Road Left-Turn Lanes and
Auxiliary Lane for Major Road Right Turns

VOLUME 1 PAGE 37
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

4.4.3 Skewed Crossroads

Designers should avoid crossroads intersections with skew angles greater than
5 degrees (i.e., the intersecting angle should be from 85 to 95 degrees). The effect of
skew on crash frequency is even greater for crossroads intersections than for
T-intersections, as shown in Table 4.3. Even a 10-degree skew may produce a 4 percent
increase in crash risk.

Designers working on reconstruction projects in which skewed crossroads exist have a

range of design options to address the skew, as shown on Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Design Solutions for Skewed Crossroads

PAGE 38 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

4.4.4 Y-Intersections
Designers should avoid Y-intersection alignments. Two design options for
Y-intersections, shown on Figure 4.4, may be appropriate. Option A is suitable for cases
in which the roadway on tangent is the major road. Option B is suitable for cases in
which the roadway on horizontal curve is the major road.

Figure 4.4 Design Solutions for Y-Intersections

Y-intersections can create additional visibility problems where the intersection is

hidden by a crest curve; Figure 4.5 illustrates this. In the top part of Figure 4.5, drivers
unfamiliar with the horizontal curve may be misled by the roadway following the
tangent, particularly at night or in other poor light conditions. In addition, drivers
approaching on the curve in the other direction will have difficulty seeing traffic
approaching on the other roadway.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 39
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

A Y-intersection
hidden by a
crest may
surprise the
driver.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2007.

Figure 4.5 Y-Intersection Hidden by Crest Curve

4.5 Vertical Alignment

The best locations for intersections are on level ground or where the grade of the major
road approach is 2 percent or less. Downhill approaches on the major road exceeding
3 percent, particularly on high-speed roads, may produce traffic speeds above those
desirable through the intersection and create the potential for drivers on the minor
road to misjudge the gap between vehicles. Steep uphill approach grades are also
undesirable, particularly at the minor road approach. Such grades increase the time and
distance to accelerate from a stopped position to the mainline speed.

Minor road approach grades shall be minimized to the extent possible near the
intersection. Design of a relatively flat platform or zone of 15 to 20 m, or for at least
one passenger car at the yield line is desirable. This may be reduced to 10 m in
residential areas. Approach gradients within this zone should be limited to a maximum

PAGE 40 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

of 3 percent. Grades exceeding 3 percent within this zone (L) shall be considered as
Departures from Standards. Figure 4.6 illustrates the minor road approach.

The most important considerations regarding grade are the provision of full corner sight
distance and the development of the profile, cross slope, and edge of pavement
elevations to enable appropriate drainage of the intersection approach.

Figure 4.6 Minor Road Approach Gradient

4.6 Spacing of Intersections

Intersection spacing is influenced by the land use environment and by a road’s
functional classification within the road hierarchy. The number of intersections and
their spacing represents a balance between providing sufficient direct access to
adjacent properties and areas, meeting the needs of the local road network, and the
desire to minimize potential points of conflict or sources of delay for major road traffic.

Should the number and importance of existing cross routes necessitate multiple, closely
spaced intersections, consideration shall be given to combining roads before they meet
the main road to mitigate close intersection spacing.

Intersections ideally operate independently of each other. The minimum spacing

between adjacent intersections for the various road classifications should be in
accordance with the values provided in Part 2, Planning Tables 5.1 and 5.2.

4.7 Visibility
Clear visibility on the approach to, at, and traveling through an intersection is essential
for the safe and efficient use of that intersection. In determining the correct visibility
requirements for an intersection, the designer must consider both the layout of the
intersection and the vehicles that will use it.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 41
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

The visibility and intervisibility requirements provided in this section are related to the
design speed of the major road; little benefit is to be gained by increasing the
requirements. However, each intersection must be considered on a site-specific basis,
with an assessment made of additional visibility to be provided due to factors such as:

• Width of major road to be crossed

• Traffic control on the minor approach road
• Turning movements to be made at the intersection
• Gradient of the approaches and departures
• Types of vehicle that will be using the intersection, e.g., large, slow-speed vehicles
require additional visibility

As well as having adverse safety implications, poor visibility reduces the capacity of
turning movements.

Drivers approaching a major or minor intersection from the major road or the minor
road shall have unobstructed visibility in accordance with the following clauses.
The envelope of visibility for driver's eye height is described in Part 3, Roadway Design
Elements.

Major Road
Drivers approaching a major or minor intersection along the major road approaches
shall be able to see the minor road entry from a distance corresponding to 1.5 times
the stopping sight distance (SSD) for the design speed of the major road, as described
in Part 3, Roadway Design Elements. This intervisibility allows drivers on the major road
to be aware of traffic entering from the minor road in time for them to slow down and
stop safely if necessary. The concept of adequate visibility to make safe turning
movements also applies to vehicles turning left into the minor road from the major
road.

Minor Road
Minor road traffic has to approach the intersection and join or cross the major road
when there are gaps in the major road traffic streams. It is, therefore, essential that
minor road drivers have adequate visibility in each direction to see the intersection
layout and oncoming major road traffic in sufficient time to make their maneuvers
safely.

PAGE 42 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

The principle of providing the required visibility for drivers approaching the intersection
from the minor road has three distinct features; refer to Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8:

1. W: Approaching drivers should have unobstructed visibility of the intersection

from a distance corresponding to the SSD for the design speed of the minor road.
This allows drivers time to slow down safely at the intersection, or stop, if
necessary. Where a yield or stop sign is proposed, the visibility envelope shall be
widened to include the sign.

2. Z: A driver approaching the intersection should be able to see the intersection form
and peripheral elements of the intersection layout. This provides the driver with
an idea of the possible movements and conflicts, and possible required action
before reaching the major road. This point is the Z point; it is 15 m back along the
centerline of the minor road measured from the continuation of the line of the
nearside edge of the running roadway of the major road, but not from the
continuation of the back of the major road hardstrip, if this is present.

3. X, Y: The distance back along the minor road from which full visibility is measured
is the X distance. It is measured back along the centerline of the minor road from
the continuation of the line of the nearside edge of the running lane of the major
road. The preferred X distance is 10 m.

From this point, an approaching driver shall be able to see clearly points to the left and
right on the nearer edge of the major roadway at a distance given in Table 4.4,
measured from its intersection with the centerline of the minor road. This is the Y
distance. Any distance less than those in Table 4.4 are a Departure from Standards.

If the line of vision is partially within the major road, it shall be made tangential to the
nearer edge of the major road running lane, as shown in Figure 4.8.

In difficult circumstances, where major road design speeds are less than 80 kph, the X
distance may be reduced from 10 to 7.5 m for lightly trafficked simple intersections,
and, in exceptionally difficult circumstances, to 5.0 m back from the nearer edge of the
major road running lane. In some urban locations where only light vehicles are involved,
the X distance can be further reduced to 2.5 m.

The X distance, from which full Y distance visibility is provided, should preferably be not
more than 10 m, because this induces high minor road approach speeds into the
intersection and leads to excessive land take.

Similarly, although the Y distance should always be provided, there is little advantage
in increasing it, because this too can induce high approach speeds and take the
attention of the minor road driver away from the immediate intersection conditions.
Increased visibility should not be provided to increase the capacities of various turning
movements.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 43
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 4.7 Visibility Criteria at Priority Intersections

Figure 4.8 Visibility Criteria with a Curved Major Road

These visibility standards apply to new intersections and to improvements to existing

intersections.

If the major road is one way, a single visibility splay in the direction of approaching
traffic will suffice. If the minor road serves as a one-way exit from the major road, no
visibility splays will be required if forward visibility for turning vehicles is adequate.
Vehicles parked within splay lines can obstruct visibility. Parking and access should be
designed to prevent this. Care should also be taken in the placing of signs, landscaping,
and street furniture within the visibility splay areas so that their obstructive effect is
minimized.

PAGE 44 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Table 4.4 Minimum X and Y Visibility Distances from the Minor Road
Design Speed of Major Road (kph) Y Distance (m) Minimum X Distance (m)

120 295 10
100 215 10
80 160 10
70 120 7.5*
60 90 7.5*
50 70 5.0*
<50 50 2.5*
Note: In all cases the preferred X distance is 10 m. The minimum X distances given shall only be used in
difficult circumstances, in accordance with Section 4.7.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 45
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

This page intentionally left blank.

PAGE 46 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5 Geometric Design Details for

Priority Intersections
The geometric design of priority intersections includes corner radii, widths of roadways,
taper and auxiliary lane dimensions, medians and median openings, and traffic islands.
Appropriate dimensions vary by context and functional needs of the intersection.

The geometric parameters used here allow for use by a 16.5 m long articulated vehicle,
refer to Section 4.2, Design Vehicles.

5.1 Corner Radii

Design of intersection corners should accommodate the paths of the largest vehicles
that would typically use the intersection. The ease of turn, desired speeds, and
placement of the vehicle through the turn will vary based on the functional class of the
roadways and other context features.

Corners may be designed with simple radii, compound curves (either two-centered or
three-centered), or simple radii offset from the through edges of pavement with short
tangent tapers. The latter solutions, compound curves and simple radii with tangent
offsets, efficiently fit the swept paths of the larger-design vehicles.

5.1.1 T-Intersection Corner Radii

For simple T-intersections without merge or diverge auxiliary lanes and where no
provision is to be made for larger trucks or buses, the minimum circular corner radius
shall generally be 6 m in urban areas and 10 m in rural areas. These minimum radii are
appropriate on urban local roads and service roads where pedestrian mobility and
safety is a priority.

Where provision is to be made for large trucks or buses, the corner radii shall be
designed with larger circular corner radii and a short swept path taper. Figure 5.1 shows
circular corner radii incorporating tapers. Note that the tapers are placed on the
departure end of the corner radius. The recommended combination of corner radii and
taper are shown in Table 5.1.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 47
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.1 Circular Corner Radii Incorporating Tapers

Table 5.1 Circular Corner Radii

Taper Rate Length of Taper (m) Corner Radius (m)
Intersection Type
T L R
Urban Simple
1:5 30 10
Intersection
Rural Simple
1:10 25 15
Intersection
Staggered Intersection 1:8 32 15
All Other Not applicable Not applicable 20

Where large trucks comprise a significant portion of the turning movements,

compound circular curves shown in Figure 5.2 shall be used together with a minor road
channelizing island.

PAGE 48 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.2 Circular Corner Radii Incorporating Compound Curve

The design of an intersection shall be checked to ensure the design vehicle swept path
remains within the curb faces using appropriate vehicle swept path software. The
vehicle wheel tracks shall be a minimum of 500 mm from the face of curbs and vehicle
overhangs shall remain within the roadway except in exceptional cases that shall be
approved by the overseeing authority. In these instances, the designer shall ensure that
signage and street furniture is located outside the vehicle swept path overhangs.

Where right-turning acceleration facilities are not provided, the angle of incidence
between the mainline edge of pavement and the line of the vehicle entering shall not
be less than 70 degrees when positioned at the yield or stop line. This will enable drivers
entering the mainline roadway to look both ways without relying on mirrors for
mainline visibility. The angle of incidence in this situation is to be controlled by
channelizing islands; refer to Figure 5.10.

5.1.2 Corner Radii for Channelized Right Turns

Where right-turn auxiliary lanes are introduced on the major road, channelized right
turns are used at the end of the auxiliary lane. The right-turn curve radius into the minor
road shall be at least 20 m where the major road design speed is 80 kph or lower. At
higher design speeds, the minimum radius shall be 40 m. The minimum lane width
around this corner will depend on the curve radius selected with reference to Table 5.2.

The merging nose and lane from the minor road shall be introduced to the major road
through a separate turning roadway, with a minimum radius of 25 m where the major
road design speed is 80 kph or lower. At higher speeds the minimum radius shall be
30 m. Figure 5.3 illustrates the layout of a channelized right-turn.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 49
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.3 Typical Layout of Channelized Right Turn

5.2 Roadway Widths

5.2.1 Through-Lane Widths
The lane widths to be provided through priority intersections are dependent on the
intersection type, as follows:

• At simple intersections and ghost island intersections, the lane width through the
intersection shall be the same as in advance of the intersection.
• Where left-turn channelization with physical islands is included, the through lane
in each direction shall be 4 m wide, excluding shoulders or offsets to the edges of
any physical island, Figure 5.12, dimension - c. Total paved width of through lanes
shall be 6 m to allow traffic to pass a stopped vehicle without leaving the paved
width, illustrated in Figure 2.4.
• At intersections on multi-lane roads, the through-lane widths through the
intersection shall be the same as in advance of the intersection.

5.2.2 Widths of Minor Road Approaches

The width of the minor road approach is dependent on whether a channelizing island
is provided. Where no channelizing island is provided the nominal approach width of
the minor road shall continue up to the tangent point of the corner curve to join the
major road.

PAGE 50 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Where a channelizing island is provided in the minor road approach, Figure 5.4 details
the layout of such approaches. Both lanes of the minor road shall be a minimum 4.0 m
wide at the point where the hatched markings surrounding the channelizing island
begin.

At the point where the channelizing island commences the minimum width on either
side shall be as follows:

• On the approach to the major road: 4.0 m wide for a ghost island or 4.5 m wide for
channelized left-turn intersections, exclusive of any shoulder. If the minor road
approach consists of two lanes then the dimension shall be increased to 5.5 m.

• On the exit from the major road: 4.5 m wide for a ghost island or 5.0 m wide for
channelized left-turn intersections, exclusive of any shoulder.

Figure 5.4 Minor Road Approaches

5.2.3 Widths around Corners

Where roadways are taken around short radius corners (R) such as adjacent to
channelizing islands, as shown in Figure 5.3, added width (W) shall be provided to
accomodate the swept area of larger vehicles. Table 5.2 lists the minimum widths of
turning roadways for various inside corner radii based on a 16.5 m design vehicle. On
single-lane sections greater than 50 m long, an allowance shall be made for the passing
of broken-down vehicles, and the minimum physical width provided shall be (WT) as
listed in the third column, “Single-Lane Roadway Width with Room to Pass Stationary
Vehicles.”

VOLUME 1 PAGE 51
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Table 5.2 Minimum Corner and Curve Radii and Roadway Widths

Single-Lane Two-Lane Width for One-Way or

Roadway Two-Way Traffic (Excluding Shoulder
Width Single-Lane Roadway Provision) - W (m)
Inside (Excluding Width with Room to
Corner/Curve Shoulder Pass Stationary Vehicles
Radius – R Provision) - W (Including Shoulder
(m) (m) Provision) - WT (m) Left Lane Right Lane Total

10 8.4 10.9 8.4 6.5 14.9

15 7.1 9.6 7.1 6.0 13.1

20 6.2 8.7 6.2 5.6 11.8

25 5.7 8.2 5.7 5.2 10.9

30 5.3 7.8 5.3 5.0 10.3

40 4.7 7.2 4.7 4.6 9.3

50 4.4 6.9 4.4 4.3 8.7

75 4.0 6.5 4.0 4.0 8.0

100 3.8 6.3 3.8 3.8 7.6

Where 16.5 m articulated vehicles are expected, but likely to form only a very small
percentage of the total number of vehicles and where conflicts will not occur on bends,
the roadway widths may be reduced to allow for the lower-class vehicles that will
regularly use the intersection with an additional 1 m allowance for variation in vehicle
position.

5.3 Diverging and Merging Auxiliary Lanes and Tapers

Auxiliary lanes and tapers at priority intersections provide multiple functions:

• Deceleration from higher-speed major road traffic to make a right or left turn
• Acceleration for the right turn from the minor road yield condition to the
higher-speed major road
• Separation of queued left-turning traffic at priority T-intersections (awaiting a gap
in opposing through traffic)
• Separation of channelized right-turning traffic onto the minor road at priority
T-intersections, yielding to left-turning traffic from the opposing major road
direction of travel
• Separation of queued right-turning traffic from the major road yielding to
pedestrians crossing the intersection

Figure 5.5 shows a typical design of priority T-intersection with an auxiliary lane for right
turning, decelerating and accelerating traffic.

PAGE 52 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.5 T-Intersection with Channelizing and Right-turn Auxiliary Lanes

5.3.1 Right-Turn Diverge Auxiliary Lanes and Tapers

Auxiliary lanes at right-turn intersections allow the deceleration of vehicles exiting the
mainline and acceleration of vehicles entering the mainline to occur off the main
roadway and, therefore, with less effect on the mainline flow. Figure 5.6 shows a typical
design.

Figure 5.6 Right-Turn Auxiliary Lane on Diverge of Multi-Lane Priority

Intersection

VOLUME 1 PAGE 53
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Traffic is introduced to the right-turn lane by an auxiliary lane. Where an auxiliary lane
is present, the hatched road markings are extended along their current path until the
intersection with the centerline of the minor road.

Where a paved shoulder is provided on the major road, this shall be continued along
the auxiliary lanes but shall not be provided in front of the channelizing island along the
major road edge. A setback clearance to the island shall be provided in accordance with
Clause 5.6.4.

Where successive priority intersections are introduced on multi-lane roads, the

potential for weaving shall be considered.

5.3.1.1 Guidelines for Application of Right-Turn Diverge Auxiliary Lanes

Removing decelerating traffic from high-speed through lanes improves the safety
performance of the intersection. The HSM (AASHTO, 2010) documents an expected
reduction in crash risk for the addition of a right-turn lane on the approach to a 3-leg
unsignalized intersection as follows (the base condition is a 3-leg intersection with no
right-turn lanes):

• Crash modification factor (CMF) of 0.86 for all crash types and severities (14 percent
reduction)
• CMF of 0.77 for all injury crashes (23 percent reduction)

Diverging auxiliary lanes are appropriate for the following conditions in the design year:

• The volume of right-turning traffic is greater than 600 vehicles AADT (one way)
• The percentage of heavy trucks is greater than 20 percent, and the volume of
right-turning traffic is greater than 450 vehicles AADT (one way)
• The intersection is on an upgrade or downgrade greater than 4 percent, and the
volume of right-turning traffic is greater than 450 vehicles AADT (one way)

Where the major road traffic flow is greater than 7,000 to 8,000 AADT (one-way), the
figures given in the preceding list for turning traffic may be halved.

Diverging right-turn auxiliary lanes shall be used for roads with the following conditions:

• Rural, multi-lane priority intersections, rural arterials, and collector roads

• Urban multi-lane priority intersections with a priority road design speed of 100 kph
or greater; all functional classes

They may be considered on other roads depending on traffic volumes, available right-
of-way and other factors, for example, priority road T-intersections on two-lane roads
with divisional islands and left-turn lanes

Right-turn auxiliary lanes are typically not provided at simple T-intersections, although
they may be used where traffic volumes and patterns suggest a benefit.

PAGE 54 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Diverging auxiliary lane lengths for right turns shall be in accordance with Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 Minimum Auxiliary Lane Lengths on Priority Intersection Diverge

Minimum Auxiliary Lane

Design Speed (kmh) Length –a (m) Direct Taper Length –b (m)

Rural 50 80 5

80 80 15

100 160 25

120 230 30

140 Not applicablea Not applicable

Urban 50 40 5

60b 50 (40)c 10

70b 65 (40)c 10

80 80 (50)c 15

100 120 (80) 25

120 Not applicablea Not applicable

Notes:
a For auxiliary lanes at interchanges, refer to Part 8, Design for Signal Controlled Intersections.
b 60 kph and 70 kph design speeds may occur where a diverging auxiliary lane is required from a

ramp; refer to Part 8, Design for Signalized Intersections.

c Figures in parentheses may be applied where intersection spacing is a constraint.

The diverging auxiliary lane length is defined as being from the beginning of the direct
taper to the start of the radius around the corner, as shown as dimension (a) in
Figure 5.6. Therefore, the direct taper length is included within the auxiliary lane length
stated in Table 5.6.

The minimum lengths are based on vehicle deceleration, assuming that 10 percent
occurs on the mainline prior to entering the deceleration facility. In urban situations,
because of the more constrained nature, auxiliary lengths may be reduced further (as
indicated by the number in parentheses in Table 5.3) in situations where intersection
spacing is a constraint.

The deceleration rate on the level is assumed to be 2.5 meters per second per second
(m/s/s). However, the minimum auxiliary lane lengths should not be less than 40 m.

The auxiliary lane should be of sufficient length to allow vehicles to slow to a stop at
the end of the lane. Therefore, any reduction from the lengths indicated in Table 5.3
shall be a Departure from Standards.

The width of the diverging auxiliary lane shall be 3.65 m. For reconstruction, including
widening projects in which right-of-way or other constraints limit the cross section,
right-turn auxiliary lane widths as narrow as 3.4 m may be acceptable. The benefits of

VOLUME 1 PAGE 55
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

the auxiliary lane are associated with the lane’s presence and length. There is no
meaningful loss of function associated with a narrowing from 3.65 to 3.4 m. Auxiliary
lane widths less than 3.65 m shall require a Departure from Standards.

Where the intersection accommodates vehicles making a left turn into the minor road,
yield markings shall be provided at the end of the auxiliary diverge lane. These markings
are not required on multi-lane highways or roads at which left turns from the major
road are not provided.

At the end of the auxiliary lane, a curve radius into the minor road of at least 20 m
should be used where the major road design speed is 80 kph or lower. At higher design
speeds, the minimum radius should be 40 m. The minimum lane width around this
corner will depend on the curve radius selected and is defined in Table 5.2.

Where diverging auxiliary lanes are provided, they should include an adjacent shoulder
strip equal to that of the associated major road. However, because right-turn lanes
increase the footprint of the intersection, they increase the cost and may increase the
need for additional right-of-way. Where space is limited and right-of-way is unavailable,
a designer may consider converting some or all of the shoulder to a right-turn lane on
the approach to the intersection, perhaps with only minor additional widening of 1 to
2 m. Although this design would require a Departure from Standards for shoulder
width, it may be demonstrated to have a superior safety and operational performance
compared with the intersection with no right-turn lane.

Right-turn auxiliary lanes at priority intersections will typically not include length for
storage. The right-turning traffic, in most cases, is not stopped through the turn.

For special cases in which pedestrians crossing the priority intersection are prevalent,
designers may provide length for one or two queued vehicles stopped in advance of
the pedestrian crossing. An additional length of 10 to 15 m may be used. In cases of
very high-volume pedestrian activity, the need for a pedestrian signal would produce
queuing and could require additional right-turning lane length.

For cases in which a downstream intersection or other element limits the ability to
achieve the total desirable length of auxiliary lane, designers may foreshorten the
direct taper thus maximizing the length of full lane available for deceleration. Some
deceleration can also be assumed to occur in the through lanes. The minimum length
of right-turn lane should be based on deceleration from a speed no less than 30 kph
below the design speed.

5.3.1.2 Through-Lane Continuity and Right-Turn Lanes

Mainline lanes shall continue through intersections and not be dropped at a right turn.
Where substantial turning volume occurs or where the road is to transition its basic
number of lanes (say, from four lanes to two), a typical diverge right-turn auxiliary lane,
such as shown in Figure 5.6, shall be provided. The reduction in through lanes shall
occur at least 200 m downstream of the intersection.

PAGE 56 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.3.1.3 Diverging Tapers

Although the use of diverging auxiliary lanes is the preferred treatment for right-turn
lanes there may be instances where there is not enough width in the right-of-way to
include an auxiliary lane or a substandard auxiliary lane. In these instances, a diverging
taper shall be used as illustrated in Figure 5.7. The length of diverge taper to be the
same as the equivalent auxiliary lane as shown in Table 5.3, or as long as possible within
the site constraints.

The use of a diverge taper shall be a Departure from Standards.

Figure 5.7 Alternative Taper Diverge

5.3.2 Merging Auxiliary Lanes and Tapers

Merging auxiliary lanes permit minor road traffic to accelerate before joining the faster
traffic streams on the mainline where the joining traffic may otherwise impede flow or
produce a potential rear-end crash. A typical merging auxiliary lane design is shown on
Figure 5.8. A merging auxiliary lane shall not be used at priority intersections on
two-lane roads or where two-lane roads are channelized by divisional islands into two
single-lane roadways.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 57
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.8 Auxiliary Lane on Merge

5.3.2.1 Guidelines for Application of Merging Auxiliary lanes

Merging auxiliary lanes shall be used at all rural priority intersections on multi-lane
roads, including all functional classifications. They shall also be used for priority
intersections on all urban multi-lane roads with a design speed of 100 kph or greater,
except where their inclusion is determined to create a weaving problem.

Merging auxiliary lanes shall be preceded by a turning roadway nose, detailed in

Clause 5.5.2 and illustrated as (c) in Figure 5.8.

Merging auxiliary lanes may also be considered for lower design speeds when the
volume of right-turning traffic in the design year exceeds 600 vehicles AADT (one-way).

However, where the merging auxiliary lane is for an upgradient of greater than
4 percent or where the percentage of large goods vehicles exceeds 20 percent, the
threshold value is reduced to 450 vehicles AADT (one-way).

Omission of a merging auxiliary lane in accordance with the above conditions shall
require a Departure from Standards. Merging auxiliary lane lengths, shown as
dimension (a) in Figure 5.8, shall be in accordance with Table 5.4.

PAGE 58 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Table 5.4 Minimum Auxiliary Lane Lengths on Priority Intersection Merge

Design Speed Minimum Auxiliary Direct Taper Nose Length – c

(kph) Lane Length - a (m) Length - b (m) (m)

Rural 50 Not applicablea Not applicable Not applicable

80 165 35 40

100 285 35 40

120 460 35 40

Urban 50 Not applicablea Not applicable Not applicable

60b 95 35 40

70b 95 35 40

80 95 35 40

100 150 35 40

Notes:
a At lower design speeds and where an auxiliary lane cannot be accommodated

traffic, shall be required to yield.

b 60 kph and 70 kph design speeds may occur where merging auxiliary lane is

required on to a ramp; refer to Part 8, Design for Signal Controlled

Intersections.

The auxiliary lane lengths indicated allow a typical passenger car to accelerate to an
appropriate speed before merging with the mainline traffic. The lengths provided for
rural roads allow the merging vehicle to accelerate to 10 percent less than the mainline
design speed. In more constrained urban locations, the shorter auxiliary lanes provided
allow merging vehicles to accelerate to 30 percent less than the mainline design speed.
Notwithstanding, the minimum length shall be 95 m to allow sufficient maneuvering
opportunity. The auxiliary lane lengths specified in Table 5.4 include a direct taper of
35 m length at the end of the parallel section.

Vehicles traveling within an auxiliary lane should have sufficient opportunity to

accelerate adequately to enable comfortable merging maneuver.

A separate turning lane, with a radius of at least 25 m where the main road design
speed is 80 kph and lower, and at least 30 m above this speed, shall be used to introduce
the merging auxiliary lane from the minor road. The initial width of the lane will depend
on the radius of the turning lane, determined from Table 5.2.

Auxiliary lanes of lengths less than those specified in Table 5.4 shall be considered a
Departure from Standards.

5.3.2.2 Merging Tapers

Where an auxiliary merging lane cannot be achieved to the standards in Table 5.4 due
to constraints, a taper layout is a preferable alternative to a substandard auxiliary lane,
Figure 5.9 illustrates the arrangement.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 59
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Merging tapers shall not be used at priority intersections on two-lane roads or where
two-lane loads are channelized by divisional islands into two single-lane roadways.

At some junctions on dual roadways, there may be safety benefits in providing merging
tapers at lower flows.

A separate turning lane, with a radius of at least 25 m where the main road design
speed is 80 kph and lower, and at least 30 m above this speed, shall be used to introduce
the merging taper from the minor road. The initial width of the lane, which will depend
on the radius of the turning lane determined from Table 5.2, shall be decreased at a
constant taper the length of which is dependent on the design speed.

The lengths of the tapers to be used are given in Table 5.5. The minimum initial width
of a merging taper shall be 4.0 m.

On dual roadways, with a design speed of 120 kph or greater, the merging taper may
be preceded by a short nose of 40 m length formed between it and the end of the 30 m
approach curve. The back of the nose should have a minimum width of 2 m, illustrated
in Figure 5.9.

The use of a merge taper shall be a Departure from Standards.

Figure 5.9 Alternative Taper Merge

Table 5.5 Taper Length on Priority Intersection Merge

Design Speed (kph) Merging Length – a (m)
80 90
100 110
120 130

PAGE 60 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.3.2.3 Minor Road Right-Turn Approach where an Auxiliary Lane is Not Provided
On multi-lane roads with design speeds of 80 kph and lower, or where merging auxiliary
lanes cannot be accommodated because of weaving constraints, vehicles shall be
required to yield at the intersection. In such circumstances, the angle of incidence
between the yielding traffic and the mainline roadway shall be not less than 70 degrees.
Figure 5.10 shows such a design.

Figure 5.10 Right-Turn Approach Where an Auxiliary Lane Is Not Provided

5.4 Major Road Left-Turn lanes

Left-turn movements from major or minor roads at priority intersections can be
separated from through traffic by divisional ghost or physical islands so that the number
of traffic conflicts is reduced.

Preventing or minimizing conflicts by separation means that drivers have only simple
decisions regarding their movements at any one time. For the separation to be
effective, the junction must be large enough for drivers to identify in adequate time
those vehicles that conflict with their intended path. This will enable gaps in the traffic
flow to be used effectively by traffic entering the intersection.

Major road left-turn lanes comprise a number of individual elements combined to

enable the passage of through traffic, left-turning vehicles, and the storage of major
road left-turning vehicles. In addition, they provide space for warning and directional
signage at an intersection.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 61
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.4.1 Channelized Major Road Left-Turn Lanes

Major road left-turn lanes at intersections allow for the deceleration, queuing and
turning of vehicles leaving the major through road and turning left, across oncoming
traffic, into the minor road. This lane allows vehicles to leave the major road through
lane and therefore have less impact on the mainline flows.

Clause 2.2.3 addresses the traffic operational and safety performance guidelines for
left-turn lanes at two-lane priority intersections. Left turns that are unsignalized are
prohibited on multi-lane roads.

Figure 5.11 shows a typical layout for this form of intersection with ghost islands.

Figure 5.12 shows a typical layout for this form of intersection with physical divisional
islands.

Figure 5.11 Priority Ghost Island T-Intersection with Left Turn Lane

PAGE 62 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.12 Priority T-Intersection with Left-Turn Lane

VOLUME 1 PAGE 63
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.4.1.1 Components of Auxiliary and Left-Turn Lane Lengths

The length of the auxiliary and left-turn lanes for turning vehicles consists of three
components:

• Deceleration (or acceleration) length

• Storage or queuing length and turning length, where exiting the major road
• Entering or exiting taper

Ideally, the total length of the auxiliary or left-turn lane shall be the sum of the length
for these three components. Assuming a moderate amount of deceleration occurs
within the through lanes is acceptable, as is assuming that deceleration occurs over the
taper length.

Turning Length (Tl)

The turning length is provided to allow long vehicles to position themselves correctly
for the left turn. It is not specifically included within the calculation of left-turn auxiliary
lane length but is required. The turning length shall be 10 m long irrespective of the
type of intersection, design speed or gradient, measured from the centerline of the
minor road.

Deceleration Length (Ldl)

Lengths for deceleration are based on an assumed rate of 2 m/s/s. The deceleration
lengths on channelized left-turns shall be in accordance with Table 5.6.

Table 5.6 Minimum Channelized Left-Turn Deceleration Length (Ldl)

Design Speed of Major Road (kph) Deceleration Length - Ldl (m)

50 55
60 75
70 100
80 130
100 200
120 Not applicable

Queue Length (Lq)

The left-turn auxiliary lane on facilities exiting the major road shall be sufficiently long
to store the number of vehicles likely to accumulate during a critical period. The queue
or storage length shall be sufficient to avoid the possibility of left-turning vehicles
stopping in the through lanes waiting for a gap in the opposing traffic flow. As traffic
arrivals are random, where possible, designers should estimate queuing requirements
based on twice the mean rate of arrivals, which represents a 95th percentile arrival, as
shown in Table 5.7.

PAGE 64 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Table 5.7 Guidelines for Estimating Number of Vehicles Stored in Major Road
Left-Turn Lane at Priority Intersections
Estimated Queue for Average Delay
LOS C LOS D
(15 to 25 seconds (25 to 35 seconds
Left Turn Design Average 2 x Average
average delay) average delay)
Hour Volume Arrivals per Arrivals per
(vph) Minute Minute Average [2 x Ave.] Average [2 x Ave.]
60 1 2 0 [0 to 1] 1 [1 to 2]

120 2 4 0 [1 to 2] 2 [2 to 4]
180 3 6 1 [2 to 3] 3 [4 to 5]
240 4 8 2 [4 to 5] 4 [6 to 7]
300 5 10 3 [5 to 6] 5 [8 to 9]

For most cases, assuming one to four vehicles will be queued at some time during the
design hour to await a gap should be sufficient. Assuming 8 m per vehicle comprising
the vehicle length plus gap, this translates to 8 to 32 m (for example, 30 m) for queuing
four vehicles. Approved traffic analysis software that simulate traffic in the intersection
can also be used to estimate storage requirements. A minimum of 10 m for queuing
one vehicle is appropriate for lower-volume left turns operating at LOS A or B.

Direct Taper Lengths (Ldt)

Direct tapers are to be used at the commencement of deceleration left-turning auxiliary
lanes. Tapers shall be designed to be clearly direct and divergent from the through
lanes. Tapers that are too long take away length for storage and, in the extreme, may
inadvertently attract through traffic into the turning lane.

Direct taper rates are a function of design speed. Deceleration on the taper is assumed
at 1.8 m/s/s. Table 5.3 provides the required length of direct taper applicable for left
turn diverges in rural and urban locations.

The beginning of a taper shall be adjusted as necessary based on the alignment of the
approach road. Where an intersection is downstream from a crest vertical curve,
starting the taper farther upstream on the upgrade makes it visible to drivers on the
approach to an intersection. Similarly, extending the beginning of a taper on the
tangent approach to a horizontal curve can communicate the impending turn lane and
intersection if they are not visible.

For urbanized areas, short tapers appear to produce better targets for the approaching
drivers and allow drivers to more positively identify an added auxiliary lane. Short
tapers are preferred for deceleration lanes at urban intersections because of slow
speeds during peak periods.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 65
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.4.1.2 Total Length of Left-turn Auxiliary Lane Including Taper

The total desirable length of left-turn lane, including taper, is given by the sum of the
components:

L total = Lq + Ldl + Tl
Note: Ldl from Table 5.6 is inclusive of Ldt

For cases in which an upstream intersection or other element limits the ability to
achieve the total desirable length, designers may foreshorten the taper thus
maximizing the length of full lane available for deceleration and storage. Some
deceleration can also be assumed to occur in the through lanes. The minimum length
of the left-turn lane should be based on deceleration from a speed no less than 20 kph
below the roadway design speed, with no provision for queue length (Lq = 0).

5.4.1.3 Left-Turn Auxiliary Lane Widths (d)

The width of a left-turning lane shall be 3.65 m. For reconstruction projects in which
other design requirements create constraints, left-turn lane widths as narrow as 3.3 m
may be used. The substantive safety benefit is associated with the presence of the left-
turn lane; marginal differences in width will not adversely affect safety performance.
Lane widths of less than 3.65 m shall require a Departure from Standards.

5.4.1.4 Components of Lanes and Divisional Islands (c, f, g, h)

The width of through lanes (c) is discussed in Clause 5.2.1.

The width of left-turn divisional islands (f, g) are discussed in Clause 5.6.4.4.

The width of median opening (h) is discussed in Clause 5.6.4.4.

5.5 Turning Roadways

At priority intersections, turning roadways are most often used in association with
auxiliary lanes and channelizing islands to facilitate right-turning vehicles on and off the
major road, as shown on Figure 5.13. They are also commonly used at roundabouts, as
discussed in Part 7, Design for Roundabouts, and signalized intersections, as discussed
in Part 8, Design for Signal Controlled Intersections, to remove right-turning vehicles
from other conflicts within the intersection.

At priority intersections, turning roadways may be used where auxiliary lanes are
provided on or off the mainline.

PAGE 66 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.13 Turning Roadways at Priority Intersections

5.5.1 Turning Roadway Width

In turning roadways, additional width shall be provided to allow for the swept path of
heavy trucks and the cut-in of trailer units. Where auxiliary lanes are provided (both
merging and diverging), they shall include an adjacent paved shoulder equal to that of
the associated major road.

Table 5.2 lists the minimum widths of turning roadways for various inside corner radii.

5.5.2 Turning Roadway Merge Nose

At the start of the merging facility, a short merge nose 40 m long shall precede the
merging auxiliary, formed between the auxiliary lane and the end of the approach curve
in a turning roadway. The minimum width of the back of the nose shall be 2 m, as
illustrated in Figure 5.13.

Traffic leaving the right-turn lane shall merge with the major road traffic via an auxiliary
lane. The hatched road markings are extended from the minor road centerline to link
with those for the merge nose and the channelizing island is designed within the
hatched road markings.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 67
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.5.3 Sight Distance through Turning Roadways

Obstructions along the roadside may create the potential for sight restrictions to
drivers on the turning roadway. Stopping-sight distance should be maintained,
consistent with the expected speed of drivers on the turning roadway.

Table 5.8 shows that the roadside along the inside of the right-hand turning roadway
should be free of obstructions to the driver’s line of sight up to 2.2 m for turning
roadways with corner radii of 40 to 100 m.

Table 5.8 Stopping-Sight Distance and Horizontal Offset Requirements for Inside
of Right-Hand Turning Roadways
Offset from Right
Edge of Turning
Radius of Turning Stopping Sight Roadway to Physical
Roadway (m) Vehicle Speed (kph) Distance (m)a Obstruction (m)b
20 20 20 0

40 30 35 2.1
60 30 35 0.8
100 40 50 1.3
aFrom Part 3, Roadway Design Elements, Table 2.1
bFrom Part 3, Roadway Design Elements, Figure 2.1

Beyond the start of the merge nose, or from the end of the curve radius where no
merge nose is provided, the sight distance shall be in accordance with the design speed
of the road being entered.

5.6 Channelizing Islands

5.6.1 Principles
Channelizing islands that control and direct traffic movements into the proper paths for
their intended use and are an important part of intersection design. Islands may be
ghosted or curbed, a common form of which are divisional islands that serve as a guide
around which turning vehicles operate.

Channelizing islands shall be placed so that the proper course of travel is obvious, easy
to follow, and of unquestionable continuity.

Intersections with multiple turning lanes may need three or more islands to channelize
the various movements. There are practical limitations to the use of multiple islands
for channelizing traffic. Too many islands may cause confusion and result in wrong-way
movements into opposing traffic lanes. Islands inhibit drainage flows and increase
maintenance costs. Fewer large islands are generally preferable to a greater number of
smaller islands.

PAGE 68 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.6.2 Function of Islands

An island is a defined area between traffic lanes used to control vehicle movement,
provide pedestrian refuge, or locate traffic control devices. Islands accomplish one or
more of the following purposes:

• Separate conflicts
• Control the angle of conflict
• Reduce the size of open pavement areas
• Regulate traffic and indicate proper use of an intersection
• Facilitate or favor a predominant turning movement
• Assist and protect pedestrians
• Protect and separate or store turning and crossing vehicles
• Locate traffic control devices and other fixed elements, such as lighting
• Warn drivers on minor roads that an intersection is ahead

Islands serve to accomplish those purposes through three primary functions:

• Channelize: to control and direct traffic movement, usually turning

• Divide: to divide opposing or same-direction traffic streams
• Deflect: to direct traffic streams

Islands generally are elongated or triangular and are situated in areas not intended for
use by vehicles. Islands shall be located and designed to offer little obstruction to
vehicles, be relatively inexpensive to build and maintain, and occupy a minimum of
roadway space. However, they shall be commanding enough that motorists will not
drive over them. The dimensions and details depend on the particular intersection
design and shall conform to the general principles described in the following section.

5.6.3 Raised versus Flush Island Types

Islands may be delineated by a raised curb or by pavement area marked by paint or
thermoplastic markings. The advantage of raised-curb islands are that they provide a
clear, positive form of channelization, and they provide the opportunity to serve
intersection needs that should be physically separated from vehicle traffic. They are
typically more readily seen at night or in poor light conditions than flush or painted
islands. Disadvantages are that the raised island itself becomes an object that, if struck
at high speeds, can create loss of control of the vehicle. Raised islands also increase the
maintenance cost of the intersection. They may require drainage structures, and the
curbs may collect sand that must be routinely cleaned.

Flush or painted islands delineate paths for drivers. They can be driven over without
creating problems for driver control. They do not interrupt drainage flows. For painted
islands to remain effective, they must be re-painted regularly and cleaned to ensure
they are not obscured by sand and grit.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 69
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.6.3.1 Applications of Raised-Curb Islands

The primary use of raised-curb islands is to clearly channelize traffic through an
intersection and provide refuge for pedestrians and space to locate traffic control
devices, such as traffic signals, in locations that meet the design criteria for their
placement as per the QTCM. Raised islands shall have a minimum area of 4.5 square
meters.

Raised-curb islands generally shall not be used in rural areas where speeds are high,
given their crash risk potential if struck. In other locations, raised-curb islands shall be
accompanied by intersection lighting, and the curb face should be painted or otherwise
delineated. Where used, raised-curb islands shall be offset from the right edge of
roadway as discussed in Clause 5.6.4.

5.6.3.2 Applications of Flush, Painted Islands

Painted islands can be used in high-speed intersections to delineate vehicle paths. They
also are effective at intersections with very high traffic volumes where spaced is limited,
precluding the ability to construct a raised island of sufficient size. For intersections in
which pedestrians are expected, painted islands shall not be considered usable as
pedestrian refuge.

5.6.4 Design of Islands

Important design dimensions for islands include the approach and departure noses or
ends and the offset from the edges of traveled way. The actual design of the island
should comfortably accommodate and reinforce the swept path of the design vehicle
selected for the intersection. Where paved shoulders are continued adjacent to an
island, the curb shall be located to the outside edge of the paved shoulder.

5.6.4.1 Curb Offsets

Raised curbed islands shall be offset from the traveled way or lanes at a distance related
to the design speed of the adjacent roadway. Table 5.9 lists the minimum clearance
between the traveled way or lane and the front face of the island curb. Designers shall
place islands based on the swept path requirements of the selected design vehicle, with
offsets from the path consistent with those in Table 5.9 to the curbed island.

Table 5.9 Offset from Traffic Lanes to Island Curbs

Design Speed (kph) Offset (m)
Rural
≥100 1.0
<100 0.50
Urban
≥100 0.5
<100 0.35

Note: On urban local roads and service roads where heavy vehicles are not expected, the clearance may
be reduced to zero.

PAGE 70 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.6.4.2 Channelizing Island at Priority T-Intersections

At heavily trafficked intersections, it may be necessary to physically separate
left-turning traffic from the major road from queued traffic waiting to turn left from the
minor road. Figure 5.14 shows the preferred channelizing island layout for
T-intersections or staggered intersections, where the minor road median is inclined to
the major road at an angle of between 70 and 110 degrees. Figure 5.14 shall be used in
conjunction with Table 5.10 and Table 5.11.

Figure 5.14 Channelizing Island Design for T-Intersection

Table 5.10 Channelizing Island Offset

Minor Road Inclination, θ˚ Offset d (m)
70 1.5
80 2.0
90 2.5
100 2.0
110 1.5

VOLUME 1 PAGE 71
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Table 5.11 Design of Radius R1

Major Road Layout at Intersection Radius R1 (m)
Two-lane road 12
Two-lane road with ghost left-turn lane from 14
mainline
Two-lane road with physical island left-turn lane 22
from mainline

• “Edge of major roadway” means the edge of major road traveled way.
• The circular arc, R1 is tangential to the offset d, from the minor road median and
the outside edge of the through traffic lane on the major road into which
left-turning traffic from the minor road will turn.
• By striking a circular arc of radius (R1 + 2) m from the same center point as arc R1 to
intersect the edge of the major road, point A is established where a straight line
drawn from the center point of arc R to this intersection crosses R.
• The circular arc R2 is tangential to the outside edge of the major road outside
diverging lane and passes through point A.
• Radius R2 is normally the same value as R1 but shall be designed with the island
nose positioned 2 to 4 m from the edge of the main road and the width of the island
lying between 2 to 5 m.

The design is intended to separate left-turning traffic from the major road from queued
traffic waiting to turn left from the minor road.

Left-turn Control Radii (R1 and R2) and Throat Width

Control radii for left turns are based on accommodating the swept path of the design
vehicle. The width of the throat (completion of the left turn into the minor road) is a
critical dimension. Left-turning drivers should feel comfortable completing the turn at
a reasonable speed and thus clearing the opposing through traffic in the minimum time.
A width of at least 5 m will accommodate most larger-turning vehicles, but this
dimension should be established through design analysis using the swept path of the
design vehicle.

5.6.4.3 Channelizing Islands at Skewed Intersections

Channelizing islands are particularly necessary at skew intersections to separate
movements and channelize flows. Islands are used to enable vehicles to enter the
intersection at appropriate right angles, facilitating visibility for drivers. Figure 5.15
shows typical layouts for skewed intersections.

PAGE 72 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

The design of a minor road approach channelizing island for skew intersections is similar
to that for regular T-intersections, with the following exceptions:

• The centerline of the minor road is turned with a radius of at least 50 m to meet
the edge of the major road at right angles.
• For right-hand skew intersections, the island shall be about 15 m long. The left-
hand side of its tail (viewed from the minor-road approach) shall touch the curved
minor road median and be rounded off at a radius of 0.75 to 1.00 m.
• The offset d for right-hand skew intersections is 4.5 m.
• For left-hand skew intersections, the circular arc R touches the curved minor road
median and is tangential to the offset edge of the through traffic lane on the major
road into which left-turning traffic from the minor road will turn.
• The island shall be approximately 15 m long. The tail is offset about 1 m to the left
of the curved minor road median (viewed from the minor road approach) and
rounded off with a radius of 0.75 to 1.00 m.

The design of the major road right-turn and channelizing island shall meet the
requirements of Table 5.9, Table 5.10, and Figure 5.15.

Figure 5.15 Priority Intersection with Skewed Minor Road

VOLUME 1 PAGE 73
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.6.4.4 Divisional Islands for Left Turns

Figure 5.12 illustrates a major road channelized left-turn with divisional islands. The
desirable width of the divisional island (f) at the crossing point shall be 10.0 m, including
median shoulders. This width will shelter most heavy trucks turning left from the minor
road, except for very long vehicles. In exceptional circumstances, where routine use by
very long vehicles is expected and a roundabout is not feasible, a width of as much as
14.0 m may be needed to shelter the largest articulated vehicles (16.5 m), or a width of
16.5 m may be needed if a drawbar trailer combination (20.0 m) is the design vehicle.

The minimum width of a physical divisional island (g), usually at the end of the direct
taper, shall be 3.5 m. The divisional island shall be introduced symmetrically about the
major road centerline by using hatched road markings with a taper.

The opening in the median for intersections at the crossing point (h) shall be based on
providing for the turning paths of left turns from the major road and from the minor
road. For most typical cases (typical design vehicles, 90-degree crossing angles), this
width will be approximately 10 to 15 m. This opening may need to be increased with
oversize design vehicles or where the intersection is on a skew.

Divisional Island Tapers

Channelized left-turn lanes, whether introduced as ghost islands, Figure 5.16, or
physical islands, Figure 5.17, shall normally be developed symmetrically about the
centerline of the major road to their maximum width at the tapers shown in Table 5.12.
The maximum island width should continue through the junction to the tangent point
of the minor road radius and the edge of the major.

Figure 5.16 Divisional Ghost Island Development

PAGE 74 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.17 Divisional Physical Island Development

Table 5.12 Tapers for Divisional Islands

Taper for Ghost Island and Taper for Multi-Lane
Design Speed (kph) Channelized Left Turns (1:T) Roadways (1:T)
50 1:20 1:40
60 1:20 1:40
70 1:20 1:40
80 1:25 1:45
100 1:30 1:50
120 Not applicable 1:55
Note: Taper for multi-lane roads is not for use at intersections but for the transition from a two-lane road
to a multi-lane road.

Guidelines for Application of Divisional Islands

Where channelized left-turn lanes are defined with physical islands, the divisional island
should be introduced by means of hatched markings until there is sufficient width to
accommodate the appropriate sign on the nose of the physical island with the required
running clearances to it.

Where intersections are located on sharp curves, islands may be introduced

asymmetrically to suit the circumstances. It is also acceptable to introduce islands
asymmetrically in other circumstances such as to avoid particular site constraints. In
such cases, tapers shall be installed at the same rates as Table 5.12 thus increasing the
overall length of the taper.

5.6.4.5 Major Road Right-Turn Islands at Turning Roadways

Right-turn islands may be used to channelize traffic flows and separate conflict points
within an intersection. They have the additional benefit of reserving space for signage
and aiding pedestrian movement by providing a refuge at busy intersections. A typical
layout is illustrated in Figure 5.18.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 75
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

The corner radii and roadway widths for turning roadways given in Table 5.2 shall be
used to construct the right-turn lane. The raised island at right-turning roadways shall
be set back from the traveled way as required in Table 5.9.

Figure 5.18 Typical Layout of Right-Turning Island with Turning Roadway

5.6.4.6 Minor Road Right-Turn Island for Direct Entry with No Auxiliary Lane
In instances where right-turn lanes do not lead into auxiliary lanes, corner islands shall
be designed so that vehicles approach the mainline at an appropriate angle (not less
than 70 degrees), thus enabling drivers entering the mainline to look up and
downstream along the mainline without relying on mirrors for mainline visibility.
Figure 5.19 provides details for setting out corner islands where turning roadways are
not provided.

Where corner islands are provided in areas of pedestrian demand, the designer shall
size the island to provide an acceptable LOS for pedestrians.

PAGE 76 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.19 Typical Layout of Right-Turning Island without Turning Roadway

5.6.4.7 Refuge Islands for Pedestrians and Cyclists

A refuge island for pedestrians or a bike path at or near a crossing aids and protects
pedestrians and cyclists who cross the roadway. Raised-curb channelizing or divisional
islands can be used as refuge areas. Refuge islands can be used for pedestrians and
cyclists crossing a wide street, and are used primarily in urban areas. The location and
width of crossings and the provision of wheelchair ramps influence the size and location
of refuge islands

An island that serves as a refuge for pedestrians shall be at least 2 m wide, preferably
2.5 m wide, to accommodate wheelchairs, prams, and strollers. The minimum width
for a pedestrian refuge island is 1.5 m, but it is noted that this offers little protection
for pedestrians. The island shall be a raised-curb island. The width may be increased,
depending on anticipated pedestrian flows and associated requirements. Where the
facility is required to accommodate dismounted cyclists, the minimum width shall be
increased to 2 m. The island may have openings in the center at roadway level to make
the crossing easier for pedestrians, as shown on Figure 5.20. Dropped curbs for
accessibility shall be installed opposite the refuge openings and where openings are not
provided. Pedestrians and cyclists shall have a clear path through the island,
unobstructed by poles, signposts, utility boxes, or other items. Care shall be taken that
street furniture does not obstruct drivers’ views of pedestrians.

Refuge islands shall be appropriately sized to provide sufficient space for the
comfortable waiting of pedestrians.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 77
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.20 Typical Urban Divisional Island with Pedestrian Refuge

5.6.4.8 Corner Islands

Corner islands channelize traffic flows and separate conflict points within an
intersection. They have the additional benefit of reserving space for signage and aiding
pedestrian movement by providing a refuge at busy intersections.

Where corner islands are provided in areas of high pedestrian demand, the designer
shall size the island to provide an acceptable LOS for pedestrians.

Corner Islands with Turning Roadways

The corner radii and roadway widths for turning roadways given in table 5.2 shall be
used to construct the right-turn lane. The raised island at the right-turning roadway
shall be set back from the travelled way.

Important design dimensions for islands include the approach and departure noses or
ends and the offset from the edges of the travelled way. The actual design of the island
should comfortably accommodate and reinforce the swept path of the design vehicle
selected for the intersection. Where paved shoulders are continued adjacent to an
island, the curb shall be located to the outside edge of the paved shoulder.

Figure 5.21 provides the typical layout for triangular corner islands used in
channelization. The minimum offset dimensions shall be based on the design speed of
the major and minor roads, as referred to Part 3, Roadway Design Elements.

PAGE 78 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.21 Typical Layout of Corner Island with Turning Roadway

Corner Island for Direct Entry with No Auxiliary Lane

In instances where right-turn lanes do not lead into auxiliary lanes, corner islands shall
be designed so that vehicles approach the mainline at an appropriate angle (not less
than 70 degrees), thus enabling drivers entering the mainline to look up and
downstream along the mainline without relying on mirrors for mainline visibility.
Figure 5.22 provides details for the layout of corner islands where turning roadways are
not provided.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 79
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.22 Typical Layout of Corner Island without Turning Roadway

5.7 U-Turns
The provision of U-turn facilities are appropriate for a limited number of situations on
divided roadways and when combined with other forms of intersection in urban
situations.

Generally, rural U-turns shall be provided in advance of or beyond intersections as

follows:

• Beyond an intersection to enable drivers to return to an important intersection if

they miss a turn
• Beyond an intersection to accommodate left-turn traffic movements not otherwise
catered for at the intersection
• In advance of an intersection where through and other turning movements would
be hampered by the U-turn movement
• To facilitate maintenance operations and emergency services

Rural U-turns shall be positioned at least 400 m beyond or in advance of any

intersection. This dimension may be reduced to 130 or 200 m in low-speed urban
situations.

PAGE 80 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Where a U-turn facility is to be provided, consideration should be given to providing a

reciprocal U-turn. This enhances safety by reducing the likelihood of any illegal turning
movements that may have resulted from the provision of a single U-turn facility, and it
presents a consistent layout to drivers.

One of the key requirements for a satisfactory U-turn design is that the width of the
roadway, including any shoulder or turning bay, be sufficient to permit the turn to be
made without encroachment beyond the outer edges of the road pavement. The
minimum turning widths for a U-turn are shown in Table 5.15. In addition, space for the
left-turn lane, edge strips and physical islands between the waiting vehicle and through
traffic shall be provided.

5.7.1 Safety at U-Turns

Safety is a major concern at all intersections, particularly on high-volume, high-speed
roads. U-turn facilities shall not be placed on high-volume or high-speed roads.

Designs that enable vehicles to be in a protected position while waiting to turn are
safest. Designs that make the turning vehicle cross and leave the opposing roadway
before returning to the right lane with a standard merge movement along an auxiliary
lane are also safer.

The area of median near the U-turn shall be kept uncluttered and free from
obstructions that are over 1.0 m high and wider than 500 millimeters, with the
exception of signs. The visibility requirements are given in Table 5.13.

Table 5.13 Visibility Distances at U-Turns

Design Speed on Major Road S1 S2
(kph) (m) (m)
50 50 5.0
60 75 7.5
80 125 10.0
100 175 10.0

This measure will allow drivers exiting from the U-turn to see vehicles approaching from
their right, and for them to be seen by drivers on the major road.

U-turns shall not be located where the major road gradient is greater than 4 percent.

U-turns contribute to congestion by drawing slow-moving turning traffic into the

offside lane. U-turn movements by heavy or of slow moving vehicles also add to the
crash hazard. However, U-turns can occasionally provide the best economically
available design.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 81
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.7.2 U-Turn Elements

5.7.2.1 General
The following are the main elements in the production of an acceptable U-turn facility:

• Median width
• Length of the median opening
• Use of acceleration/deceleration lanes and direct tapers
• Nature of the turning traffic
• Design speed of the main road

Figure 5.23 details the standard U-turn layout and arrangements for rural locations.

5.7.2.2 Direct Taper Length (d)

The direct taper length is the length over which the width of a left turning lane is
developed. Left-turn lanes shall be introduced by means of a direct taper whose length
is part of the deceleration length and depends on the design speed. This taper length is
given in Table 5.14.

Table 5.14 Direct Taper Length for U-Turns (d)

Design Speed Direct Taper Length - d
(kph) (m)
50 5
60 5
70 15
80 15
100 25

5.7.2.3 Width of Physical Islands in the Median

The width of physical median at the turning point shall be in accordance with
Table 5.15. The total median width will also include the left-turn lane, roadway edge
strips and physical separation between waiting vehicles and through traffic. The
minimum width of physical island separating the storage lane from the through lanes
shall be 1.2 m or that necessary to incorporate signage.

At intersections where U-turns are allowed, Table 5.15 recommends median widths of
5m to 16m or wider for passenger vehicle and single truck traffic, respectively, to turn
from the inner lane on one road to the outer lane of a two-lane opposing roadway.

U-turns are not recommended from the through lanes.

PAGE 82 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Table 5.15 Minimum Turning Widths Needed for U-Turns (M)

M – Minimum Width of Median for Design Vehicle
P SU BUS WB-12 WB-15
Length of Design Vehicle
Type of Maneuver 5.7 m 9.0 m 12.0 m 15.0 m 16.5 m
Inner lane to 9m 19 m 19 m 18 m 21 m
inner lane

Inner lane to 5m 15 m 15 m 15 m 18 m
outer lane

Inner lane to 2m 12 m 12 m 12 m 15 m
shoulder

Inner lane to jug 2m 10 m 10 m 10 m 12 m

handle

Source: AASHTO, 2011

5.7.2.4 Left-turn Lane

The length of the left-turn lane depends on the major road design speed and the
gradient. It consists of a median opening length, a storage or queuing length, and a
deceleration length. The deceleration length shall be provided in accordance with
Table 5.16.

Table 5.16 Deceleration Length for U-Turns (c)

Design Speed Rural - c Urban - c
(kph) (m) (m)
50 40 40
60 – 50
70 – 65
80 80 80
100 150 150

5.7.2.5 Median Opening (a)

The opening in the median at the crossing point shall typically be 11.0 m wide, as shown
on Figure 5.23. However, this shall be adjusted to suit long vehicles or those with
abnormal loads.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 83
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.23 Unsignalized Median U-Turn

5.7.2.6 Storage or Queuing Length (b)

The storage or queuing length shall be determined. The queuing length shall be
separated from through traffic by a physical island on each side. The queuing lane width
shall be a minimum of 5.0 m.

5.7.2.7 Merging Auxiliary Lane Length (e)

The merging auxiliary lane length shall be constructed in accordance with Clause 5.3.2.
The merge length commences a minimum distance of 45 m from the inside radius of
the median opening. The distance of 45 m is required for the design vehicle to be
parallel to the major road following the U-turn movement.

The shoulder width on the exit of the U-turn shall enable the design vehicle to make
the U-turn without using excessive steering lock while maintaining a 1 m edge strip
from the outside wheel to the edge of surfacing. The shoulder should be marked or
studded to guide vehicles to the merging length.

5.7.2.8 Road Lighting

It is particularly important that U-turns are clearly visible to through traffic. In all cases,
street lighting shall be provided. Refer to Part 18, Street Lighting.

5.7.2.9 Traffic Signs and Road Markings

U-turns shall be clearly signed in accordance with the latest edition of the QTCM.
Providing additional signing for the traffic on the through route to indicate that vehicles
may be crossing the road ahead should be considered.

5.7.2.10 Drainage and Crossfall

To allow for surface water drainage and promote driver comfort, the road crossfall on
the major road shall be continued through the U-turn. Checks shall be made for flat
areas at all changes in gradient, superelevation, or crossfall. Surface runoff shall not be

PAGE 84 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

allowed to collect in streams and flow from the U-turn across the major through road,
or to collect on or cross the U-turn lane. Surface water runoff should not present a
hazard to maneuvering and braking vehicles. In addition, the rural situation requires
the engineer to carefully consider the maintenance requirements of any drainage
system they adopt; refer to Part 10, Drainage.

5.8 Service Roads

Service roads shall be provided in the urban situation where through traffic on an arterial
or higher classification road will be significantly affected by traffic maneuvers from
developments adjacent to the through road. The function of the service road is as follows:

• Collect connecting minor roads and concentrate the entrances and exits to a
limited number of locations along the adjoining road, thereby allowing major road
traffic to flow more freely
• Provide road users with a safer environment adjacent to developments by
separating them from higher speed through traffic

Service roads are typically parallel to major roads. However, their vertical alignment is
often governed by a lower design speed and can be used to match threshold levels in
existing development situations.

Service roads should preferably be connected to major roads by using the major/minor
intersection criteria listed in this part. However, limited reservation space usually
requires the intersection to connect at a skew to the major road. This creates the
following undesirable situations that the designer should recognize when preparing
service road designs:

• Angled diverge off the main roadway encourages high-speed entry into the service
road and is a potential danger to other service road users
• Angled merge onto the main roadway requires the drivers to make use of their
mirrors to affect a safe merge with major road through traffic

These situations can be mitigated by the following:

• Eliminating parking and providing uncluttered visibility in the area of merges and
diverges
• Introducing a chicane-type maneuver at the entrance to a service road to slow
traffic entering the service road
• Increasing the intersecting angle to 70 degrees where vehicles entering and
vehicles using the service road meet
• Avoiding long, straight service roads
• Provide auxiliary lanes with satisfactory diverge/merge lengths
• Siting diverges and merges away from other intersections or traffic generation
points on the major road and service road

VOLUME 1 PAGE 85
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.8.1 Service Road Diverge and Merge

Figure 5.24 and Figure 5.25 show a diverge with taper and direct approach yield or stop
condition for a service road along an urban road with a design speed of 80 kph or lower.
The length of diverge taper shall be in accordance with Table 5.3.

Where design speeds are 100kph or greater and space permits, the preferred diverge
and merge arrangement for a service road is by auxiliary lanes as shown in Figure 5.22.

The spacing of diverge nose to merge nose is fixed by the design constraints of the
facility. Where space is limited, the major road shoulders are widened to accommodate
the auxiliary deceleration or acceleration lane.

Figure 5.24 Service Road Diverge with Taper

Figure 5.25 Service Road Diverge/Merge with Auxiliary Lane

PAGE 86 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

The length of diverge and merge auxiliary lanes shall be in accordance with Table 5.3
and Table 5.4.

The minimum weaving length between merges and diverges is given in Table 5.17 and
shown on Figure 5.26.

Table 5.17 Minimum Merge/Diverge Weaving Length

Design Speed Minimum Merge/Diverge Weaving Length - L
(kph) (m)
50 208
60 250
70 292
80 333
100 417
120 500

Figure 5.26 Weaving Length

The minimum weaving length in meters between successive merge/merge or

diverge/diverge measured between the tips of the noses shall be as follows:

Weaving Length (min) = 3.75V

V = design speed of main road (kph)

The distance given by the formula may be increased due to the minimum requirements
for effective signing.

Service roads would generally be one-way, in the same direction as the major road, the
major road always being a divided roadway. However, where space permits, a service
road may be two-way with normal T-intersection entries and exits onto the major road.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 87
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.8.2 Service Road Direct Connection

Figure 5.27 shows a plan for the case in which a parallel service road connects to the
mainline without provision of an auxiliary lane because a downstream constraint
precludes the use of the merging auxiliary lane.

Figure 5.27 Turning Roadways at Termination of Service Road

To achieve the required minimum angle of incidence, the service road “sweeps” away
from the mainline using curves with minimum radii of 15 m. Traffic-calming measures
may be incorporated upstream of the curves to reduce speeds.

The roadway width through the curve should accommodate the path requirements for
the design vehicle.

A straight section that is at least 5 m long should be provided on the inside channel
immediately in advance of the yield line to allow vehicles to align before turning. The
corner radius shall be in accordance with Clause 5.1.1.

5.8.3 Local Grade Separation

To allow for required traffic movements, T-intersections with median separation shall
be incorporated with other nearby facilities for turning traffic. One method of achieving
this is to provide local grade separations, the principle of which is shown on Figure 5.28.
Two right-in, right-out connections are used with a grade separation. Link roads shall
be designed in accordance with Part 3, Roadway Design Elements. Other solutions are
discussed in Part 9, Interchanges and Freeway or Motorway Corridors.

PAGE 88 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 5.28 Local Grade Separation

VOLUME 1 PAGE 89
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

5.9 Pavement Markings

Pavement markings are critical at intersections in providing clear guidance for road
users. Advice on pavement markings at intersections is provided in the latest edition of
the QTCM.

5.10 Traffic Control Devices

Traffic control devices may be provided at intersections with high vehicle use to
improve operations and reduce the potential for right-angle crashes. The provision of
traffic signal-control devices has an impact on the components and geometric layouts
of intersections. Signal-controlled intersections generally will have greater need for
channelization.

Advice on the design of signal-controlled intersections is provided in Part 8, Design for

Signal Controlled Intersections, and the latest edition of the QTCM.

5.11 Intersection Lighting

Lighting can affect the safety of highway and street intersections, as well as the
efficiency of traffic operations. Both visibility and depth perception are impaired at
night. For the benefit of unfamiliar users, lighting at rural intersections is desirable to
aid the driver in reading sign messages during nighttime or low-visibility periods.

The HSM (AASHTO, 2010) indicates that the presence of intersection lighting may have
the following effects on crashes:

• Reduce all nighttime injury crashes by 38 percent

• Reduce pedestrian nighttime crashes by 42 percent

Intersections with channelization, particularly multiple road geometrics, shall include

lighting. Light poles shall be placed with sufficient offsets from the edge of traveled
ways such that even oversized vehicles (greater than the design vehicle) will not strike
the poles.

Large channelized intersections especially need illumination because of the higher

range of turning radii that are not within the lateral range of vehicle headlight beams.
Intersection lighting requirements are further addressed in Part 18, Street Lighting.

PAGE 90 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

6 Other Design Elements

6.1 Driveways and Major Private Entrances
6.1.1 Location and Classification
Driveways and entrances are, in effect, intersections and shall be designed consistent
with their intended use.

Direct access from freeways, expressways, and arterial roads is prohibited in both
urban and rural situations. Ideally, driveways and private entrances shall be accessed
from local roads and urban service roads. On limited occasions, they may be accessed
from collector roads and boulevards.

Driveways and entrances shall be positioned at locations providing good visibility to and
from the intersection, in line with the principles outlined for priority intersections.
Driveways and entrances located on collector roads and boulevards shall not be
positioned within the mainline stopping sight distance of an adjacent intersection. On
local roads and service roads, the minimum spacing between adjacent accesses shall
be 25 m.

Vehicles shall not be required to stop on the main through road to access a private
development. Gateways, barriers, and security points shall be set sufficiently back from
the through road so that adequate storage is provided.

6.1.2 Visibility at Driveways and Private Entrances

Visibility triangles from driveways and private entrances shall be in line with the
corresponding requirements for priority intersections outlined in this part. The
Y distances measured along the mainline shall be determined by mainline design speed.
In the case of driveways and private entrances, the minimum X distance may be further
reduced to 2.5 m. Obstructions to visibility, including property boundaries shall not be
permitted within the visibility triangle. It is also undesirable to allocate designated
parking areas within the visibility triangle of a driveway or private entrance.

6.2 Priority Intersections in Residential Areas

6.2.1 Typical Configurations
Careful consideration must be given to intersections in urban areas and particularly in
residential areas, where there is the likelihood of pedestrians crossing the road and
where there may be on-street parking.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 91
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

The most commonly used intersection to access developments and the most
appropriate is the T-intersection.

As shown on Figure 6.1, the major traffic flow is on the through route, typically a minor
collector or local access road, with individual residential access roads joining. To reduce
the degree of access to the through route, it is desirable to consolidate intersections by
linking them to a secondary access road before entering the through route, as shown
on Figure 6.2. This can reduce the number of intersections on the through route,
thereby improving capacity and safety. It can also have the benefit of reducing speeds
on residential roads by introducing additional low-speed corners between the through
route and residential areas.

The preferred form of vehicular crossing movement in local access roads is a staggered
T-intersection. The use of simple crossroads is discouraged.

Roundabouts may also be used at intersections in residential areas. Roundabouts are

most applicable where the volume of traffic on the minor road approach is similar to
that on the major road and where the overall volume of traffic is such that vehicles on
the minor road may experience severe delays if a priority intersection is used. Compact
roundabouts or mini-roundabouts may also be appropriate in residential areas. Refer
to Part 7, Design for Roundabouts.

Figure 6.1 Multiple Access Local Roads Joining a Major Road

PAGE 92 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 6.2 Access Roads Consolidated Prior to Access to the Major Road

6.2.2 Older Residential Areas

Common issues relating to older residential areas in Qatar include the following:

• Narrow road reservations creating limited sight lines, especially at intersections

• Limited space to meet parking demands
• Street system of ill-defined throughways, crossroads, and rat-runs
• Limited space for pedestrians and nonmotorized users

Enhancements to control traffic movement and to improve environmental conditions

may be considered at existing priority intersections. Improvements shall be carefully
planned to meet the requirements of the area. Traffic shall be restricted from areas
where it is undesirable, rat-runs shall be closed, parking regulated, and surface water
effectively collected. The following are typical actions:

• Closure or partial closure of one or more legs of a crossroads

• Introduction of parking at appropriate locations
• Closure of some minor access roads leading into residential developments from
major and minor arterials
• Identification of schools, shops, mosques, and similar areas that may require
specific consideration for parking
• Addition of appropriate traffic-calming features

VOLUME 1 PAGE 93
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

6.2.3 Corner Plots at Priority Intersections

When developing roads in urban situations, adjacent developments shall be completed
in a manner that respects and maintains the road design standards. The primary
concern in development planning is providing sufficient sight lines at urban
intersections.

To enable adjacent developments to be planned that provide for road visibility

requirements, planners shall determine the appropriate right-of-way “chamfer” at
corner plots. Right-of-way lines often are not set to allow for full sight lines in
accordance with standards, unless a special design reservation is included, as shown on
Figure 6.3. A chamfer is the triangle formed by a distance from the plot corner to a
point along the right-of-way line adjacent to the roadway.

It may often be the case that development planning precedes the road design. The
guidance herein enables both road planners and site developers to determine
appropriate right-of-way chamfer distances for corner plots, in advance of the road
design criteria being determined.

Chamfer distances are determined based on the right-of-way widths provided on the
approaching roads. The development of chamfers is shown on Figure 6.3.

Figure 6.3 Development of Chamfer at Corner Plot

PAGE 94 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

The minimum chamfer lengths at corners are as indicated in Table 6.1. The chamfer
length is determined by the right-of-way width of the adjacent road. Therefore,
referring to Figure 6.3, dimension D1 is determined by the right-of-way width of
Street A, and D2 is determined by the right-of-way width of Street B.

Table 6.1 Chamfer Length at Corner Plot

Right-of-Way Width (m) Adjacent Chamfer Length, D (m)

<24 8

24–32 12

>32 16

The dimensions listed Table 6.1 are appropriate where the angle of intersecting roads
is between 70 and 110 degrees. If intersection angles are outside this range, further
guidance shall be sought from the relevant planning authority. The dimensions in Table
6.1 apply to residential roads only. In commercial and industrial areas, further guidance
shall be sought from the relevant planning authority.

6.3 Pedestrian and Bike Facilities

The needs of nonmotorized users should be considered as part of the overall design of
an intersection. The appropriate level of provision for pedestrians and cyclists will
depend on the nature of the intersection and the relative levels of use. For example, an
urban intersection in a commercial area with high pedestrian use will require greater
provision than a rural intersection where pedestrian numbers are negligible.

6.3.1 Pedestrian Facilities

The requirements of pedestrians shall be carefully considered in the design and choice
of major or minor priority intersections. It is preferable to provide separate pedestrian
routes away from the intersection, where road widths are less and traffic movements
more predictable, but this is rarely practical. In those cases, the following facilities shall
be considered:

• A minor-road central refuge at an unmarked crossing place

• Zebra crossing, with or without a central refuge, as shown in the QTCM
• Displaced controlled pedestrian crossing
• Subway or footbridge

The type of facility selected will depend upon the volumes and movements expected
of both pedestrians and traffic. The selected facility shall be designed in accordance
with current recommendations and requirements of Part 19, Pedestrian, Bicycle and
Public Transportation. The use of similar types of pedestrian facilities at the same
intersection is recommended, to avoid confusion to pedestrians and drivers.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 95
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Controlled at-grade pedestrian crossing points on the minor road shall be at least 15 m
back from the yield line and shall be sited to reduce to a minimum the width to be
crossed by pedestrians provided they are not involved in excessive detours from their
desired paths. Central refuges shall be used wherever possible on urban roads but not
in the major road in a rural situation.

6.3.2 Wheelchair Ramps and Mobility Impaired Users

When designing a project involving curbs and adjacent pedestrian paths to
accommodate pedestrian traffic, proper attention shall be given to the needs of
persons whose mobility depends on wheelchairs and other devices. Key considerations
for wheelchair users include the following:

• Drop curbs at crossing points

• Limited gradients for ease of use
• Adequate width to provide access
• Textured surfacing for the visibly impaired

6.3.3 Bike Facilities

When bike paths enter an intersection, the intersection design may need to be
modified. Special sight-distance considerations, or special traffic signal designs, such as
conveniently located pushbuttons at pedestrian-actuated signals or even separate
signal indications for cyclists, are potential measures.

Stopping-sight distance shall be provided for drivers approaching the intersection from
the minor road, with clear sight lines to cyclists for turning motorists from the major
roads into the minor road.

Bike paths shall be aligned to intersect roads at approximately 90 degrees. Dropped

curbs shall be provided on both sides of the road to facilitate bike crossings.

At locations where bike or shared-paths cross a minor, local intersecting street, the
design of the local street shall perform the following:

• Provide appropriate signage and delineation to alert motorists of the existence of

the crossing and the priority that applies
• Encourage safe and correct use by cyclists
• Not impede the safety of motorists turning in from the major road

Unsignalized crossings of local streets shall require cyclists to yield to road traffic.
Where traffic volumes exceed 3,000 vpd, a typical refuge shall be provided. For straight-
across crossing of a minor road, as shown on Figure 6.4, the crossing point shall be
positioned to provide refuge for at least one car length between the crossing point and
mainline roadway.

PAGE 96 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

Figure 6.4 Bike Crossings at Minor Roads

Additional advice on the treatment of bikes at intersections is provided in Part 19,

Pedestrian, Bike and Public Transportation.

6.4 Landscape
A landscape plan for a priority intersection shall delineate the corner sight distance
requirements that are determined by the designer. Landscaping using trees or
vegetation that can block sight lines when fully grown should be avoided within the
limits of the sight lines. Decorative walls, art, or other features should also be placed
outside the limits of the corner sight lines. Details on landscaping are given in Part 22,
Landscape and Planting Design.

6.5 Rail Consideration

6.5.1 General
In general, crossing rail lines shall be by grade separation and at-grade crossings shall
be avoided wherever possible. At-grade crossings represent some of the highest level
of risk to rail and road through misuse by users or equipment failures. In particular:

• At-grade crossings of the railway lines for the metro with any kind of road shall not
be allowed
• At-grade crossings of any railway lines with any kind of road with a design speed of
100kph or greater shall not be allowed
• At-grade crossing of any railway line with any road with controlled access shall not
be allowed.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 97
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

For all works, the Rail-Protection-Zone (RPZ) and Safety Zones are to be obtained from
the Qatar Rail Authority and applied within the design. All relevant railway standards,
regulations and guidelines shall also be complied with.

6.5.2 Grade Separation

Roads designed to cross existing rail lines shall be grade-separated. In most cases, the
roadway will cross over the railroad. The minimum vertical clearance, measured from
the top of the rail to the underside of the nearest part of a structure, for roadway
structure over a rail line depends on the designation of the rail line:

• For heavy rail, the minimum vertical clearance shall be 7.7 m.

• On all other lines, the minimum vertical clearance shall be 7.0 m.
Rail crossings of expressways, freeways, and multi-lane major and minor arterials shall
be grade-separated. New roadways involving rail crossings for which there are two or
more sets of tracks shall be grade-separated. Specific light-rail tram systems that
operate on streets within specific developments shall be designed to meet the
requirements below and those of the Qatar Rail Authority.

For roads with at-grade crossings being reconstructed, a design study shall be
performed to determine the right-of-way, access, and construction cost needs
associated with converting the crossing to a grade separation. The Overseeing
Organization will determine whether the road reconstruction project shall include a
grade-separated roadway.

The Overseeing Organization may request a design study for roads with at-grade
crossings undergoing a 3R project, but it is not required.

6.5.3 At-grade Crossings

New at-grade railway crossings shall be constructed only with the approval of the
Overseeing Organization, which will establish requirements for a study necessary for
such approval and will be solely responsible for authorizing new at-grade rail crossings.
The design of any at-grade crossing shall be reviewed and approved by the Qatar Rail
Authority.

The design of railway or highway at-grade crossings shall be made concurrently with
the determination of type of warning devices to be used.

Traffic control devices for railway or highway at-grade crossings consist primarily of
signs, road markings, and active warning devices, including flashing-light signals and
automatic gates. In determining the need for active warning devices at an at-grade
crossing, designers shall consider the following:

• Rail system and functional classification of the highway

• Volume of traffic
• Volume of railway traffic

PAGE 98 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

• Maximum speed of trains

• Design speed of the road
• Presence of pedestrians and bikes
• Crash history of the at-grade crossing
• Road geometry of the crossing, including sight distance

Where provided, at-grade crossings shall take one of two basic forms:

• Form A: Crossings operated by line of sight, following general regulations for road
traffic
• Form B: Crossings operated under signal protection

Crossings following Form A generally will be limited to very infrequent rail traffic, such
as serving a spur to an industrial land use, with low train speeds and road posted speeds
of 40 kph or less, with appropriate reduction of the maximum speed on the approach
to the crossing. Form A crossings may be sufficient for local roads and collectors with
lower traffic volumes. Crossings operated by line of sight (Form A) shall have the
appropriate warning signs, road markings, and traffic signals.

Crossings with systems according to Form B are appropriate for roadways with posted
speeds higher than 40 kph and for arterials in both rural and urban areas. Form A
crossings shall be protected by barriers where the crossing is located on the open line
of the rail-bound system and either by barriers or flashing lights where the crossing is
within a facility, such as a freight yard or port.

The potential for complete elimination of at-grade crossings shall be given prime
consideration. When a road with an at-grade crossing is programmed as a
reconstruction project, the scope of work shall include a study of converting the
crossing to a full grade separation.

At-grade crossings of railway lines for light rail systems with any kind of road shall have
the following characteristics:

• Road and light rail transit traffic operated by line of sight and regulated by traffic
lights.
• Sightlines shall be free of obstacles.
• Light Rail Transit shall have priority over street traffic.
• No barriers are required.

At-grade pedestrian crossings of any railway line for metro shall not be allowed

At-grade pedestrian crossings of the railway lines for heavy rail shall only be allowed in
dedicated areas such as freight yards, depots, intermodal yards, ports etc.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 99
VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

6.5.4 Horizontal Alignment

At at-grade crossings the road alignment shall intersect the tracks at as close to a 90-
degree angle as practical. There shall be complete access control, i.e., no public
intersections or private driveways, within a 50 m minimum, and preferably 100 m or
more, from the centerline of the rail line. Crossings shall be located on tangent
alignment for both the roadway and rail line to the extent practical.

For roads parallel to the railway, where such roads intersect another road with an at-
grade rail crossing, there shall be sufficient distance between the tracks and the
highway intersections to enable highway traffic in all directions to move freely.
Provision for queuing between the rail line and intersection is a key design parameter.
Where physically restricted areas make it impossible to obtain adequate queuing
distance between the main track and a highway intersection, the designer shall
consider:

• Interconnection of the highway traffic signals with the grade-crossing signals to

enable vehicles to clear the grade crossing when a train approaches
• Placement of a “Do Not Stop On Track” sign on the roadway approach to the grade
crossing

6.5.5 Vertical Alignment

At at-grade crossings the intersection of highway and railway shall be made as level as
practical. Vertical curves shall be of sufficient length to provide an adequate view of the
crossing.

To prevent drivers of low-clearance vehicles from becoming caught on the tracks, the
crossing surface shall be at the same plane as the top of the rails for a distance of 0.6 m
outside the rails. The surface of the highway shall not be more than 75 millimeters
higher or lower than the top of nearest rail at a point 9 m from the rail unless track
superelevation makes a different level appropriate. Vertical curves shall be used to
traverse from the highway grade to a level plane at the elevation of the rails.
Superelevated rails or a roadway approach section that is not level will necessitate a
site-specific analysis for rail clearances.

PAGE 100 VOLUME 1

 VOLUME 1 PART 6
DESIGN FOR PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS

References

AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual (HSM). 1st edition. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. Washington DC, United States. 2010.

Federal Highway Administration. Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC, United States. 2007.

Ministry of Municipality and Urban Planning. Qatar Traffic Control Manual. Doha, Qatar. 2014.

Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, 5th edition. Washington DC, United
States. 2010.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 101