INTERSECTION DESIGN
7.4 LOCATION AND SPACING OF INTERCHANGES
The location of interchanges is based primarily on service to adjacent land. On rural freeways bypassing small communities, the provision of a single interchange may be adequate, with larg-er communities requiring more. The precise location of interchanges would depend on the particular needs of the community but, as a gen-eral guide, would be on roads recognised as
Rural interchanges are typically spaced at dis-tances of eight kilometres apart or more. This distance is measured from centreline to centre-line of crossing roads.
The generous spacing applied to rural inter-changes would not be able to serve intensively developed urban areas adequately. As an illus-tration of context sensitive design, trip lengths are shorter and speeds lower on urban free-ways than on rural freefree-ways. As drivers are accustomed to taking a variety of alternative actions in rapid succession a spacing of closer than eight kilometres can be considered.
At spacings appropriate to the urban environ-ment, reference to a centreline-to-centreline dis-tance is too coarse to be practical. The point at issue is that weaving takes place between inter-changes and the available distance is a function of the layout of successive interchanges. For a common centreline-to-centreline spacing, the Figure 7.3: Type C weaves: (a) major weave without lane balance
(b) two-sided weave
interchanges is significantly different from that between a Par-Clo-A followed by a Par-Clo-B.
Weaving distance is defined in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 and other sources as the distance between the point at which the separa-tion between the ramp and the adjacent lane is
0,5 metres to the point at the following off-ramp at which the distance between ramp and lane is 3,7 m as illustrated in Figure 7.4.
If this definition is adopted, the weaving length becomes a function of the rates of taper applied to the on- and off-ramps. Reference to the Yellow Line Break Point (YLBP) distance is total-ly unambiguous and is the preferred option.
Three criteria for the spacing of interchanges can be considered. In the first instance, the dis-tance required for adequate signage should ide-ally dictate spacing of successive interchanges.
If it is not possible to achieve these distances, consideration can be given to a relaxation
conditions on the freeway. The third criterion is that of turbulence, which is applied to the merge-diverge situation.
(1) The distance required by the SADC Road Traffic Signs Manual to provide adequate
sign posting which, in turn, influences the safe operation of the freeway, is used to define the minimum distance between ramps. The mini-mum distances to be used for detailed design purposes, as measured between Yellow Line Break Points, for different areas and inter-change types should be not less than the values stated in Table 7.1.
(2) In exceptional cases, where it is not
possible to meet the above requirements, relax-ation of these may be considered. It is, howev-er, necessary to ensure that densities in the freeway left hand lane are not so high that the flow of traffic breaks down. Densities associat-Figure 7.4: Weaving distance
ally impossible, for drivers to be able to change lanes. Formulae according to which densities can be estimated are provided in the Highway Capacity Manual (2000). Drivers need time to locate a gap and then to position themselves correctly in relation to the gap while simultane-ously adjusting their speed to that required for the lane change. The actual process of chang-ing lanes also requires time.
(3) In the case of the merge-diverge manoeuvre, turbulence caused on the left lane of the freeway by a close succession of entering and exiting vehicles becomes an issue.
According to Roess and Ulerio this turbulence manifests itself over a distance of roughly 450 metres upstream of an off-ramp and down-stream of an on-ramp. A spacing of 900 metres would suggest that the entire length of freeway between interchanges would be subject to tur-bulent flow. The likelihood of breakdown in the traffic flow would thus be high and the designer should ensure that space is available for one area of turbulence to subside before onset of the next.
(4) In off-peak periods, vehicles would be moving between interchanges at the design speed or higher. The geometry of the on- and off-ramps should be such that they can accom-modate manoeuvres at these speeds.
Increasing the taper rates or reducing the length of the speed change lanes purely to achieve some or other hypothetically acceptable Yellow Line Break Point distance does not constitute good design.
(5) The spacing between successive inter-changes will have an impact on traffic opera-tions on the crossing roads and vice versa. If the crossing road can deliver vehicles to the
merge, stacking of vehicles will occur on the on-ramp with the queue possibly backing up on to the crossing road itself. Stacking can also occur on an off-ramp if the crossing road ramp termi-nal cannot accommodate the rate of flow arriv-ing from the freeway. The queue could conceiv-ably back up onto the freeway, which would cre-ate an extremely hazardous situation.
It should be realised that relaxations below the distances recommended under (1) above will result in an increase in the driver workload.
Failure to accommodate acceptable levels of driver workload in relation to reaction times can be expected to result in higher than average crash rates. Twomey et al demonstrate that, at spacings between noses of greater than 2 500 metres, the crash rate is fairly constant, i.e. the presence of the following interchange is not a factor in the crash rate. At spacings of less than 2500 m between noses, the crash rate increas-es until, at about 500 m between nosincreas-es, the crash rate is nearly double that of the 2500 m spacing. This is illustrated in Figure 7.2 below
The question that must be addressed is the ben-efit that the community can expect to derive in exchange for the cost of the higher accident rate. By virtue of the fact that freeway speeds tend to be high, there is a high probability that many of the accidents would be fatal. It is there-fore suggested that the decision to reduce the interchange spacing below those listed in Table 7.1 should not be taken lightly.
It would be necessary to undertake a full-scale engineering analysis of the situation that would include:
•
ten to twenty year time horizon, com-prising weaving and through volumes in the design year;
•
calculation of traffic densities;assessment of the local geometry in terms of sight distances, and horizontal and vertical alignment;
•
development of a sign sequence; and•
a form of benefit/cost analysis relating community benefits to the decrease in traffic safety.Density offers some indication of the level of exposure to risk and, for want of any better measure, it is suggested that a density higher than 22 vehicles/kilometre/lane, corresponding to LOS D, would not result in acceptable design.
It would be necessary to pay attention to reme-dial actions to prevent interchange constraints, such as inadequate ramp capacity, signalling or crossroad volumes, causing back up onto the freeway
In summary: Spacings of interchanges in terms of their YLBP distances should desirably be in
are not achievable and an interchange is absolutely vital for service to the community and adjacent land uses, relaxations may be consid-ered but then, to minimise the risk of crashes, the density calculated according to the above-mentioned formulae should not exceed 22 vehi-cles/kilometre/lane, which corresponds to LOS D.