COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RURAL STOP-CONTROLLED AND BEACON-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
operations - traffic, infrastructure - stop, planning - safety/accidents, place - rural
Traffic volume, Traffic violations, Traffic speed, Traffic delay, Traffic accidents, Stop signs, Sight distance, Rural areas, Night, Measures of effectiveness, Junctions (Traffic), Intersections, Highway accidents, Gap acceptance, Daylight, Cross roads, Beacons
The characteristics of traffic flow at rural, low-volume intersections controlled by stop signs and by intersection control beacons plus stop signs were examined. The measures of effectiveness included vehicular speeds, stop-sign violations, service delay, gap acceptance, and accidents. In addition, the effects of sight distance, traffic volume, and day and night conditions were also considered. It was found that intersection control beacons generally reduced vehicular speeds in the major directions, particularly at intersections with inadequate sight distance. The intersection control beacons had, in general, little or no effect on accepted or rejected gaps and on service delays. A large proportion of drivers (40 to 90%) violated stop-sign laws by not completely stopping at the intersections, which indicates that intersection control beacons were not effective in reducing stop-sign violations. Intersection control beacons did not appear to be effective in reducing accidents.
Pant, P, Park, Y, Neti, S, Hossain, A. (1999). COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RURAL STOP-CONTROLLED AND BEACON-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1692, p. 164-172.