Search Content

A novel infrastructure design known as the J-turn intersection reduces the risk of serious and fatal crashes at thru-STOP intersections through decreasing points of conflict at an intersection by restricting crossing movements from the minor road. Despite their demonstrated safety efficacy, J-turns have not been met with uniformly positive support. In this research, we first examine novice driver baseline attitudes and driving behaviors on J-turns using a driving simulator study. Results demonstrate that critical errors are decreased with driving exposure to the J-turn; however, attitudes toward J-turns are not improved by exposure alone. A series of studies then evaluates the efficacy of various messaging strategies and educational materials on improving attitudes toward J-turns. The findings from these studies identify that the use of both educational materials and persuasive and customized messaging strategies is an effective method for increasing acceptance of J-turns across diverse resident populations (i.e., rural, suburban, and urban) and among stakeholders in Minnesota. This work demonstrates the importance of the role of proactive educational programs and community initiatives in promoting the acceptance and buy-in toward novel roadway treatments, such as J-turns, among diverse drivers, communities, and stakeholder groups.

Pedestrian deaths are at a 30-year high nationally, accounting for 16% of total deaths in 2018 and far exceeding the previous decade of 12%, a trend mirrored in Minnesota. Previous research found an increase in local and citywide yielding at unsignalized crosswalks following an engineering and high-visibility enforcement program in Saint Paul, Minnesota. This study examined a modified engineering-focused (i.e., without enforcement) program expanded to both unsignalized and signalized intersections across the Twin Cities. The six-month study found modest improvements in yielding from baseline to treatment end (48.1% to 65.5% in Saint Paul and 19.8% to 38.8% in Minneapolis) at unsignalized engineering treatment sites but no improvements at generalization sites. No significant improvements in left- or right-turning yielding by drivers in Saint Paul were found at treated signalized intersections, but given that yielding was significantly worse at generalization sites over time, there may be some evidence that treatments mitigated performance declines among Saint Paul drivers during the study period. Yielding improvements at signalized treatment sites were more pronounced for only right-turning drivers in Minneapolis, but generalization sites showed no improvement or even worsened over time. Overall, study results suggested no shift in driving culture in either city, as found with the previous study using police enforcement, but found some evidence of local, site-specific changes in driver yielding behavior at treatment locations.