Coursework: Junction Design
ENG4183: Transport Engineering 4
1. Key Information:
• Worth 40% of overall grade
• [Optional peer review]
Submission for peer review by Tuesday 15 November (12:00)
Submission of reviews by Friday 18 November (18:00)
*To create respectful environments of our class, please make sure to provide your peer
reviews if you submitted your work to get feedbacks from your peers.
• Deadline: Friday 25 November (18:00).
If you have any questions on this coursework let me know.
2. Introduction
This coursework will help you learn and demonstrate your understanding of Topic 3 of Transport
Engineering 4. Although it might seem simple enough at first to redesign a junction, there are lots of
small details that you will need to fit together.
3. What you will do
3.1 Choose a junction
There are many possible junctions to choose from, if you live near a junction that you would like to
redesign then please check with me that it is suitable for this coursework. Otherwise here are
suitable junctions to choose from in Glasgow.
Junction 1, junction 2, junction 3, junction 4, junction 5, junction 6 (must be CYCLOPS), junction 7,
junction 8, junction 9, junction 10.
3.2 Learn about that junction
Use Streetview, maps etc to do a “desk visit” of the junction. If you can, do the colour code analysis
like in week 5 workshop. You can use Google Earth Tools to measure the dimensions of the junction
and the various components within it (footway width, carriageway width).
Visit the junction, see if your colour codes are correct from your observations. Make observations
about behaviour of those walking, wheeling, and cycling in the junction. Is there any interesting
driving behaviour to note down?
What movements are currently allowed or not allowed for which modes?
What is the signal sequence (you learn about this in week 6)?
Do a Critical Movement Analysis for the Junction.
3.3 Decide on Dutch or CYCLOPS layout.
Decide which layout you want to focus on for this project. There is no requirement to go for one or
the other except from junction 6 where you must do a CYCLOPS. Currently, we don’t know whether
CYCLOPS or Dutch junction suit different junctions better, so just go with your gut feeling over which
option you want to focus on.
3.4 Design a layout for the junction
You will use your learning from week 5 to create a new layout design. You will make sure that you
still adhere to general guidance.
• Footways and cycleways should be 2.0m minimum (but it is possible to go down to 1.5m for
a short stretch).
• A driving lane with a bus route should be no less than 3.2m wide.
• A driving lane on a distributer road without a bus route should be no less than 3.0m wide.
• Ensure reasonable curvature so cycles and motor vehicles can turn effectively (use the
examples as guidance we don’t go into specific junction curvature in this course but stick to
the principles of “does it look right?”).
3.5 Design the method of control for the junction
Work out the light sequences and the timing of those lights.
• Pedestrian light sequence is controlled by how far the longest pedestrian crossing is.
• Consider methods of control options which truly prioritise active travel
• Calculate any “lost time” for your control options
• Use critical movement analysis to estimate vehicle capacity of your different control options
• State advantages and disadvantages of options
3.6 Critical Movement Analysis
Perform critical movement analysis of your junctions. Discuss if the v/c ratio has changed, is it still
acceptable in your new junction design?

4. Report
For this submission you will produce a report made up of a written section and a figures section.
Your written section will be no more than 3 A4 pages, you are allowed up to 20 pages of subsequent
figures, these figures can have explanatory text annotation.
4.3 Grading
Your work will be graded along the following lines
Descriptor Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Weak Poor
Grade A1-A5 B1-B3 C1-C3 D1-D3 E1-E3 F and Lower

Presentation
(weight 2)
Very well
structured text.
Text and figures
are well aligned,
so text references
figures clearly and
in turn. Just by
flicking through
the figures it is
possible to get a
solid
understanding
design and
process including
key judgements.
Text with clear
structure and
clear writing. Text
references figures
correctly and in
order. Figures on
their own
describe most of
of the process and
judgements
without need of
reading the text.
Clear layout and
text with figures
referenced
correctly. Figures
on their own give
a good overview
of the process but
reading the text is
necessary for a
fuller
understanding of
the process.
Clear layout but
links between text
and figures is not
obvious. That is,
missing figure
references from
text, text and
figures do not
appear to follow
the same order.
Text essential for
understanding the
work alongside
figures.
Not much
structure to
the text, so
reader can
not find
sections of
interest
easily. Figures
are not often
properly
reference and
order is not
clear.
Lack of structure
in text and
figures. Figures do
not convey any
sense of project
design or
judgement.
Writing (1)

Text is clear and
professional.
Almost all of text
has a reading age
of 16 or less1 on.
https://www.tom
forth.co.uk/simpl
ewords/
Text is clear and
professional Most
of text has a
reading age of
around 16 on
https://www.tom
forth.co.uk/simpl
ewords/
Text is mostly
clear and
professional but
gets a reading age
score of 18+ on
https://www.tom
forth.co.uk/simpl
ewords/
Text is unclear in
places but is
understandable.
Most of text has a
reading age score
of 18+.
Text is
challenging to
understand
and/or has a
higher
reading age
score.
Text requires
several read
throughs to
understand
and/or has a
higher reading
age score.


1 It might seem strange at first to want a low reading age score like 16. A lot of engineering texts are
impenetrable to anyone outside the discipline. That is why it is better to write simpler clearer sentences. You
should always try and avoid technical jargon in reports even if it sounds clever.
Figures
(weight 3)
Figures are clear
and professionally
produced to an
excellent
standard. They
explain the key
design details and
judgements
visually with only
supported
annotations
needed.
Rougher sketches
etc can be used to
demonstrate
project
development
where
appropriate.
Figures are clear
and it is easy to
extract
information from
them. Key figures
are produced to a
high standard.
Key design details
are visually
explained with
support
annotations
Rougher sketches
etc can be used to
demonstrate
project
development
where
appropriate.
Figures are clear
but some effort is
need to read the
annotations to
understand what
the figure is trying
to explain Key
design details are
shown in the
figures but the
text is necessary
to understand the
details fully. .
Rougher Sketches
etc can be used to
demonstrate
project
development
where
appropriate.
Good quality
figures, but
lacking in clarity in
some places.
Figures can be
understood with
effort and with
reading
accompanying
annotation.
Rougher Sketches
etc can be used to
demonstrate
project
development
where
appropriate.
Figures are
scrappy
although the
information
they convey
can be
understood
with
significant
reading of
text. .
Figures are very
rough with little
effort to polish
them to report
standard.
Technical
content (4)
Report and
figures display a
workable junction
layout and
method of control
which clearly
balances the
needs of active
travel with
vehicular
movements.
Presentation
shows significant
attention to a
wide range of
detail. Judgement
and options
presented show a
deep
understanding of
the topic.
Report and
figures display a
workable junction
layout and
method of control
which clearly
balances the
needs of active
travel with
vehicular
movements.
Presentation
shows an
appreciation of
important details
of the junction
and a good
understanding of
the topic.
Report and
figures display a
workable junction
layout and
method of control
which significantly
improves the
junction for active
travel.
Presentation
shows an
awareness of
detail but does
not demonstrate
a holistic view of
the design.
Report and
figures display a
workable junction
layout and
method of
control, but with
some subtle flaw
for active travel.
Presentation
shows that the
student
understands the
theory of the
topic but not able
to demonstrate
any deeper
understanding
than the basic
class material.
Report and
figures
display a
junction that
might be
workable but
has some
clear flaw for
active travel
which the
student has
not identified
in the report
as an area of
concern and
future work.
Student does
not
demonstrate
an
understandin
g of the
detailed
components.
Report and
figures contain a
junction design
and method of
control which are
not realistically
workable due to
an number of
flaws. Junction
does not clearly
improve comfort
for active travel
users.

5. Tips
• I’ve given lots of scope for figures (20 pages worth). I would only expect some of these to be
“professional standard” for a high mark. Other figures can be lower quality if they
demonstrate your thought and design process to reach the final professional design.
• This is a principles based rather than rules based class. Therefore you could annotate your
junction to say “stop line moved back to create space for large vehicle turning” without
demonstrating a swept path analysis (beyond the scope of this class). As long as the stop
long was clearly moved back to such a degree that it could allow large vehicle movement.
• You can use images of equivalent junctions to help explain concepts, such as the stop line
being moved back above.
• It would be great if you can visit the junction in person for traffic counting, and make sure
you understand which movements are currently allowed/not allowed at the junction. Then
you can decide if you want to allow any more movements or ban certain movements.
Banning right turn vehicles is quite normal at junctions when you want a high straight-on
throughput.