The Real Intersection Design (RID) concept was born out of frustration with the usual conference fare. Often, presentations and sessions deal with only the theoretical, and many in the audience never emerge from their rhetorical shells (witness the post-session talk at controversial sessions). While plans and guidelines play an important role in the formulation and development of our transportation system, discussions of the application of that knowledge are often scant.

An example is the case of the free turn lane. Is the convenience for drivers and cyclists worth the inconvenience to walkers, especially those with limited vision? Do the additional crossings help or hinder pedestrian flow? How does one weigh the impacts to land use and access? Yet no intersection is an island, and each design is site specific. In fact, most streets and intersections in the built environment are site specific, and it takes actual design - not abstract rhetoric to make each work.

The RID concept has three objectives: 1. To get participants - often people with vast amounts of knowledge - out into the field where they can give something back to the community.
2. To foster intense interaction between experts and lay people.
3. To test the theory that site conditions often permit just a few alternatives, a priori solutions, and each can usually be made to work for most users. The question is balance and understanding the requirements of each user group.

The Real Intersection Design (RID) concept was born out of frustration with the usual conference fare. Often, presentations and sessions deal with only the theoretical, and many in the audience never emerge from their rhetorical shells (witness the post-session talk at controversial sessions). While plans and guidelines play an important role in the formulation and development of our transportation system, discussions of the application of that knowledge are often scant.

An example is the case of the free turn lane. Is the convenience for drivers and cyclists worth the inconvenience to walkers, especially those with limited vision? Do the additional crossings help or hinder pedestrian flow? How does one weigh the impacts to land use and access? Yet no intersection is an island, and each design is site specific. In fact, most streets and intersections in the built environment are site specific, and it takes actual design - not abstract rhetoric to make each work.

The RID concept has three objectives: 1. To get participants - often people with vast amounts of knowledge - out into the field where they can give something back to the community.
2. To foster intense interaction between experts and lay people.
3. To test the theory that site conditions often permit just a few alternatives, a priori solutions, and each can usually be made to work for most users. The question is balance and understanding the requirements of each user group.

Further Reading:

Real Intersection Design: Leaving Theory Behind for Design