Collecting and Analyzing Stakeholder Feedback for Signing at Complex Interchanges

Lichty, Monica G.; Bacon, L. Paige; Richard, Christian M. · 2014 · ROSA P / United States. Federal Highway Administration

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This report, published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2014, addresses the need to align future research on complex interchanges with the practical needs of roadway engineers and transportation stakeholders. While prior research had established that complex interchanges pose significant human factors challenges for drivers—such as difficulties with sign interpretation and lane selection—those studies were limited to the driver’s perspective. This project aimed to identify design constraints and prioritize research topics by gathering feedback from the end-users of design guidance: state transportation professionals. The goal was to ensure that subsequent research yields findings that are practically implementable and address the specific information gaps faced by practitioners. The study employed a two-phase methodology involving qualitative interviews and a prioritization survey. First, phone interviews were conducted with 28 individuals representing 17 state transportation departments. Participants were selected to ensure geographic dispersion and a variety of professional backgrounds, including engineers, designers, and safety specialists. During these hour-long sessions, stakeholders discussed their experiences with complex interchanges, identified specific human factors challenges, and described their design processes and constraints. Researchers used visual aids and web conferencing to illustrate interchange examples. Second, a follow-up web survey was distributed to a broader group, resulting in 66 responses from 32 regions. This survey asked participants to rate the priority of 12 research topics identified during the interviews, allowing for the aggregation of stakeholder preferences. Data analysis involved aggregating interview themes and calculating average priority ratings per region to prevent bias from over-represented areas. The findings revealed that stakeholders define complex interchanges by features such as multiple routes converging or diverging within short distances, which increase driver workload. Common challenges cited included information overload on signs, confusing destination groupings, and geometric configurations that create skewed visual perspectives or misaligned arrows. Stakeholders noted that they often rely on existing design references like the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) but face difficulties when dealing with unique configurations not covered by current guidelines. The survey results identified high-priority research needs, particularly in the areas of signing (e.g., arrow-per-lane design, destination grouping) and roadway geometry. Stakeholders expressed a strong need for design guidance that addresses these human factors issues to reduce driver errors and improve navigation safety. The significance of this report lies in its role in calibrating future FHWA research with the actual needs of transportation practitioners. By identifying specific design constraints and prioritizing research topics, the study ensures that upcoming investigations into complex interchange design will produce actionable guidance. The report concludes that there is no single prototype for a "complex interchange," and thus, research must address a wide range of geometric and signing elements. The prioritized list of research topics provides a roadmap for developing design standards that mitigate the human factors problems drivers encounter, ultimately enhancing safety and efficiency at these critical roadway locations.

Key finding

Stakeholders identified specific human factors challenges at complex interchanges, including issues with perceptual grouping and information overload, and prioritized research needs to address these design constraints.

Methodology

mixed_methods

Sample size: 94

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• signage environment
• rail grade crossings