An intersection concept we were introduced to in Utrecht was called a priority square. It’s a four-legged intersection that functions a bit like a hybrid between a restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) and a roundabout, but with less yielding built into it. Below is the Google aerial of the one we looked at in Utrecht (note that the google maps link has old aerial imagery. Use Google Earth and the historical imagery to get the very latest).
Looking at it, the mainline traffic generally maintains priority, but left-turning vehicles have to yield to oncoming traffic, so those movements are not free-flow. From the side streets, drivers can’t just go straight through or turn left in one movement. Instead, they have to enter the median, wait for a gap in oncoming traffic, and then complete the maneuver in a second stage. That makes it operate a lot like an RCUT, but with some roundabout-like behavior in how movements are broken up and how yielding works.
We sat and watched this one for a while, and it functioned fairly well. There were some heavy vehicles moving through, and the design accounted for that with turning aprons for overtracking.
I saw another one on the south side of Utrecht that didn’t operate quite as well. I was biking along the cyclist lanes and stopped to watch it for a bit. From a motor vehicle standpoint, it performed poorly. Gaps for cars were limited, and the median storage area filled up to the point where queues backed into the through lanes, causing congestion.
That said, it worked very well for pedestrians and cyclists. They had clear priority, and their movements were safe and continuous. And all motor vehicles yielded and didn’t try to “shoot the gaps” or push any of the vulnerable road users out of the way!
The main difference comes down to perspective. In the United States, we’d look at that operation and call it a failure based on delay and congestion. In the Netherlands, that same condition is more or less acceptable, because the design is prioritizing safety and comfort for cyclists and pedestrians over vehicle throughput.
Part of why that’s accepted is that delay for motor vehicles is not treated as the primary measure of success. The system is intentionally designed to introduce friction for drivers, slow speeds, and reduce conflict points, which improves overall safety. There’s also an assumption that if driving becomes less convenient in these environments, some trips will shift to walking, biking, or transit. So what we in the U.S. would define as a capacity or level-of-service problem, they tend to view as a normal and even desirable outcome of a multimodal, safety-first network.
I can see uses for this intersection configuration in situations that have restricted right of way along the side streets and would not allow the easy application of a standard roundabout. This intersection also prioritizes pedestrians more than a standard roundabout.
It operates similar to a restricted crossing U-turn without the U-turn needs downstream of the intersection. This is both a pro and a con because it reduces the amount of storage available for queuing vehicles.
We’ll see if it can be used on any of my projects in the future.
