TB042009002ATL

Understanding Flexibility in
the AASHTO Green Book

A Webinar on Geometric Design

1
 TB042009002ATL
Webinar Sponsors

• AASHTO Center for Environmental

Excellence
• U.S. Department of Transportation
―Federal Highway Administration
―Federal Transit Administration

2
 TB042009002ATL
Webinar Advisory Panel
• Jim Brewer • Bart Thrasher
• Charlie Goodman • Mark Van Port Fleet
• David Hutchison • Rod Vaughn
• John La Plante • Chanel Winston
AASHTO Staff
• William Prosser
• Shannon Eggleston
• Joe Ruffer
• Ken Kobetsky
• Brooke Struve • Kate Kurgan
• Mark Taylor • Jim McDonnell
3
 TB042009002ATL
Webinar Presenters

Timothy R. Neuman, P.E. Daveitta Jenkins, P.E.

Chief Highway Engineer Transportation Engineer
CH2M HILL CH2M HILL
4
 TB042009002ATL
Learning Objectives

• Understand what „flexibility in design‟

means, and why it is important
• Review the background on the AASHTO
Green Book
• Reveal how design flexibility is
incorporated in Green Book contents

5
 TB042009002ATL
Overview of Webinar
• Introduction and Objectives
• Background on the AASHTO Policy on
Geometric Design
• The Project Development Process and Flexibility
• Highway Design Controls
10-minute Break
• Discussion of Geometric Elements
• Design Exceptions and Risk Management
• Closing Remarks

6
 TB042009002ATL
Questions, Answers and Discussion

• How to ask questions

• Follow-up discussions

7
 TB042009002ATL
Background on the AASHTO Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,
5th Edition

• Approved by AASHTO Standing

Committee on Highways (SCOH)
• Previous editions
― 1950 (compilation of early policies)
― 1954 and 1965 (Rural Highways)
― 1957 and 1973 (Urban Highways and
Arterial Streets)
― 1984, 1990, 1994, 2001
• Planned next edition -- 2010*
• Commonly referred to as „The
Green Book‟
8
 TB042009002ATL
How are contents developed?
• Subcommittee on Design and Technical
Committee on Geometric Design develop
draft material
• Research is commissioned and
incorporated as appropriate
• Working meetings resolve technical
issues and result in consensus on content
• Approval by 2/3 of state DOTs is required
for acceptance and publication
9
 TB042009002ATL
The ‘Green Book’ is continually
updated to reflect the latest research
• Research proposed by
state DOTs
• Standing Committee on
Research (SCOR)
prioritizes statements
• Competitive, peer
reviewed research
process (NCHRP)
administered by the
Transportation Research
Board

10
 TB042009002ATL
Green Book criteria reflect a range of
considerations

• Costs and cost

effectiveness
• Traffic Operations
• Maintenance
• Constructability
• Safety

11
 TB042009002ATL
The Green Book incorporates human
factors considerations in design
• Pedestrian walking
speeds
• Perception and reaction
time
• Braking, acceleration and
deceleration rates
• Passing maneuvers
• Decision-
making/navigation time
• Visual acuity
• Driver expectations

Exhibit 2-25, AASHTO Green Book

12
 TB042009002ATL
Applications of the Green Book
• Applies to new
construction (projects
on new alignment)
• Applies to
reconstruction

• Does not apply to

resurfacing, restoration
or rehabilitation
projects („3R‟)
13
 TB042009002ATL
The Green Book is a Policy on
Geometric Design – not a standard

• Federal, state and

local agencies
establish “standards”
• Do not refer to the
Green Book as
“AASHTO standards”
• Never refer to the
Green Book as “safety
standards”
14
 TB042009002ATL
What is the flexibility in the Green
Book?
• Many dimensions and values are shown as ranges
• Many criteria are described as „guidelines‟ or „typical‟
• Many concepts are not dimensioned but discussed
only in functional terms
• In many cases, choices are offered for how to
complete a design
• Solutions or concepts not specifically included are not
precluded
• Specific solutions are not mandated
• Designer judgment is implied or explicitly suggested

15
 TB042009002ATL
Individual state or agency policies and
manuals apply
• Federal, state and local
agencies may have their own
design manuals and policies
• All state DOTs refer to the
AASHTO Green Book
• Some states and local agencies
have adopted the Green Book
as their geometric design
standards or design manual
• FHWA adopted the Green Book
as the basis for minimum
standards for the National
Highway System
16
 TB042009002ATL
The Green Book emphasizes that
geometric design recognizes all users
„Emphasis has been placed on
the joint use of transportation
corridors by pedestrians,
cyclists and public transit
vehicles. Designers should
recognize the implications of
this sharing of the
transportation corridors and
are encouraged to consider not
only vehicular movement, but
also movement of people,
distribution of goods, and
provision of essential services.‟
Green Book Foreword, pg xliv

17
 TB042009002ATL
Know how to use the Green Book
„The intent of this policy is to provide guidance to the
designer by referencing a recommended range of
values for critical dimensions. It is not intended to be a
detailed design manual that could supercede the need
for the application of sound principles by the
knowledgeable design professional. Minimum values
are either given or implied by the lower value in a
given range of values. The larger values within the
ranges will normally be used where the social,
economic, and environmental (S.E.E.) impacts are not
critical.‟
Green Book Foreword, pg xliii

18
 TB042009002ATL
Major themes of AASHTO’s ‘Guide for
Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design’
• Establishing „purpose and need‟
(defining the problem) is critical to
success
• Key decisions are made early in
the project development process
• Design criteria are the basis for
design (need to understand their
background, history, use)
• Basic design controls are choices
made by designers

19
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility and Project Development

Decision and Design Screening Preliminary

Problem and
Evaluation Studies and selection
Definition Final Design
Framework (Alternatives) of preferred

20
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility and Project Development

Decision and Design Screening Preliminary

Problem and
Evaluation Studies and selection
Definition Final Design
Framework (Alternatives) of preferred

Defining problems carefully during

project scoping enables flexibility

21
 TB042009002ATL
Basic types of projects
• Resurfacing, Restoration or Rehabilitation („3R‟)
• Complete reconstruction of existing alignment
• Corridor expansion (e.g., major widening)
• New alignments
• Combinations

Applicable criteria for design may vary

depending on project type

22
 TB042009002ATL
Project type should be aligned with
the problem(s) being addressed
Replacement of
infrastructure in disrepair

Congestion or traffic
operational problems

Safety (crash prevention and/or

severity mitigation)
23
 TB042009002ATL
What about the future?
• Although there may be
no problem today,
problems may emerge in
the future
• A design should address
expected changes in
volumes and patterns of
traffic
• Once constructed,
infrastructure can‟t be
easily moved

24
 TB042009002ATL
Problems should be defined in
objective, quantitative terms

• Disrepair – bridge inspection ratings,

pavement performance ratings
• Congestion – Level of service, hours of
delay, travel time, speeds, etc.
• Safety – Crashes per mile per year,
fatalities and serious injuries
Problems should be defined relative to
established performance benchmarks
25
 TB042009002ATL
Safety has two dimensions
• Nominal Safety is
examined in reference
to compliance with
standards, warrants,
guidelines and
sanctioned design
procedures
Is this road ‘safe’?

• Substantive Safety is the expected or actual crash

frequency and severity for a highway or roadway
*Ezra Hauer, ITE Traffic Safety Toolbox Introduction, 1999

26
 TB042009002ATL
Defining the safety problem
• Not every location is a
„high-accident‟ site
• Understand types and
patterns of crashes;
focus on more serious
crash types
• Not all „nominally unsafe‟
roads have substantive
safety problems
• Substantive safety may
not be a problem on any
given project

27
 TB042009002ATL
Foreword to the Green Book
„This publication is not intended
as a policy for resurfacing,
restoration or rehabilitation (3R)
projects. For projects of this
type, where major revisions to
horizontal or vertical curvature
are not necessary or practical,
existing design values may be
retained…..When designing 3R
projects, the designer should
refer to TRB Special Report 214,
Designing Safer Roads: Practices
for Resurfacing, Restoration,
and Rehabilitation and related
publications for guidance.‟
28
 TB042009002ATL
What constitutes a ‘3R’ Project?
• FHWA‟s „3R‟ guidance
― preservation and extension of
the service life of existing
facilities and on safety
enhancements.
― resurfacing, pavement structural
and joint repair, minor lane and
shoulder widening, minor
alterations to vertical grades and
horizontal curves, bridge repair,
and removal or protection of
roadside obstacles.
• Many states and local governments have specific
agreements with FHWA on what constitutes a „3R‟ project
• Many states and local governments have their own more
flexible „3R‟ criteria
29
 TB042009002ATL
The Green Book encourages 3R
designation where it is appropriate
„Specific site investigations and
crash history analysis often
indicate that the existing
design features are performing
in a satisfactory manner. The
cost of full reconstruction for
these facilities, particularly
where major realignment is
not needed, will often not be
justified.‟
Green Book Foreword, pg xliii

30
 TB042009002ATL
Defining the project type is a critical
early decision in project scoping
For new alignment, or significant
change in footprint or alignment,
the Green Book applies

Designers can use even more

flexible ‘3R’ criteria for resurfacing
or simple restoration projects (e.g.,
TRB Special Report 214 or state
DOT ‘3R’ criteria)
31
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility and Project Development

Decision and Design Screening Preliminary

Problem and
Evaluation Studies and Selection
Definition Final Design
Framework (Alternatives) of Preferred

Exercise good judgment in establishing project

design criteria (design speed, design level of
service, design vehicles) to maximize opportunities
for flexibility within the Policy
32
 TB042009002ATL
Design Controls and Designer’s
Discretion

• Designers (working with key stake-

holders) have choices in design controls
that will influence the outcome
―Design Speed
―Design Traffic and Level of Service
―Design Vehicle(s)
―Operational assumptions

33
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility and Project Development

Decision and Design Screening Preliminary

Problem and
Evaluation Studies and Selection
Definition Final Design
Framework (Alternatives) of Preferred

Be creative in solutions, engage stakeholders,

and fully study all feasible design options

34
 TB042009002ATL
Highway design does not occur in a vaccuum
– creative design considers the surroundings

„The design concepts

presented herein were
also developed with
consideration for
environmental quality.
The effects of the various
environmental impacts
can and should be
mitigated by thoughtful
design processes.’
Green Book Foreword, pg xliv

35
 TB042009002ATL
Consider all needs of the roadway users
• Vehicle types
― passenger cars
― trucks (freight)
― buses and transit
• Non-motorized users
― pedestrians
― bicyclists
― disabled
• Adjacent property
owners and users

36
 TB042009002ATL
Consider all needs of the roadway users

• Driver familiarity
• Trip types
― „Local‟
― „Through‟
― „Commercial‟
• Trip lengths
• Pedestrians and
bicyclists

Exhibit 2-27, AASHTO Green Book

37
 TB042009002ATL
Be creative within the boundaries of
the Green Book
• „Asymmetric‟ solutions may sometimes apply
• If the surroundings change the design
„footprint‟ can change
• Don‟t lose sight of the problem you‟re
addressing
• Don‟t limit yourself to solutions shown in the
Green Book – it does not include many recent
innovations but does not preclude their use
• Know what works and why it does
38
 TB042009002ATL
Design creativity – saving a valued
resource
Large, valued oak tree in
MD Rte 355 the path of a planned
arterial widening
― Plan adjusted to ‘save’ the
tree by placing it in the
median
― Split profile to protect roots
― Special irrigation system

Source: NCHRP Report 480 ― Special barrier design to

protect drivers and the tree

39
 TB042009002ATL
Design creativity -- Improving both mobility
and safety by decreasing the number of lanes

• Conversion of 4-lane
‘Road Diets’
undivided street
• Flush median left turn
lane for safety and
accessibility
• Sidewalks
• Utility poles offset
from traveled way
U.S. 6 through Atlantic, Iowa
Photo courtesy of Neal Hawkins and Iowa
Department of Transportation
40
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility and Project Development

Decision and Design Screening Preliminary

Problem and
Evaluation Studies and Selection
Definition Final Design
Framework (Alternatives) of Preferred

Select preferred plan based on established

decision criteria; maintain rigor in application of
geometric design criteria

41
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility and Project Development

Decision and Design Screening Preliminary

Problem and
Evaluation Studies and Selection
Definition Final Design
Framework (Alternatives) of Preferred

Retain critical dimensions per AASHTO Policy as

design details are developed; document any
necessary design exceptions or waivers

42
 TB042009002ATL
Responsibilities of designers (working
with key stakeholders)

• Consider all impacts

and implications
• Apply Green Book
criteria appropriately
• Be objective
• Fully document
actions and decisions

43
 TB042009002ATL
Design Controls
• Functional Classification
• „Givens‟ that influence what is possible or
reasonable (surroundings or „context‟)
― Terrain and topography
― Natural and man-made features
― Environmental features
― Legal and regulatory controls; and agency policies
• Design Speed
• Traffic
44
 TB042009002ATL
Functional Classification
All good highway and
street networks
contain a range of
highway types to
meet the range of
functions and needs

Exhibit 1-4, AASHTO Green Book

45
 TB042009002ATL
Functional Classification – Providing
traffic service and access

• Arterials – High quality of

service for longer trips and
generally higher traffic
volumes (includes freeways)
• Collectors – Balance
between traffic service and
land access
• Local Roads – Primary
function to serve land
access

Exhibit 1-5, AASHTO Green Book

46
 TB042009002ATL
Arterial Streets and Highways
• Constitute 7 – 10% of
rural systems; and 15 –
photo showing
25% of urban systems arterial street;
• Include freeways and median, multiple
lanes, no parking
controlled access
highways
• Carry up to 80% of total
urban volume
• Should be designed for
as high a level of service
as reasonable
47
 TB042009002ATL
Collector Streets and Highways
• Constitute 20 - 25%
of rural systems; and
5 - 10% of urban
systems
• Carry 5 – 10% of
urban volume
• Designed for a wide
range of land use
and access needs

48
 TB042009002ATL
Local Roads and Streets
• Constitute 65 - 75% of
rural systems; and 65 -
80% of urban systems
• Carry less than 30% of
total urban volume
• Designed for land
access primarily;
speeds in keeping with
adjacent land uses

49
 TB042009002ATL
Additional flexibility – Very Low
Volume Local Roads
• Green Book refers to
additional guidelines for
local roads with design
ADT of 400 vpd or less
• Dimensions represent
‘downsized’ values for
basic geometric
elements

50
 TB042009002ATL
Topography and Environment
• Topographic Elements
― Terrain
― Subsurface conditions
• Environmental Elements
― Adjoining land use
― Protected features (through
both regulations and
community wishes)

• Manmade Features
― Historic and otherwise
significant buildings
― Development

51
 TB042009002ATL
Environmental Regulations and Laws
• NEPA • Socioeconomic Resources
• Section 4(f) and 6(f) • Environmental Justice
• Noise • Residential and Business
• Water Quality Displacements
• Wetlands • Considerations relating to
• Water body modification and Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Wildlife • Visual Resources
• Floodplains • Secondary and Cumulative
• Parkland and Recreational Impacts
Areas • Public Rights-of-way
• Historic and Archaeological Accessibility Guidelines
Preservation (PROWAG)
• Hazardous Materials

52
 TB042009002ATL
Geometric design must respect
environmental controls

53
 TB042009002ATL
Local and regional laws and regulations
influence design decisions as well
• Municipal ordinances
• Zoning
• Local or regional comprehensive transportation
and land use plans
• Local governmental policies
• State or local laws and regulations (e.g.,
„municipal consent‟ laws)

54
 TB042009002ATL
Design controls and designer’s
discretion
• Designers (working with key stake-holders)
have choices in establishing the design
controls that will influence the outcome
― Design Speed
― Design Traffic and Level of Service
― Design Vehicle(s)
― Operational Assumptions

55
 TB042009002ATL
Design Speed

• Controls the design of

most geometric
elements
• Should be established
for long segments of a
route
• Represents a choice by
the designer
56
 TB042009002ATL
The definition of design speed reinforces
the concept of designer choice

“Design speed is a selected speed used

to determine the various geometric
design features of the roadway. The
assumed design speed should be a
logical one with respect to the
topography, the adjacent land use, and
the functional classification of highway.”
Green Book pg 67

57
 TB042009002ATL
Full range of design speeds is available
by location and functional classification
Rural Roads Urban Streets and
Highways
• Local 20 to 50 mph • Local 20 to 30 mph
• Collector 20 to 60 mph • Collector 30 to 60 mph
• Arterial 30 to 80 mph • Arterial 30 to 60 mph

Lower design speeds may be appropriate for

mountainous and rolling terrain

58
 TB042009002ATL
Considerations in selection of a
design speed

• Functional Classification
• Terrain and topography
• Current and future land use
• Expected operating speeds
• Agency policies

59
 TB042009002ATL
Design Hour Volume is a choice
• Rural highways – The
DHV …. should
generally be the 30th
highest hour of the
design year.
• Urban highways –
„…there is usually
little difference
between the 30th and
200th highest hourly
volume.‟ Exhibit 2-28, AASHTO Green Book

60
 TB042009002ATL
Participant Poll

What is the minimum required level of

service for design of arterials and
freeways according to the Green Book?
―Level of Service C
―Level of Service D
―Level of Service E
―There is no requirement

61
 TB042009002ATL
Design Level of Service is a choice

Exhibit 2-32. Guidelines for Selection of Design Levels of Service; AASHTO Green Book

„Choice of an appropriate level of service for

design is properly left to the highway designer.‟
Green Book pg 84
62
 TB042009002ATL
Principles for Acceptable Degrees of
Congestion
• The highway should be so designed that, when it is carrying the
design volume, the traffic demand will not exceed the capacity of
the facility even during short intervals of time.
• The design volume per lane should not exceed the rate at which
traffic can dissipate from a standing queue.
• Drivers should be afforded some choice of speed. The latitude in
choice of speed should be related to the length of trip.
• Operating conditions should be such that they provide a degree of
freedom from driver tension that is related to or consistent with
the length and duration of the trip.
• There are practical limitations that preclude the design of an ideal
freeway.
• The attitude of motorists toward adverse operating conditions is
influenced by their awareness of the construction and right-of-way
that might be necessary to provide better service.

63
 TB042009002ATL
Selection of a design vehicle is a choice
• P – parking lot traffic
• SU – intersections of
residential streets and park
roads
• BUS – City street intersections
with relatively few large
trucks
• S-BUS – Rural highways with
low volumes; subdivision
streets
• WB-65 or 67 – Freeway ramp
terminals, major state
highway intersections,
industrial facilities

64
 TB042009002ATL
Any one of 19 AASHTO design vehicles
may govern design
• Passenger Car (P)
• Buses (BUS-40, BUS-45, CITY-
BUS, School buses: S-BUS-36,
S-BUS-40, A-BUS)
• Single Unit Trucks (SU)
• Tractor Semi-trailer (WB-40,
WB-50, WB-62, WB-67)
• Double and Triple Trailers
(WB-67D, WB-100T, WB 109D)
• Recreational Vehicles and
combinations (MH, P/T, P/B,
MH/B)

Exhibit 2-15, AASHTO Green Book

65
 TB042009002ATL
Considerations in selection of a design
vehicle Widths for
pedestrian crossing

• Prevalence of
vehicle types
• Operation of the
turn(s)
• Traffic control and
speeds
• Presence and
prevalence of
pedestrians

66
 TB042009002ATL
Pedestrian crossing distances are a
consideration in design vehicle type and
intersection design

Exhibit 9-34, AASHTO Green Book

67
 TB042009002ATL
Designers (working with stakeholders)
have many choices to make
• Number and type of • Intersection types
lanes • Access control
• Presence, type and
width of medians
• Accommodation of
bicyclists
• Accommodation of
pedestrians
• Accommodation of
transit vehicles
68
 TB042009002ATL
Median design is a choice

• Highways can be
undivided or divided
• Medians can be open,
flush or raised

• 4 – 6 ft -- „restricted‟
• 12 – 30 ft provides left turn
protection
• 50 ft median provides
protection for buses
• Consider traffic control 69
 TB042009002ATL
Provision for on-street parking is a
choice

70
 TB042009002ATL
Transit and HOV or
HOT accommodation
is a choice

photo of bus turnout

71
 TB042009002ATL
Provision for bicycles is a choice
• Design Options
― paved shoulders
― widened lanes within the
traveled way (14 ft min)
― separate lane within roadway
― separate facility (parallel or
independent alignment)

The Green Book refers

designers to the „AASHTO Guide
for Development of Bicycle
Facilities‟
72
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility in the Green Book on bicycle
facilities

„The bicycle has become an important

element for consideration in the highway
design process…..While many highway
agencies allow bicycles on partially access
controlled facilities, most highway
agencies do not allow bicycles on fully
access controlled facilities unless no other
alternative route is available.‟
AASHTO Green Book, pg 100
73
 TB042009002ATL
Intersection types and features are choices

74
 TB042009002ATL
The selection of a roundabout instead of a
conventional at-grade intersection is a choice

Roundabouts first appeared in the AASHTO

Green Book in the 2001 edition
75
 TB042009002ATL
Intersection design requires many
choices by the designer
• Type of traffic control
• Left and Right Turn Lanes
― Presence
― Design details (lengths,
tapers, type of control)
• Curb Return Design (Radius,
turning roadway, 3-centered
curves)
• Channelization (types,
design dimensions)

76
 TB042009002ATL
Designers can choose operating
assumptions based on the situation

77
 TB042009002ATL
Ramp type geometry is a choice
• Green Book allows
for both parallel
entrances and exits
and taper type
entrances and exits
• Taper rates for exits
can range from 2 to
5 degrees
• See Chapter 10
pages 840 - 863

78
 TB042009002ATL
The locating of access
control is a choice
• Described in
functional terms; no
specific dimensions
cited
• Designers determine
distances based on
project data and
criteria (speed,
volume)
Exhibit 10-2, AASHTO Green Book 79
 TB042009002ATL
Summary of flexibility in the Green
Book

• Many basic design controls are choices by

the designer
• Ranges in values are available for such
choices
• Incorporation of basic design elements
and features is a choice by the designer

80
 TB042009002ATL
Break

• 10 minute break
• Email questions from first half of the
webinar

81
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility in geometric design
elements and criteria
• Cross Section Elements
―Lane Widths
―Shoulder Widths
―Clear Zones and Roadsides
• Stopping Sight Distance
• Horizontal Alignment
• Vertical Alignment
• Sidewalks and Bicycle Facilities

82
 TB042009002ATL
Lanes and lane widths

83
 TB042009002ATL
Participant Poll

• What is the minimum allowable lane

width for any facility according to the
Green Book?
― 12 ft
― 11 ft
― 10 ft
― 9 ft
― No minimum

84
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility in lane widths

„Although lane widths of 12 ft are desirable on

both rural and urban facilities, there are
circumstances where lanes less than 12 ft wide
should be used. In urban areas where
pedestrian crossings, right-of-way, or existing
development become stringent controls, the
use of 11-ft lanes is acceptable. Lanes 10-ft
wide are acceptable on low-speed facilities, and
lanes 9 ft wide are appropriate on low-volume
roads in rural and residential areas.‟
85
 TB042009002ATL
Recommended lane widths vary by facility
type and location
• Freeways (Rural and Urban) 12 ft
• 2-lane rural arterials 10 to 12 ft
• Rural collectors 10# to 12 ft
• Low volume rural roads 9 to 11 ft
• Urban arterials 10 to 12 ft
• Urban collectors 10 to 12 ft
• Urban local roads 10* to 12 ft

#9-ft lanes can be used for low volume, low speed reconstructed roads with
acceptable performance

*9-ft lanes can be used in residential areas where the available or attainable width
of right-of-way imposes severe limitations.

86
 TB042009002ATL
2-lane rural highway lane widths based
on recent research
• Widths based on crash
analysis models, traffic
operations and cost-
effectiveness
• Lane and shoulder
combine to provide
effective design
• Lower widths for lower
volume, lower speed
roadways are
appropriate
87
 TB042009002ATL
Safety effects of lane widths – two-
lane rural highways

Source: Prediction of the Expected Safety

Performance of Rural Two-Lane Highways,
FHWA Report RD-99-207, December 2000
88
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility in selection of lane width for
reconstructed rural highways

Exhibit 7-3, AASHTO Green Book 89

 TB042009002ATL
Lane widths on urban arterials
• ‘May vary from 10 to 12 ft’
― 10 ft in highly restricted areas
with little or no truck traffic
― 11 ft widths ‘are used quite
extensively for urban arterial
street designs.’
― 12 ft widths should be used,
where practical, on higher
speed, free-flowing, principal
arterials

A full range of lane

widths is within
AASHTO Policy for
urban arterials
90
 TB042009002ATL
Noted advantages of narrower lane
widths on urban arterials
• Allow more lanes in areas with restricted
right-of-way
• Produce shorter pedestrian crossing times
• More economical to construct
• Contribute to lower speeds

91
 TB042009002ATL
Capacity and operational effects of lane
width

Multilane Highways Signalized Intersections

and Freeways
Saturation flow rate factor
Reduction in freeflow speed (mph)

12 ft 1.00
12 ft 0.0
11 ft 0.97
11 ft 1.9
10 ft 0.93
10 ft 6.6
9 ft 0.90

Exhibit 16-7, Highway Capacity

Exhibit 21-4, Highway Capacity
Manual 2000
Manual 2000

92
 TB042009002ATL
Trade-offs in lane width
Wider Lanes Narrower Lanes
― Greater capacity
― Reduced capacity
― Marginally lower crash
rates on higher speed ― Marginally higher
roads* crash rates on higher
― Accommodate speeds only*
larger/wider vehicles ― Less costly to
― Provide greater construct
comfort ― Edge/shoulder
― Greater initial cost maintenance costs
― Easier to maintain may be greater
*Accompanying shoulder widths and roadside design have greater effect
on crash frequency and severity 93
 TB042009002ATL
Lane widths and the substantive safety
of urban arterials
• Recent research
(NCHRP Project 17-26)
confirms lane width
does not influence crash
frequency
• Median presence and
type, driveways and
intersections affect
urban arterial safety

94
 TB042009002ATL
Shoulders and shoulder width

95
 TB042009002ATL
Understand all potential functions of
shoulders
• Clear zone • Provide pavement support
• Enhance highway • Store snow
Capacity • Facilitate maintenance activities
• Enable horizontal sight • Enable law enforcement
distance
• Store vehicles in
emergency
• Provide mobility for
pedestrians and
bicyclists
• Protect turns off the
roadway 96
 TB042009002ATL
Safety effects of shoulder widths on
two-lane rural highways

Source: Prediction of the Expected Safety

Performance of Rural Two-Lane Highways,
FHWA Report RD-99-207, December 2000
97
 TB042009002ATL
AASHTO Policy guidance on shoulders
in the rural environment

98
 TB042009002ATL
Green Book guidance on shoulders
• Shoulders are a necessary element of rural
highways
• Shoulders can be paved or unpaved
• „Despite the many advantages of shoulders on
(urban) arterial streets, their use is generally
limited due to restricted right-of-way for traffic
lanes.‟ (pg. 473)
• Shoulders are required for freeways
― four-lane freeways full right shoulder
― six lane or more freeways full shoulders left and
right

99
 TB042009002ATL
Horizontal Alignment

e + f = V2/15R
100
 TB042009002ATL
AASHTO horizontal curve design model

e + f = V2/15R AASHTO Design

Assumptions
• Passenger car tracks the
curve as a point mass
where
• Passenger car operates at
V = design speed (mph) constant design speed
R = radius of curve (ft) through curve
• Curve design should avoid
e = superelevation loss of control due to
f = design side friction skidding (i.e., during
cornering)
• Applies to all functional
classes and volume ranges

101
 TB042009002ATL
AASHTO design model background and
assumptions for side friction factor ‘f’

• Based on research
from 1930s and
1940s, updated in
2000 (Bonneson,
NCHRP Report 439)
• Assumes operation on
dry pavement at
design speed
• Conservatively set to
“provide ample margin
of safety against
insert exhibit 3-12 skidding”

Exhibit 3-12, AASHTO Green Book

102
 TB042009002ATL
AASHTO superelevation policy
background and assumptions
• „e‟ is assumed to
counteract „f‟ e + f = V2 / 15R
• Design values for „e‟ are
set by policy, with
maximum values (.06,
.08, .10) associated with
operation under icy
conditions
• Five methods for
distribution of „e‟ are
allowed by AASHTO

103
 TB042009002ATL
Insights on AASHTO curve design
model and safety
• The AASHTO Curve Model is not directly
„substantive safety based‟
― It is not based on crash frequency research
― It is volume independent
• Actual operations differ from simplifying
assumptions
― Most drivers „overshoot‟ curves
― Speed behavior can vary greatly
― Trucks overturn before they skid; and at speeds
lower than passenger car skidding
104
 TB042009002ATL
The functional basis for the AASHTO curve
design model is driver comfort

The AASHTO curve design policy “is

based on observed driver behavior
and derived from tests conducted
about the amount of side friction
that drivers will accept without
slowing down when going around
curves at, what they think are, safe
speeds.” (Hauer)
105
 TB042009002ATL
Operations may differ from Green Book
design policy assumptions

Curves driven faster

than Policy assumption

Curves driven slower

than Policy assumption

Safety and Operational Effects of Highway Design Features on Two-lane

Rural Highways; A two-day NHI course
106
 TB042009002ATL
Curves present particular safety problems to
designers
(Accidents per 1 km segment--3 year timeframe)
8
7
6.7 The risk of a
6 reported crash is
5
about three times
3.93 greater on a curve
4
than on a tangent
3 2.21
2 Source: Glennon, et al,
1985 study for FHWA
1
0
Tangent Segments Curved portion
segments w/curve only (Curve plus
transitions)
107
 TB042009002ATL
Alignment design on urban arterials
reflects practical limitations
• „The alignment of an urban arterial should be
developed in strict accordance with its design
speed, particularly where a principal arterial is
to be constructed on a new location and is not
restricted by normal right-of-way constraints.
There are many situations, however, where this
is not practical.‟
• „Curves on low-speed, curbed arterial streets
are often not superelevated.‟
AASHTO Green Book, pg 471

108
 TB042009002ATL
Urban alignment design guidance
• „Alignment in residential areas should fit closely
the existing topography to minimize the need
for cuts or fills without sacrificing safety.‟ (pg
431 – collectors)
• „The alignment of local streets in residential
areas should be arranged to discourage
through traffic.‟ (pg 391 – urban local streets)
• „Usually, superelevation is not provided on local
streets in residential and commercial areas…‟
(pg 392, urban local streets)

109
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility in curve design per AASHTO
Green Book
• Agencies can choose from a range of maximum
superelevation policies
• Designers can choose any curve with radius greater
than the minimum for the selected design speed (and
their agency’s applicable policy for superelevation)
• Curve lengths can vary (no maximum length)
• Designers can use spiral transitions or unspiraled
transitions; or compound curves
• Five methods of developing superelevation (and side
friction) are available within AASHTO Policy

110
 TB042009002ATL
Stopping Sight Distance

Sight distance is the length of the

roadway that is visible to the driver. The
available sight distance on a roadway
should be sufficiently long to enable a
vehicle traveling at or near the design
speed to stop before reaching a
stationary object in its path.
AASHTO Green Book, pg 110

111
 TB042009002ATL
AASHTO stopping sight distance
design model

d = 1.47 Vt + 1.075 (V2/a)

• Brake reaction time (t) and deceleration

rate (a) based on human factors studies
• Basic operational model applies to all
highway types and all volume ranges

112
 TB042009002ATL
Evolution of stopping sight distance
policy values
• 1940 – Eye height 4.5 ft, Object height 4 in.,
variable brake reaction time, dry pavement and
design speed
• 1954 – Brake reaction time set to 2.5 sec, wet
pavement, speed lower than design speed
assumed
• 1965 – Eye height lowered to 3.75 ft., object
height raised to 6 in.
• 1970 – „desirable‟ speed set as design speed
• 1984 – Eye height lowered to 3.5 ft
• 2001 – Object height raised to 24 in., design
speed assumed as minimum basis for design
113
 TB042009002ATL
Insights on evolution of SSD Policy
Values and assumptions

• Original model based on easily obtained

measurements and assumptions
• Driver behavior studies prompted
changes in model assumptions
• Substantive safety research prompted
changes in object height

114
 TB042009002ATL
Substantive safety and stopping sight
distance

Source: Fambro, et al, Determination of Stopping Sight Distances,

NCHRP Report 400
115
 TB042009002ATL
Stopping sight distance profiles
• The amount of SSD
varies along a crest
vertical curve
• Stopping sight
distance profiles
provide useful
information to
improve a design

116
 TB042009002ATL
Good sight distance design requires a
skilled designer

•Some locations require more

than minimum SSD
•Adjusting an alignment can
improve operations without
increasing cost or impacts

117
 TB042009002ATL
Horizontal stopping sight distance

Exhibit 3-54, AASHTO Green Book

118
 TB042009002ATL
Stopping sight distance and design
flexibility

• Minimum stopping sight distance should

be provided along the entire length of
roadway…..
• Careful selection of grades, vertical
curves and horizontal alignment will
produce minimum stopping sight distance
for the selected design speed

119
 TB042009002ATL
Vertical alignment
Crest vertical
Grades (+ and -) curves
Sag vertical
curves

120
 TB042009002ATL
Overview of AASHTO design criteria for
vertical alignment

• Guidelines for grade based on general

operational principles
― Indirect reference to substantive safety
― Consideration of drainage (minimum grades)
― General consideration of functional classification
― Independent of traffic volume
• Vertical curves based on Stopping Sight
Distance

121
 TB042009002ATL
Maximum grade criteria
„reasonable
guidelines for
maximum grades for
use in design can be
established.‟
― 70 mph Design Speed
• 5 percent
― 30 mph Design Speed
• 7 to 12 percent
• 7 to 8 percent for
„more important‟
highways
Exhibit 3-58, AASHTO Green Book 122
 TB042009002ATL
AASHTO design criteria for vertical curvature

• Crest VC lengths
based on SSD
criteria
• Sag VC lengths
based on
― Headlight
operational model
― Comfort criterion
Source: NCHRP Report 400

123
 TB042009002ATL
Safety effects of vertical alignment

Accident modification factors for grade on

two-lane rural highways
Grade (%)
0 2 4 6 8
1.00 1.03 1.07 1.10 1.14

Source: Prediction of the Expected Safety Performance of Rural Two-Lane

Highways, FHWA Report RD-99-207, December 2000.

124
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility in design for vertical
alignment
• Designers can choose any grades within wide
ranges (0.3% to 12%) based on fundamental
controls
• „The suggested design criterion for determining
the critical length of grade is not intended as a
strict control but as a guideline.‟ (pg.241)
• Design tools to mitigate effects of grade are
suggested by the Policy (e.g., truck climbing
lanes, turnouts, emergency escape ramps)

125
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility in design for vertical
alignment (continued)

• Designers can choose lengths of vertical

curves above minimums (based on sight
distance)
• Shorter sag vertical curvature per
„comfort‟ criterion rather than headlight
beam can be used
• Unique solutions such as asymmetric
vertical curves can be used if needed
126
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility and good design practices

• Coordination of alignment; often „more‟

than the minimum is the right thing to do
• More than the minimum can be achieved
with little additional cost in new
alignment designs
• Coordination and balancing of „3D‟
alignment produces high quality designs
with no increase in cost
127
 TB042009002ATL
Roadside design

• The Green Book and Roadside Design

Guide
• Clear zones

128
 TB042009002ATL
Roadsides on rural highways

The roadside includes shoulders,

foreslopes, ditches and backslopes; the
‘clear zone’ is part of the roadside

129
 TB042009002ATL
Urban roadsides

The ‘border area’ is between the edge of pavement

and right-of-way line. It includes planting strip,
sidewalks, and space for utilities.

130
 TB042009002ATL
Roadside design, clear zones and
AASHTO Policy
• The Green Book references
the AASHTO Roadside
Design Guide (RDG), which
is considered the primary
technical reference
• Refer to the RDG where
conflicts or differences
appear between it and the
Green Book

131
 TB042009002ATL
Definition of clear zone from Roadside Design
Guide (RDG) glossary of terms

„The total roadside border area, starting at the

edge of the traveled way, available for safe use
by errant vehicles. This area may consist of a
shoulder, a recoverable slope, a non-recoverable
slope, and/or a clear run-out area.
The desired width is
dependent upon the
traffic volumes and
speeds and on the
roadside geometry.‟
Roadside Design Guide

132
 TB042009002ATL
RDG technical guidance for design of
the ‘clear zone’
15 ft or more for over
6000 vpd for even lower
speeds

Source: AASHTO Roadside Design

Guide

133
 TB042009002ATL
Clear zone dimensions per the AASHTO
Roadside Design Guide

Source: AASHTO Roadside Design Guide

134
 TB042009002ATL
Participant Poll

• Is this statement true or false?

„According to the AASHTO Green Book and

AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, 30-ft clear
zones are required on all high speed
roadways.‟

135
 TB042009002ATL
AASHTO Policy on clear zones

“The RDG is a guide

(not a standard)…”
“The concepts, designs
and philosophies
presented in the RDG
can not, and should
not, be included in their
totality on every single
project.”
AASHTO Roadside Design Guide
136
 TB042009002ATL
Important questions and distinctions
• What is the available clear zone (i.e., as provided
by an existing condition)?
― What features limit it?
― What is the substantive safety performance related to
run-off-road crashes?
― What safety measures might be taken?
• What should be the selected clear zone for
design?
― What is achievable and practical given the
surroundings?
― What mitigation (barriers, attenuation) is appropriate?
137
 TB042009002ATL
How does the concept of ‘clear zone’ apply to
the full range of conditions designers face?

Rural Context – high speed; right- Urban context – low to moderate

of-way is generally available speed; relatively narrow border
area; limited available right-of-way
138
 TB042009002ATL
The urban
environment is
different

139
 TB042009002ATL
Green Book guidance on roadside
design in the urban environment
• „The minimum border should be 8 ft wide and
preferably 12 ft or more.‟ (Chapter 7, pg. 479)
• „Clear roadside design is recommended for
urban arterials whenever practical. On curbed
street sections, clear roadsides are often
impractical, particularly in restricted areas. In
such areas a clearance between curb and face
of object of 1.5 ft should be provided.‟ (Chapter
7, pg. 491)

140
 TB042009002ATL
Clarification on roadside design
terminology and Green Book guidance

• The Green Book refers to „Horizontal

Clearance‟ which is not clear zone
• Applicable minimum dimension is 1.5 ft
• FHWA has revised their terminology to
use „lateral offset‟ rather than „horizontal
clearance‟ to provide clarity and eliminate
confusion.

141
 TB042009002ATL
Recent research on roadside design
policy
• NCHRP Project 20-7, Task 171
„Identification of Conflicts Related to
Clear Zones within AASHTO
Publications‟
• NCHRP Project 17-11 – „Determination
of Safe/Cost Effective Roadside Slopes
and Associated Clear Distances‟
• NCHRP Project 16-04 (NCHRP Report
612) – „Design Guidelines for Safe and
Aesthetic Roadside Treatments in
Urban Areas‟
142
 TB042009002ATL
Both design options are consistent with
Green Book and Roadside Design Policy
guidance

143
 TB042009002ATL
Flexibility in roadside design

• Clear zone is a selected (not mandated or

required uniform) dimension
• The Green Book acknowledges the urban
condition as limiting what is practical and
achievable
• The minimum dimension from edge of
pavement is 1.5 ft („lateral offset‟)

144
 TB042009002ATL
Pedestrian design guidance

The Green Book refers designers to the

„AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design
and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities‟
145
 TB042009002ATL
Where pedestrians are prevalent, low design
and operating speeds are appropriate

„Design speeds for

urban arterials
generally range from
30 to 60 mph. Lower
speeds apply in central
business districts and
in more developed
areas…..‟
Green Book pg 470

146
 TB042009002ATL
AASHTO guidance on design for
pedestrians
Urban Local and Collector Streets
Commercial areas „should be provided on both
sides of the street‟
Residential areas „should be provided on at
least one side of the street‟
Urban Arterials
Commercial areas „the entire border area
usually is devoted to sidewalk‟

Residential areas „the border area should include

a sidewalk and a buffer strip‟

147
 TB042009002ATL
Risk management, good design and the
balancing of competing objectives

148
 TB042009002ATL
Design Exceptions

When an applicable design value or

„standard‟ can not be attained, it is
necessary to request a design exception*
149
 TB042009002ATL
Roadway design elements requiring
design exceptions (per FHWA)

• Design Speed* • Vertical clearance

• Lane width • Stopping sight
• Shoulder width distance
• Normal cross slope • Bridge width
• Horizontal curvature • Lateral offset
• Superelevation (formerly horizontal
• Tangent grade clearance)
• Vertical curvature • Structural capacity*

150
 TB042009002ATL
Recent research on design exceptions
(D.E.) practices
• Number of exceptions processed
and documentation practices
vary widely among states
• D.E. problems include lack of
supporting information,
inadequate guidance, limited
resources, and requests made
too late in project development
• Process improvements include
improved guidance, clarification
of controlling criteria, and
training
151
 TB042009002ATL
Most commonly requested design
exceptions

Source: NCHRP Synthesis Report 316

152
 TB042009002ATL
Participant Polling

• React to the following statement:

„The use of design exceptions will always
result in a degradation in safety.‟

• Agree
• Disagree

153
 TB042009002ATL
Risk management best practices
• Understand operational
and safety effects of
potential design
exception
• Employ proven, effective
mitigation strategies
• Fully document the
design exception and
mitigation approach

154
 TB042009002ATL
Perspective on design flexibility and
design exceptions
• The Green Book includes considerable
flexibility; applying it to its maximum value may
preclude the need for design exceptions
• Design exceptions should be considered
carefully, used sparingly and with caution
• Understanding functional performance and
mitigating the exception is critical to success
• Documentation serves to justify the decision
and manage agency risk

155
 TB042009002ATL
Closing remarks on the Green Book and
flexibility
• There is much flexibility in the Green Book
• Design does not occur in a vacuum; the surroundings
matter, so one must be flexible to be successful
• Understand how and when the Green Book applies;
including other design references
• Understand the background of policy values to apply
them properly and optimize your design
• Recognize that you as the designer have many choices
• Wise, informed choices improve your chances of
success
• Read and understand the text in addition to tables and
charts in the Green Book; it offers good insights

156
 TB042009002ATL
Where to get additional information…

• Reference Materials:
• AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets
• AASHTO Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway
Design
• Flexibility in Highway Design, FHWA
• Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions, FHWA
• AASHTO Bicycle Guide
• AASHTO Pedestrian Guide
• Draft PUBLIC ROW ACCESSIBILITY GUIDE
• TRB Special Report 214

157
 TB042009002ATL
Where to get additional information…

• Websites to Reference:
i. AASHTO (www.transportation.org)
ii. Center for Environmental Excellence
(http://environment.transportation.org/)
iii.FHWA Resource Center
(www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenter)
iv.TRB (www.trb.org)
v.Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org)
vi.Complete Streets
vii.CSS (www.contextsensitivesolutions.org)
viii.Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center
(www.walkinginfo.org & www.bicyclinginfo.org)
158
 TB042009002ATL
Where to get additional information…

• Additional Training Available:

• Exploring the Green Book: Basic Geometric Design
(FHWA Course)
• Highway Geometric Design for Safety & Efficiency
(FHWA Course)

159
 TB042009002ATL
Where to get webinar materials
• Webinar materials will be available for
downloading by end of July
• Check with the AASHTO Center for
Environmental Excellence website
(http://environment.transportation.org/)
• Follow-up questions please contact
presenters:
― Tim.Neuman@ch2m.com
― Daveitta.Jenkins@ch2m.com
160
 TB042009002ATL
Questions and discussion

161