Chapter 4

Road Width, Shoulder Width, and Shoulder Type

Possibly the most controversial aspect of rural road design is that of required road width, shoulder width and shoulder type. Not only is excessive pavement visually out of character in many places, it can have the additional impact of requiring the removal of mature trees, stonewalls, or other natural roadside features. The potential increase in road width associated with many road projects is often the rallying point for communities concerned about rural character. By and large, the rural communities of Franklin County value the scenic back roads of the region and the ways that they curve and wind beside rivers and through hills. At the same time, residents want to be able to travel along safe roads that are comfortable and in good condition. There is often a sense that there must be a choice between aesthetics and safety/comfort, and indeed the current standards force that choice in many instances. According to todays standards, when extensive rehabilitation or total reconstruction of a roadway is warranted, the project is only eligible for funding if it will improve the road. Improvement is generally defined as making the roadway wider and straighter, arguably for the safety and comfort of the driver. Road width, shoulder width, and shoulder type are largely determined by the functional classification of the road, sight distance, traffic flow and volume, level of service, design speed of the road, topographical factors, and curvature. What constitutes minimum or desirable width standards is presented in what is referred to as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Green Book. While the AASHTO Green Book acknowledges that highways should be acceptable to non-users and in harmony with the environment, their primary concern is for the operational efficiency, safety and convenience of the motorist. Like many states, Massachusetts has based their Highway Design Manual on the guidelines presented in the AASHTO Green Book. MassHighway has gone beyond the Green Book guidelines, however, with the 1997 establishment of different standards for eligible low speed/low volume roadways (see Chapter 3). However, most road and bridge projects must apply the traditional standards because they dont meet the Low Speed/Low Volume criteria, which some interpret as too limited. What follows is an explanation of traditional road and shoulder widths, and a few case examples that demonstrate context sensitive projects or missed opportunities.

Traditional Road Width

Massachusetts' Highway Design Manual, 1997 ed., establishes minimum travel lane and shoulder widths for different types of roads. The width of the travel lane varies according to functional classification, traffic volumes, design speed, and specific roadway features. Travel lane widths range between 9 and 12 feet and shoulder widths can range between 2 and 10 feet. However, transportation design engineers often

26

exceed the minimum design guidelines in an effort to maximize safety and minimize liability. In reality, the design guidelines do include enough flexibility to permit a balancing of aesthetic, e nvironmental, and historical considerations with those of safety as long as the reasoning behind the design decisions is sound. In instances where designs have been called into question, as part as an accident lawsuit for example, the courts have generally deferred to engineering judgment when sound and logical reasoning has been demonstrated by a well-documented planning and design process. On rural roads with attractive natural and historic features, flexibility and balance in the design process is necessary to keep the character of the landscape intact and need not be at the expense of safety.

Traditional Shoulder Width/Shoulder Type

Road shoulders are areas beside the travel lane that allow drivers to stop in emergencies and avert accidents, and are designed with safety in mind. A growing trend is also to allow shoulders to double as areas to support non-motorized travel, usually bicycling but also occasionally walking. There are three shoulder types: paved shoulders consisting of bituminous or concrete materials; stabilized shoulders consisting of bituminous material mixed with gravel to provide a compacted and relatively smooth surface; and unstabilized shoulders consisting of slag, gravel, crushed stone, soil or grass, generally free of trees a nd other roadside obstacles. These shoulder types can also be modified to balance service and aesthetic design as well as incorporate safety features. They add safety and provide durability to the roadway by supporting the pavement at the edge of the travel lane. However, on low volume roads where automobile accidents are few, wide shoulders are generally not necessary. On these types of roads non-motorized travel will generally take place in the travel lane, and paving the first one or two feet only can provide both pavement stability and adequate additional room for bicycles to move over for larger vehicles likes trucks.

Public Participation
If local boards and residents are interested in the possibility of limiting road and shoulder widths or i nfluencing which shoulder types are chosen for a local project they should raise various questions during the design process. They may include: What are the minimum design guidelines for the road in question? If the design calls for exceeding minimum widths, what are the designer's reasons and do they reflect an understanding of the community and its transportation needs? If the design calls for exceeding minimum widths, is it to accommodate increased design speeds? If so, will that adversely impact the community from a pedestrian safety or rural character standpoint? Does the design take into account or anticipate safety issues unknown to the community?

27

Are there factors, such as local truck traffic, that are influencing lane and shoulder width in the road design? Will widening the roadway adversely impact natural resources? Will widening the roadway require cutting down many large shade trees, such as maples that line many older roads? How much pedestrian and bicycle traffic does the road have and what p rovisions exist for this traffic? Would bicycle and pedestrian safety be increased by providing a paved sidewalk or bikeway rather than a paved shoulder?

Being involved in the design process can be time-consuming, but it can dramatically affect the outcome of the project in a community and is well worth the effort. The following case studies highlight some successful efforts to rebuild roads in rural communities that maintain their rural character, as well as look at some examples of missed opportunities. Route 116 through Plainfield, Massachusetts In 1973 planning began for the design and reconstruction of a state numbered Route 116 that passes through the town of Plainfield, Massachusetts. 4 The roadway was in poor shape and needed reconstruction. Although very time-consuming, as this project's design evolved, it proved to be an excellent example of town and state cooperation and compromise (see case study photos at the end of this chapter). From the start, the major points of contention revolved around road width, shoulder width, and shoulder type. Town residents were concerned that in order to widen the existing roadway, many mature maple trees would be lost. People also viewed an increased design speed as a potential safety hazard and at odds with the town's character and village atmosphere. It is not uncommon in the rural areas of western Massachusetts and elsewhere in the Commonwealth for a small towns Main Street to also be a state highway or numbered route. This was the case in Plainfield, and presented the especially challenging dynamic of balancing the needs of regional and statewide mobility and the needs of a small towns village center. Prior to reconstruction, Route 116, through Plainfield, averaged 22 feet in width. This roadway had two 11-foot wide lanes and no shoulders. Rows of stately maple trees, growing on either side, formed a picturesque archway as Route 116 passed through town. MassHighways initial reconstruction design called for two 12-foot travel lanes, with 2-8 foot paved shoulders. This design would have effectively doubled the width of the cleared roadway, and eliminated numerous mature trees.
4

The material for the Plainfield case study comes from interviews with Sandra Morann and other citizens of Plainfield (1994).

28

By the early 1980s, around the time of the 75% design stage, there was sufficient concern about the reconstruction design to warrant a Town Meeting vote resulting in the formation of the Route 116 Committee in Plainfield. This committee closely monitored the design process, represented the town's design concerns, and reported to the Select Board. Eventually, at a second public hearing, MassHighway proposed a pair of 12 foot wide travel lanes with four foot paved shoulders and 4-foot grass shoulders. Although many townspeople were in favor of the 4-foot shoulders to allow non-motorized traffic, the shoulders and the plan were rejected in a vote at Town Meeting. Meetings and votes were held in Plainfield to resolve the dispute. By the mid 1980s, the town and MassHighway began to work cooperatively on the design and agreed upon 11-foot lanes with 2-foot shoulders and 4-foot grass shoulders. Having come to a satisfactory resolution on the road width issues, the Route 116 Committee began working with the state to save as many of the trees along the road as possible. Each tree was examined to determine if it could be saved. Some were cut down because they were diseased and dying. This evaluation involved a coordinated effort between members of the Route 116 Committee, a forester from the Department of Environmental Management, and the District Highway Director. Particularly on Barber's Hill, a location on the western edge of town, the project put many of the maples in jeopardy and further concessions were necessary. To save most of the Barber's Hill trees a special roadway base was used to protect the root systems of the maples. In addition, MassHighway planted new maples along several stretches of Route 116 in Plainfield and used soil bioengineering techniques to reduce impacts on adjacent wetlands. Approval of the reduced cross section was required from the Federal Highway Administration, although legislation since then has eliminated the need for such review today. Although the design was now acceptable to all concerned parties, it took years for the design to be completed before bids went out and the actual reconstruction began. Reconstruction took place from May, 1990 to October, 1992. In the end, the town was quite pleased with the reconstruction of Route 116. The state had produced a project that might not have met the most conservative guidelines of transportation engineers, but was safe and appropriate for such a rural area. Clearly, this process was complicated and required extensive cooperation, and plenty of hard work. Nevertheless, it shows that a dedicated effort can affect a project's design.

29

Summary and Conclusion

Road width, shoulder width, and shoulder type are the most common features considered to either maintain or destroy rural character. While efforts should continue to advance the development of lower design standards that support limited widening in certain cases, or approve the expanded use of existing standards like the Low Speed Low Volume standards, todays reality is that context sensitive design is not a routine matter. Communities need to advocate long and loud, for what they want. Such effort can be successful, however, and communities should look to examples like the Route 116 Plainfield project for inspiration. While it is hoped that eventually the design process will be altered to be more proactive in terms of conducting context sensitive design, for now communities should focus on participation in the design process as early as possible. The following case studies offer additional examples of projects that used public participation to achieve context sensitive design, or show the negative result of projects with no strong, local advocate.

30

Case Study: Route 116, Plainfield, Massachusetts

Route 116 in Plainfield achieved full-depth reconstruction without sacrificing historic maple trees. Active town participation and working together with MassHighway District 1 made all the difference, however the process was extremely lengthy and often frustrating.

Type of Project: Location: Year: Special Circumstance: Description:

Road reconstruction. Route 116 through Plainfield, MA. Route 116 is a state numbered route. 1990-92 State highway doubles as a rural communitys Main Street. Route 116 is a state numbered route that passes through the village center of Plainfield, MA. Original design plans proposed by MassHighway using traditional width and shoulder standards would have nearly doubled the roads paved and clear area, increasing from the existing 22 feet to 40 feet, and would have eliminated an historic stand of maple trees. Town residents were also concerned that a new roadway with higher speeds through the town would be inconsistent with the rural and village atmosphere, and threaten pedestrian safety. They formed a Route 116 Committee to work with MassHighway and develop a more acceptable design. Several Town Meetings and a significant amount of negotiating resulted in a new road design that called for 11 foot travel lanes, 2 foot paved shoulders, and 4 foot grass shoulders. In addition, a complete assessment of the trees was conducted in an effort to retain as many as possible, and in some areas a special road base was used to protect the root systems of the maples. The planting of several new maples was also incorporated into the construction activities. Public participation in the design was crucial to achieving a satisfactory outcome. However it was a lengthy process and required committed time and attention on behalf of the town. The Route 116 Committee was formed in the early 1980s. Construction commenced in May, 1990.

31

Case Study: Route 112, Ashfield, Massachusetts

1950s The future site of state highway Route 112 around 1950.

1970s Route 112 in the 1970s, a scenic rural highway.

1990s Route 112 after reconstruction in the early 1990s with increased width, galvanized guardrail, drainage swales, and increased speeds. The road is now an approved wide-load truck route.

Type of Project: Location: Year: Special Circumstance: Description:

Road reconstruction. State Highway Route 112 in Ashfield, MA. 1990s State Highway in a rural community serving 1,400 cars per day. Ashfield is a community in Franklin County with a population of 1800. In the 1950s this road was laid out as a state highway through a pasture, to create a straighter and more direct route to neighboring communities (see photo on the top left). The new highway was built as what was a typical rural highway at the time with limited travel lane width, limited shoulder, and a speed limit of approximately 40 miles per hours. Its guardrail was a then standard threestrand cable and post system (see the middle photo above) whose openness did not obstruct the scenic view. Despite the fact that this had previously been farmland, the new highway became an integral part of the rural landscape and contributed to a travelers experience through the area. While the scenic landscape has changed very little over the decades, reconstruction of Route 112 in the early 1990s added 6 foot shoulders on either side of the highway, -8 installed solid, galvanized guardrail, added drainage swales, and increased speed to 50 miles per hour (see photo on the top right). The road as it exists detracts from the rural character of the area. In addition the new width and speed have resulted in the road being used as an approved wide load truck route, further segregating the road from the landscape, and impacting the quality of life for neighboring farms and residences.

32

Case Study: Main Street, Ashfield, Massachusetts

The reconstruction of Main Street in Ashfield minimized the addition of shoulder and saved most mature trees. Colored aggregate in the asphalt mix for the shoulders creates the illusion of a narrower roadway and aids traffic calming.

Type of Project: Location: Year: Special Circumstance:

Road reconstruction Main Street, Ashfield MA. Also known as state highway Route 116. 1998 Village center Main Street is in a Registered National Historic District but is also a state highway. A Main Street committee was formed in town as soon as reconstruction of Route 116 (Main Street) was proposed. The group met with MassHighway District personnel on numerous occasions to discuss road width, sidewalks, parking, traffic calming, and town linkages. One innovative feature agreed upon was the use of a colored aggregate in the road shoulders to create the optical illusion of a narrower travel way and, thus, slow traffic. In terms of limiting widening, the project has been successful and the downtown retains its Village Atmosphere. Unfortunately, the project has also struggled to complete other innovative features such as the installation of a natural flatstone, rather than concrete, sidewalk. Currently, although the reconstruction of the roadway has been complete for several years, the downtown is still without sidewalks while the town and MassHighway continue to negotiate acceptable materials. Additionally, parking was never incorporated into the final design plan despite the towns strong support of it. This leaves residents with little choice but to park in the road, straddling the shoulder and the travel lane. Neither the Town nor MassHighway approves of this unsafe situation. This project underscores the complexity of designing a context sensitive project, and highlights some of the frustration local communities can experience in trying to improve their transportation network while protecting their rural character.

Description:

33

Case Study: Route 116/Route 47 Intersection Sunderland, Massachusetts

Reconstruction of the Route 116/47 intersection included new pavement, sidewalks, landscaping, and historic replica mast arms to hold the traffic signals and pedestrian crossing lights.

Type of Project: Location: Year: Special Circumstance:

Intersection reconstruction Intersection of Routes 116 and 47 in Sunderland, MA 2001 High volume intersection of two state numbered routes in a proposed National Historic District and part of the Connecticut River Scenic Farm Byway. Given the numerous historical and scenic designations in this area, developing an acceptable design was a challenge. In fact, the design was stopped for several years because the Town and MassHighway could not agree on the proposed design features. Ultimately, both sides were able to agree upon a design that improved circulation without widening, and enhanced the intersection with historic mast arms to hold traffic signals, installed new landscaping, completed pedestrian linkages and, in one area, replaced blacktop along the side of Route 116 with granite curbing and landscaping. Thus, the approaches to the intersection were actually more defined and less wide.

Description:

34

Case Study: Williamsburg Road Ashfield, Conway, Williamsburg, MA

BEFORE Williamsburg Road is the first project in Franklin County to be designed using Low Speed-Low Volume standards. Here is a before look at the road. Construction is set to get underway in the Fall, 2001.

AFTER After reconstruction the width remains essentially the same. Drainage has been improved, mountable curbs delineate the roadway edge, and weathering steel (Cor-Ten) guardrails blend better with the surrounding landscape than galvanized steel.

Type of Project: Location: Year: Special Circumstance:

Road reconstruction Three hilltowns in the western portions of Franklin and Hampshire County 2002-2003 Low volume low speed rural major collector that connects residential areas of the western hilltowns with employment, services, and entertainment in Northampton and the Connecticut River Valley. While the hilltown populations are low, most residents have a need to connect with Route 9 into Northampton or to I -91. Williamsburg Road provides this direct link. The road had degraded to a deplorable level and was in serious need of repair. However, given the low daily traffic volumes (420 cars per day in Ashfield) full reconstruction using standard AASHTO widths was neither necessary nor desirable. Williamsburg Road is the first project in Franklin County to be designed using the Low Speed-Low Volume design standards adopted by MassHighway in 1997. Once construction is complete, further examination will be very useful in helping understand the actual visual impact differences between Low Speed Low Volume standards and traditional standards.

Description:

35