Geometric Design Practices for Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

97 APPENDIX G Summary of Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing and Restoration Projects The FWHA report Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing and Restoration Projects has been singled out as a good resource for how states can include low-cost safety improvements in their 3R projects. The full report can be accessed through FHWA’s Office of Safety website at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/strat_approach/fhwasa07001/. This appendix provides a summary of that document. The material provided is excerpts from the report. Good practices were identified through a scan tour conducted in Colorado, Iowa, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington. During the scan, numerous good practices were observed, some used by one agency and some used by several or all agencies visited. They are classified as either institutional or technical good practices and are discussed below. INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES Institutional Practice 1—Integrate Safety into Preservation Projects The scan confirmed the premise that integrating safety improvements into resurfacing and restoration projects is generally an effective and efficient method of simultaneously pursuing two transportation goals. In many cases, resurfacing projects are the only regular (or quasi-regular) road improvement activity. A number of “base” actions are needed to develop and implement a resurfacing project. Base actions include an inventory of existing conditions and features, development of specifications, contract bidding and award, contractor mobilization, and construction administration. The cost of these items is substantial and does not change significantly with modest scope expansion. However, there are situations where separate projects for pavement and safety improvement are advantageous, such as area- or corridor-level focused safety projects (e.g., rumble strip, barrier placement). When safety improvements are the sole or primary scope of the project, unit costs are often lower than where the same treatment is included in a resurfacing project. Institutional Practice 2—Establish Multifund Project Tracking Transportation funds are suballocated into numerous categories corresponding to a primary purpose, system, or mode. Flexibility varies. In some cases, categorical allocations are legislatively prescribed and explicitly define eligible expenditures and amounts. In others cases, agency leaders and managers have substantial discretion on proportional allocation and eligibility. The addition of safety improvements to resurfacing projects may be viewed by some as misappropriation. All operational units of transportation agencies have target expenditure levels for major program areas. When a single activity is intended to accomplish multiple purposes (e.g., pavement preservation and improved safety), the cost associated with each improvement should be attributed to the appropriate program. The absence of this capability will inhibit cost-effective multipurpose projects and encourage delivery of only single-purpose projects. The ability to distribute the cost of a single project to multiple cost centers is an important asset. Institutional Practice 3—Allow for Flexible Project Development Cycles Resurfacing projects are awarded each and every year. Ideally, the need to meet targeted awards should not result in projects that exclude cost-effective improvements. However, if the time allowed for project development is very short (e.g., 4 to 8 months) and all projects in the development phase are needed to

98 attain contract award goals, then safety improvements may be omitted when they require longer preconstruction phases. Some resurfacing projects can be properly developed in a short period of time; however, additional time may be needed to include cost-effective safety improvements. During the scan, several techniques were observed that provide for additional development time when needed and still allow the agency to attain its resurfacing and contract award goals. The New York State DOT resurfacing program involves different categories designated as 1R, 2R, and 3R, based on the pavement and nonpavement scope. Development periods vary. The 1R projects involve routine maintenance activities and can be delivered in as little as 4 months. The 2R projects, which involve more extensive pavement work (i.e., multiple layer overlay) and other potential improvements (i.e., cross-section improvements), can often be delivered in 12 months. The 3R projects often entail substantial pavement improvements, including sections of reconstruction and geometric improvements. The development process may be complicated (e.g., substantial right-of-way, public involvement) and generally requires 2 to 3 years for completion. For several other agencies, the resurfacing program is developed from project identification through construction in 12 months or less. For the Iowa DOT, the typical time frame from identification to construction of 3R projects is 3 years. Institutional Practice 4—Strengthen State–Local Relationships Local government units have jurisdiction over approximately 75 percent of the public highway mileage in the United States. Ownership of two-lane rural roads is even more highly concentrated with local governments. State DOTs have direct responsibility and control over only a fraction of the facilities with the highest crash rates. Yet states can substantially influence local transportation efforts. State DOTs can support local efforts in many ways, including funding, technical assistance, and identification of high-crash locations on locally owned highways and streets. [A recent (2010) scan tour in seven states was documented in Good Practices: Addressing Safety on Local Roads, A Domestic Scan.] Model practices in data collection and analysis; local project identification; local project administration; funding; training and technical assistance; outreach and partnerships between state DOTs and local agencies are discussed in the report. The report was in final draft as of the preparation of this report and should be available from the FHWA Office of Safety website: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov. Institutional Practice 5—Develop a Procedure for Expedient Acquisition of Minor Rights- of-Way Right-of-way acquisition is often time-consuming. When an otherwise desirable safety improvement is found to require additional right-of-way, the agency must decide between delaying project delivery or omitting the improvement. Some agencies have a categorical policy: no right-of-way is to be acquired for resurfacing projects. Therefore, the combination of limited rights-of-way and a time-consuming acquisition process is a major impediment to improving safety through resurfacing projects. A streamlined process for acquiring small areas and slivers is very useful and increases the range of improvements that can practically be considered in resurfacing projects. The New York State DOT has this authority (known as “de minimis”), and routinely employs it as part of resurfacing, especially 2R projects. Institutional Practice 6—Engage Safety Experts in Project Development Safety analysis is a complex and evolving discipline. Specialized knowledge is required to identify cost- effective safety improvements. During the scan, a spectrum of arrangements was observed for engaging safety expertise in project development. In some state DOTs (e.g., Colorado and Utah), the central office bureaus are responsible for conducting the analyses and formulating recommendations. In other state

99 DOTs, the central office safety office serves in an advisory and instructional role. For example, the Iowa DOT has decentralized 3R project delivery. The Office of Traffic and Safety, which previously had direct involvement in project development, was recast into an educational and resource role. In recent years, this office has worked diligently and successfully to instill a safety ethic and skill set within the district office design groups. Periodically, safety audits are conducted of completed resurfacing projects by teams of personnel from several organizations. In other states, safety analysis responsibilities are distributed between central and district/region offices. Both the New York State DOT and PennDOT perform certain crash analysis functions and screening centrally and provided to the district/region offices. Each PennDOT district office has a safety review committee. TECHNICAL PRACTICES Technical Practice 1—Identify Targeted Safety Improvements Selective safety upgrades can be integrated into resurfacing projects. Identifying specific and cost- effective safety improvements requires consideration of infrastructure and crash data. Comprehensive and accurate crash data are a valuable asset to safety analysts. Several states visited are systematically improving crash data through multiple location coding options (e.g., GPS, route and mile marker, street address), additional descriptive data fields, and electronic reporting and retrieval. During the scan, several promising crash record and statistical analysis techniques were observed, namely: • The Colorado DOT designs resurfacing projects through a unique approach. Safety improvements are identified largely on the basis of crash data analysis, rather than dimensional criteria. The Empirical Bayes statistical method is used to combine safety performance functions for categories of roadways and observed accident frequencies into a single estimate of the expected accident frequency. This analysis leads to a LOSS determination, which reflects the likelihood of improving safety through intervention. • In Iowa, crash data and analysis are developed and distributed to state and local agencies. Some reports on trends, year-to-year comparisons, and specific categories (e.g., motorcycle, fatal) are developed on a biweekly basis. The Iowa DOT has a close and productive relationship with the Iowa State University, Governor’s Traffic Safety Bureau, and enforcement community. The Iowa Traffic Safety Data Service is a product of that partnership and provides users with readily available crash data analysis resources and uses geographic information systems technology. Iowa DOT central and district offices, counties, and the enforcement community are principal users of these data and analyses. • Pennsylvania has an ambitious Low Cost Safety Improvement program. The implementation guidance developed by PennDOT’s Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering (BHSTE) identifies 12 crash categories and 13 suggested countermeasures, with each crash category having from one to five countermeasures. These safety improvements can be self-standing (i.e., safety- only projects) or integrated into other projects, such as resurfacing. The BHSTE is developing additional analytic capabilities based on historical safety performance that assist in the selection of appropriate safety countermeasures. • The Utah DOT Traffic and Safety unit prepares Operational Safety Reports for certain resurfacing projects. These safety reports recommend safety improvements and provide the benefit/cost ratio associated with implementation. Technical Practice 2—Make Selective Geometric Improvements Agencies visited during the scan were observed to invest in a range of geometric improvements as part of resurfacing projects. Common improvements include—

100 • Auxiliary lanes (turn lanes and climbing lanes). • Cross-slope improvement. • Drainage (additional inlets, improve cross drain capacity). • Segment roadway cross section improvements: - Traveled way widening. - Shoulder addition and widening. - Paving aggregate shoulders, full or part width. • Sight distance improvements by vegetation clearing and slope work. • Sight distance improvements by lengthening vertical curves. • Superelevation improvement. The report provides illustrative examples of these types of improvements. Technical Practice 3—Install Traffic Control Devices and Guidance All agencies visited routinely install and/or upgrade selected traffic control devices in conjunction with resurfacing projects, including the following specific measures: • Edge rumble strips. • Centerline rumble strips. • Curve delineation/warning (pavement markings and chevrons). • Pavement markings. • Reflective pavement markers. • Sheet delineation (on median barrier). • Signs. • Signal upgrades. The report also provides illustrative examples of these treatments. Technical Practice 4—Improve Roadsides All states visited on the scan are aware of how important the roadside is for rural highway safety. The roadside safety principles outlined in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide are considered in developing resurfacing projects. Specific conditions (e.g., slopes, drainage structures, mailboxes, existing barrier systems) are addressed through a combination of policy, analysis, and judgment. PennDOT District 3 employs two strategies worthy of note—selective clearing and “Ground to Sky.” Trees are part of the natural environment but pose a threat to errant vehicles when located close to a roadway. PennDOT has an initiative of selectively removing trees within the right-of-way. Locations and corridors are identified using GIS data. A dense forest canopy prevents sunlight from reaching the road surface and contributes to slick driving conditions, including black ice. The “Ground to Sky” treatment removes trees and branches, thereby allowing sunlight to reach the roadway surface. Public opposition to tree removal (for both strategies) is sometimes strong. PennDOT has instituted procedures to reduce negative reactions. Adjacent landowners are provided with advance notice of removal and may be allowed to retrieve the harvested wood. PennDOT tracks the safety records of roadways where tree countermeasures are used and reports positive results. All agencies evaluate and selectively include countermeasures in resurfacing projects to reduce the frequency and severity of run-off-road crashes, which are overrepresented on two-lane rural roads. The following strategies were observed during the scan:

101 • Bridge rail, connection, and transition improvements. • Culvert end treatments (traversable). • Culvert extensions. • Installation of side drains (in swales) and slope flattening. • Edge drop-off mitigation (shoulder backup, safety edge). • Flattening transverse (driveway, median turnaround) slopes. • Guardrail installation. • Guardrail replacement. • Guardrail adjustments. • Guardrail terminal upgrades. • Headwall replacement (with inlets). • Mailbox (control or replacement). • Obstacle removal. • Obstacle delineation. • Removal of unwarranted barriers. • Rigid barrier installation and adjustment. • Selective clearing. • Slope stabilization. • Utility pole relocation. Technical Practice 5—Improve Private and Public Access Points Access points are locations of inherent conflict. At grade intersections and property access, design techniques can be employed to eliminate or manage conflicts. The following types of access improvements are included in resurfacing projects by agencies visited during the scan: • Safety dikes.1 • Intersection reconfiguration (horizontal and vertical realignment). • Commercial entrance consolidation. • Commercial entrance reconfiguration. • Farm drive consolidation. • Farm drive reconfiguration. • Lighting. 1A “safety dike” is a clear zone created on the far side of a T-intersection by relocating utility poles, making the ditch slope traversable, and removing other fixed objects to lessen the severity of a crash if a motorist fails to stop at the intersecting side road.

Abbreviations used without definition in TRB Publications: AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA Air Transport Association ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETY-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation NEED SPINE WIDTH TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2011 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Vice Chair: Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. BARRY BARKER, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA WILLIAM A.V. CLARK, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles EUGENE A. CONTI, JR., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh JAMES M. CRITES, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, TX PAULA J. HAMMOND, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley SUSAN MARTINOVICH, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City MICHAEL R. MORRIS, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington TRACY L. ROSSER, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA STEVEN T. SCALZO, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA HENRY G. (GERRY) SCHWARTZ, JR., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO BEVERLY A. SCOTT, General Manager and CEO, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, GA DAVID SELTZER, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA LAWRENCE A. SELZER, President and CEO, The Conservation Fund, Arlington, VA KUMARES C. SINHA, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN DANIEL SPERLING, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies; and Interim Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis KIRK T. STEUDLE, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing DOUGLAS W. STOTLAR, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PETER H. APPEL, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT J. RANDOLPH BABBITT, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA ANNE S. FERRO, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT JOHN T. GRAY, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC DAVID T. MATSUDA, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT VICTOR M. MENDEZ, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC TARA O’TOOLE, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC ROBERT J. PAPP (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT PETER M. ROGOFF, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT DAVID L. STRICKLAND, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT JOSEPH C. SZABO, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT POLLY TROTTENBERG, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA *Membership as of March 2011.

92+ pages; Perfect Bind with SPINE COPY = 14 pts Geometric Design Practices for Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP SYNTHESIS 417 N CH R P SYN TH ESIS 417 Geom etric Design Practices for Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation NEED SPINE WIDTH Job No. XXXX Pantone 202 C TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 500 F ifth S treet, N .W . W ashing to n, D .C . 20001 A D D R ESS SER VICE R EQ UESTED TRB A Synthesis of Highway Practice Sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration