Practical Highway Design Solutions (2013)

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.

5 Background There are many demands on state departments of transporta­ tion (DOTs), from simple maintenance of ever­expanding assets to addressing increasing mobility and safety needs of all highway users. State DOTs are continuously striving to meet this challenge of increasing demands with limited financial resources. In doing so, a few state transportation agencies have adopted initiatives that result in design solu­ tions for specific roadway projects that they believe allows them to better address the critical needs of the entire road­ way system. Most notably, the Missouri DOT (MoDOT) has initiated a process that critically reviews projects to establish appropriate project scope and resultant roadway geomet­ rics based on needs, not standards. MoDOT’s goal is to have fewer areas of perfection and more good projects that make an overall great system. In its opinion, this approach will allow for the completion of more roadway projects in a shorter period of time. To implement its approach, called “Practical Design,” MoDOT reviewed its existing design standards and revised them in a way that provides a practical design approach. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) has imple­ mented a similar initiative through its “Practical Solutions” initiative. The approach uses existing conditions as the baseline and tries to achieve results from project improvements that are better than the existing conditions. This approach underscores the importance of understanding the specific needs and goals of a project. The approach develops a customized solution that will address the specific needs while using the flexibilities inherent in the design process. SyntheSiS oBjective As will be documented in this report, a few other states have adopted similar policies, variously labeled as Practical Design, Practical Solutions, or Practical Improvements. Whatever label is given by the state, the adoption of this cost­saving initiative is increasing and coming to the attention of other DOTs. Therefore, the objective of this synthesis was to identify current knowledge and practice in the application of Practical Design approaches to roadway project develop­ ment. (For simplicity, the term Practical Design will be used throughout this report unless another term is more appropri­ ate to the discussion.) This synthesis provides transportation professionals with the information required to understand this change in project development and design philosophy and the new practices implemented by a few transportation agencies. Information gathered for this synthesis included the following: • How states define and implement Practical Design and other policies or programs that may have different names, but share the same philosophy, concepts, and principles. • Barriers and lessons learned from states that have imple­ mented Practical Design approaches. • How Practical Design differs from the traditional design process. • Modifications to roadway geometric design criteria. • Relationship of Practical Design to Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), Value Engineering (VE), and other similar initiatives. • Consideration of project­specific roadway design trade­ offs. • Application of design exceptions for Practical Design. • Cost savings resulting from Practical Design projects. • Performance measures for Practical Design, including safety and operational performance. • Liability risk of implementing Practical Design approaches. approach Typically, NCHRP synthesis projects rely on information obtained from state DOTs on their current practices related to the subject at hand, supplemented by published litera­ ture. In this instance, it was known at the outset that only a few states had a Practical Design or similar policy, a situa­ tion that would have made a comprehensive questionnaire inappropriate. Consequently, the work plan included the following tasks: 1. Distribute a brief online questionnaire to all states with two objectives in mind: a. Identify those states that have adopted a Practical Design policy, and chapter one introduction

6 b. Identify states that are considering developing a Practical Design policy and determine what informa­ tion they would like to see about a Practical Design approach. 2. Review and synthesize the Practical Design policy of those states identified in 1a. 3. Conduct follow­up interviews with selected states to gather more information related to the bulleted items listed previously. 4. Obtain information for several projects of varying types to illustrate how Practical Design was applied and what benefits were derived. These would serve as case examples. 5. Draw lessons learned and conclusions for the benefit of those states that are considering adopting a Practical Design policy. 6. Identify any knowledge gaps where additional research may be needed. SyntheSiS contentS The contents of the remaining chapters are as follows: • Chapter two reports on the results of the initial survey. • Chapter three provides background information on the project development process, design standards, and other initiatives relevant to Practical Design. • Chapter four profiles those states that reported they have a formal Practical Design (or similar term) policy. Included in the profiles are examples how Practical Design was applied, and, within the discussion, answers to questions raised by those states considering a policy are provided. • Chapter five discusses the collective findings from the state profiles and identifies needed research to address knowledge gaps. After the References section, several appendices provide supporting information.