Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 45-60
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 45... ...
When there is excess space, practitioners should consider options according to road classification (i.e., access streets and distributor streets)
|
From page 46... ...
Safe, high-speed street designs must physically separate vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, from motor vehicles. As road speeds increase, the physical space or buffers needed between vulnerable users and motor vehicles necessarily increases.
|
From page 47... ...
Additional Guidance on Aligning Road Speed with Land-Use Context • NCHRP Web-Only Document 320: Aligning Geometric Design with Roadway Context • NCHRP Synthesis 535: Pedestrian Safety Relative to Traffic-Speed Management • FHWA Self-Enforcing Roadways: A Guidance Report • FHWA Noteworthy Speed Management Practices • FDOT Design Manual, Section 200, Context Based Design, and Section 202, Speed Management • Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Blueprint for Urban Design • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
|
From page 48... ...
Reduce Motor Vehicle Volumes Higher motor vehicle volumes increase the degree of separation needed between motor vehicles and bicyclists on access and distributor streets. Practitioners can simultaneously reduce motor vehicle volumes and speeds on access streets through effective traffic-calming.
|
From page 49... ...
Bicycle Facility Design Options. In circumstances where achieving a safe street design comes down to a difference of a few feet, a two-way bicycle facility can eke out the needed space.
|
From page 50... ...
Excess Space Although practitioners frequently contend with limited space as a barrier to safe street design, overbuilt roads present unique challenges to achieving safety. Figure 6-4.
|
From page 51... ...
Wide roads and shoulders encourage motorist speeding, thereby increasing the risk of severe and fatal crashes for all users, while broader street cross sections increase crossing distances and exposure for vulnerable users. Approaches to safely reallocate excess space vary based on road function.
|
From page 52... ...
Such medians can also incorporate landscaping to provide stormwater management, beautification, and economic development benefits. Excess space on distributor streets can also be allocated as buffer space between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists (Figure 6-8)
|
From page 53... ...
This chapter (1) presents some common competing stakeholder and user concerns that can disrupt a safe street redesign and (2)
|
From page 54... ...
: pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, transit operators, motorists, and freight operators; and • Stakeholders: residents, business operators, elected decisionmakers, and the staff of departments of transportation and public works and related governmental operations. The concerns of each subgroup are explored in more detail in the following paragraphs.
|
From page 55... ...
Freight operators (with concerns like those of transit users, transit operators, and motorists) want to know if they will have • space to maneuver vehicles along the street safely, • limited delay at traffic signals, and • reliable, reasonable travel times between key destinations.
|
From page 56... ...
free or heavily subsidized parking predictably triggers a strong negative response from groups that have benefited from on-street parking access. Practitioners can use a growing collection of tools to communicate the direct and indirect transportation outcomes of a street reallocation project that reduces or removes on-street parking.
|
From page 57... ...
Commonly used screening-level tools that enable performance evaluation for street cross sections typically fail to address community concerns, offering instead a binary evaluation: either a given cross section and its existing street volume combination falls within "acceptable" bounds, or it does not. Evaluation tools also typically provide an average delay or travel time for the peak hour of the day (or peak 15 minutes)
|
From page 58... ...
. The all-day operations evaluation creates a demand profile and calculates four performance measures based on hourly directional roadway volumes, number of lanes, and traffic control at the corridor's critical downstream intersection (Figure 6-9)
|
From page 59... ...
A holistic synopsis of the potential transportation and indirect transportation outcomes of a reallocation project can also reassure decisionmakers should a project face opposition from members of their constituencies. Practitioners can address competing stakeholder and user concerns by presenting all outcomes of a cross-section reallocation project and highlighting outcomes that will benefit all stakeholders and users.
|
From page 60... ...
Summary Practitioners may face physical constraints, competing stakeholder and user concerns, and limited resources when reallocating street space. When there is not enough space for all street users, provide safe access for everyone in three ways: • Reduce street speeds • Reduce motor vehicle volumes • Identify network opportunities When there is too much space, reduce vehicle speeds and exposure for vulnerable road users with cross-section elements like raised medians, wider buffers, and dynamic curbside uses.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.