Freeway Geometric Design for Active 

Traffic Management in Europe

International Technology Scanning Program

Sponsored by:

In cooperation with:

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials

National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program

March 2011
NOTI C E

The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality 

information to serve Government, industry, and the public 

in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA 

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs 

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-PL-11-004

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic 

Management in Europe

5. Report Date

March 2011

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

Jeffrey C. Jones, Martin C. Knopp, Kay Fitzpatrick, 

Mark A. Doctor, Charles E. Howard, Gregory M. 

Laragan, James A. Rosenow, Brooke A. Struve, 

Barton A. Thrasher, and Elizabeth G. Young

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

American Trade Initiatives

P.O. Box 8228

Alexandria, VA 22306-8228

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-99-C-005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of International Programs

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTR: Hana Maier, Office of International Programs

16. Abstract

Continued growth in travel on congested urban freeway corridors exceeds the ability of agencies to provide 

sufficient solutions and alternatives based on traditional roadway expansion and improvement projects. 

Several countries are implementing managed motorway concepts to improve motorway capacity without 

acquiring more land and building large-scale infrastructure projects. The Federal Highway Administration, 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program sponsored a scanning study of England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain to examine 

the use of innovative geometric design practices and techniques to improve the operational performance of 

congested freeway facilities without compromising safety.

Managed motorways are a combination of active or dynamically managed operational regimes, specific 

designs of infrastructure, and technology solutions. The concept uses a range of traffic management measures 

to actively monitor the motorway and dynamically control speeds, add capacity, and inform road users of 

conditions on the network with the objective to optimize traffic and safety performance. Examples include 

shoulder running, variable mandatory speed limits, lane control signals, and driver information using variable 

message signs. Managed motorways increase journey reliability and throughput of a motorway by speed 

management and increase capacity by shoulder running. 

17. Key Words

Active traffic management, driver information, 

increased capacity, lane control signal, managed 

motorways, plus lane, shoulder running, speed 

control, variable mandatory speed limits, 

variable message sign

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the 

public from the: Office of International Programs, 

FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classify. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classify. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

92

22. Price

Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Freeway Geometric Design for Active 

Traffic Management in Europe

March 2011

Jeffrey C. Jones 

(AASHTO Cochair)

Tennessee DOT

Martin C. Knopp 

(FHWA Cochair)

FHWA 

Kay Fitzpatrick 

(Report Facilitator)

Texas Transportation Institute

Mark A. Doctor

FHWA 

Charles E. Howard

Puget Sound Regional Council

Gregory M. Laragan

Idaho Transportation 

Department

James A. Rosenow

Minnesota DOT

Brooke A. Struve

FHWA 

Barton A. Thrasher

Virginia DOT

Elizabeth G. Young

Parsons Brinckerhoff

For

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation 

Officials

National Cooperative Highway

Research Program

Prepared by the International Scanning Study Team:
iv INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SCANNING PROGRAM

The International Technology Scanning Program, 

sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 

and the National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP), evaluates innovative foreign 

technologies and practices that could significantly 

benefit U.S. highway transportation systems. This 

approach allows for advanced technology to be 

adapted and put into practice much more efficiently without spending scarce research funds 

to re-create advances already developed by 

other countries.

FHWA and AASHTO, with recommendations from 

NCHRP, jointly determine priority topics for teams 

of U.S. experts to study. Teams in the specific areas 

being investigated are formed and sent to countries 

where significant advances and innovations have 

been made in technology, management practices, 

organizational structure, program delivery, and 

financing. Scan teams usually include representatives from FHWA, State departments of transportation, local governments, transportation trade and 

research groups, the private sector, and academia. 

After a scan is completed, team members evaluate 

findings and develop comprehensive reports, 

including recommendations for further research 

and pilot projects to verify the value of adapting 

innovations for U.S. use. Scan reports, as well as 

the results of pilot programs and research, are 

circulated throughout the country to State and 

local transportation officials and the private sector. 

Since 1990, more than 80 international scans have 

been organized on topics such as pavements, 

bridge construction and maintenance, contracting, 

intermodal transport, organizational management, 

winter road maintenance, safety, intelligent 

transportation systems, planning, and policy. 

The International Technology Scanning Program has 

resulted in significant improvements and savings in 

road program technologies and practices throughout the United States. In some cases, scan studies 

have facilitated joint research and technologysharing projects with international counterparts, 

further conserving resources and advancing the 

state of the art. Scan studies have also exposed 

transportation professionals to remarkable advancements and inspired implementation of hundreds 

of innovations. The result: large savings of research 

dollars and time, as well as significant improvements 

in the Nation’s transportation system.

Scan reports can be obtained through FHWA free 

of charge by e-mailing international@dot.gov. Scan 

reports are also available electronically and can be 

accessed on the FHWA Office of International Programs Web site at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov.

International Technology Scanning Program
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe v

n Safety 

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe 

(2010)

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in 

Europe (2010)

Improving Safety and Mobility for Older Road Users 

in Australia and Japan (2008)

Safety Applications of Intelligent Transportation 

Systems in Europe and Japan (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: 

Safety, Operations, and Emergency Response 

(2006)

Roadway Human Factors and Behavioral Safety in 

Europe (2005) 

Traffic Safety Information Systems in Europe and 

Australia (2004) 

Signalized Intersection Safety in Europe (2003) 

Managing and Organizing Comprehensive Highway 

Safety in Europe (2003) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Commercial Vehicle Safety, Technology, and Practice 

in Europe (2000) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays 

in European Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice 

in Europe (1999) 

Road Safety Audits—Final Report and Case Studies 

(1997) 

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: 

Europe and Australia (1996) 

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, 

and New Zealand (1995) 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany, 

and the Netherlands (1994) 

n Planning and Environment

Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation 

Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore (2010)

Linking Transportation Performance and 

Accountability (2010)

Streamlining and Integrating Right-of-Way and 

Utility Processes With Planning, Environmental, and 

Design Processes in Australia and Canada (2009)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in 

Congestion Management (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European 

Perspectives to U.S. Practice (2006)

Transportation Asset Management in Australia, 

Canada, England, and New Zealand (2005)

Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, 

Canada, Japan, and New Zealand (2004) 

European Right-of-Way and Utilities Best Practices 

(2002) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads 

(2002) 

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European 

Highways (2002) 

Sustainable Transportation Practices in Europe 

(2001) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway 

Environments (1999) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, 

and Technology (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

n Policy and Information

Transportation Research Program Administration 

in Europe and Asia (2009)

Practices in Transportation Workforce Development 

(2003) 

International Technology Scan Reports

International Technology Scanning Program: Bringing Global Innovations to U.S. Highways 
vi INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SCAN REPORTS

Intelligent Transportation Systems and Winter 

Operations in Japan (2003) 

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation 

Programs and Services (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information 

From Abroad (1994) 

International Guide to Highway Transportation 

Information (1994) 

International Contract Administration Techniques 

for Quality Enhancement (1994) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, 

and Technology (1994) 

n Operations

Freight Mobility and Intermodal Connectivity 

in China (2008)

Commercial Motor Vehicle Size and Weight 

Enforcement in Europe (2007)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in 

Congestion Management (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European 

Perspectives to U.S. Practice (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: 

Safety, Operations, and Emergency Response 

(2006)

Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and 

Specifications in Europe (2004) 

Freight Transportation: The Latin American Market 

(2003) 

Meeting 21st Century Challenges of System 

Performance Through Better Operations (2003) 

Traveler Information Systems in Europe (2003) 

Freight Transportation: The European Market (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays 

in European Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice 

in Europe (1999) 

European Winter Service Technology (1998) 

Traffic Management and Traveler Information 

Systems (1997) 

European Traffic Monitoring (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

Winter Maintenance Technology and Practices—

Learning from Abroad (1995) 

Advanced Transportation Technology (1994) 

Snowbreak Forest Book—Highway Snowstorm 

Countermeasure Manual (1990) 

n Infrastructure—General

Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic 

Management in Europe (2011)

Public-Private Partnerships for Highway 

Infrastructure: Capitalizing on International

Experience (2009)

Audit Stewardship and Oversight of Large and 

Innovatively Funded Projects in Europe (2006)

Construction Management Practices in Canada 

and Europe (2005) 

European Practices in Transportation Workforce 

Development (2003) 

Contract Administration: Technology and Practice 

in Europe (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads 

(2001) 

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada 

and Europe (1999) 

Geotechnology—Soil Nailing (1993) 

n Infrastructure—Pavements

Warm-Mix Asphalt: European Practice (2008)

Long-Life Concrete Pavements in Europe 

and Canada (2007)

Quiet Pavement Systems in Europe (2005)

Pavement Preservation Technology in France, 

South Africa, and Australia (2003) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway 

Environments (1999) 

South African Pavement and Other Highway 

Technologies and Practices (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

European Concrete Highways (1992) 

European Asphalt Technology (1990) 
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe vii

n Infrastructure—Bridges

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe 

(2010)

Bridge Evaluation Quality Assurance in Europe 

(2008)

Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems in 

Japan and Europe (2005) 

Bridge Preservation and Maintenance in Europe 

and South Africa (2005) 

Performance of Concrete Segmental and 

Cable-Stayed Bridges in Europe (2001) 

Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe 

and Japan (2001) 

European Practices for Bridge Scour and 

Stream Instability Countermeasures (1999) 

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe 

and Japan (1997) 

Asian Bridge Structures (1997) 

Bridge Maintenance Coatings (1997) 

Northumberland Strait Crossing Project (1996) 

European Bridge Structures (1995) 

All publications are available on the Internet

at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov.
viii CONTENTS

Contents

Executive Summary  1

Introduction  1

Background  1

Key Findings  2

Findings for Design  5

Findings for Performance Measures  7

Findings for Planning  7

Findings for Lessons Learned  7

Next Steps  8

Chapter 1: Introduction  9

Background  9

Purpose  9

Managed Motorways—A Definition  10

Scan Team Members  10

Travel Itinerary  11

Host Delegations  11

Questions  11

Report Format  12

Chapter 2: European Agency Approaches 

to Managed Motorways  13

Spain  13

Meeting and Presentations  13

Design Overview  13

Case Study Examples  13

Germany  15

Meetings and Presentations  15

Hessen  15

Congestion-Free Hessen 2015  15

Line Control in Hessen  16

Hard Shoulder Running in Hessen  16

Long-Distance Corridors in Hessen  18

Rheinland-Pfalz  18

Line Control Systems  19

Dynamic Rerouting  19

Hard Shoulder Running  19

Overview of Hard Shoulder Running  19

Safety of Hard Shoulder Running  20

German Lane Widths  22

Netherlands  25

Meetings and Presentations  25

National Mobility Scheme  25

Hard Shoulder Running  25

Dynamic Speed Limits  28

Interchange Lane Control  29

Geometric Design  29

England  32

Meetings and Presentations  32

Highways Agency Strategic Plan  32

Controlled Motorways  32

Managed Motorways  33

M42 Pilot Study  33

Compliance With Variable Mandatory 

Speed Limits  35

Web Sites  36

Managed Motorway Elements  36

Managed Motorway Safety  39

Managed Motorway Hazard Log  42

Reported Benefits  42

Recent Developments  43

Education  45

Traffic Officers  46

Chapter 3: Key Findings  47

Chapter 4: Implementation Strategy  49

Appendix A: Scan Team Members  51

Appendix B: Symposium Findings  55
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe ix

Appendix C: Workshop on Managed Motorways—

A Way Forward for the Future  67

Appendix D: Host Country Contacts  68

Appendix E: Amplifying Questions  71

Glossary  75

Endnotes  77

Figures

Figure 1. England: variable speed limit in 

Birmingham (vehicles enter the roadway from 

the left, opposing traffic is on the right, and 

speeds shown are in miles per hour).  1

Figure 2. Netherlands: shoulder running.  2

Figure 3. England: variable message signs in 

Birmingham (vehicles enter the roadway from 

the left, opposing traffic is on the right, and 

speeds shown are in miles per hour).  2

Figure 4. Germany: shoulder use and variable 

speed limit in Hessen (speeds are in kilometers 

per hour).  3

Figure 5. Netherlands: variable speed limit 

(speeds are in kilometers per hour).  3

Figure 6. England: emergency refuge area in 

Birmingham (traffic travels on the left side 

on England’s roadways).  3

Figure 7. Netherlands: surveillance camera 

and loop detectors.  4

Figure 8. England: incident management 

in Birmingham.  4

Figure 9. Automated enforcement signs.  5

Figure 10. Freeway geometric design practices for 

improved performance scan team (from left to right, 

first row, Liz Young, Charlie Howard, Kay Fitzpatrick, 

Brooke Struve, Jim Rosenow; second row, Bart 

Thrasher, Jeff Jones, Martin Knopp, Mark Doctor, 

Greg Laragan).  10

Figure 11. Spain: view of approach and exit 

from tunnel.  14

Figure 12. Germany: duration of congestion 

on motorways in Hessen.  16

Figure 13. Germany: signs for hard shoulder 

running.  17

Figure 14. Germany: temporary hard shoulder 

running impact on congestion for A5.  17

Figure 15. Germany: temporary hard shoulder 

running impact on safety for A5.  18

Figure 16. Germany: cross section for four-lane 

freeways allowing hard shoulder running.  21

Figure 17. Germany: road safety on the A7 where 

AR(I) = fatal and severe injury crash rate and AR(II) 

= slight injury crash + severe property damage-only 

crash rate.  22

Figure 18. Germany: standard cross sections for 

interurban autobahn (freeway).  23

Figure 19. Germany: standard cross section for 

four-lane highways.  23

Figure 20. Germany: standard cross section for 

intercity autobahn (freeways).  24

Figure 21. Netherlands: hard shoulder running.  25

Figure 22. Netherlands: hard shoulder running.  26

Figure 23. Netherlands: plus lane with former style 

of lane markings.  26

Figure 24. Netherlands: A12 plus lane with current 

plus lane markings and truck restriction.  26

Figure 25. Netherlands: A12 plus lane closed 

to traffic.  27

Figure 26. Netherlands: signs used to indicate 

hard shoulder running is closing.  27

Figure 27. Netherlands: example of when hard 

shoulder running is not permitted.  27

Figure 28. Netherlands: closeup of red cross 

used to indicate hard shoulder running is not 

permitted.  28

Figure 29. Netherlands: off-ramp design.  28

Figure 30. Netherlands: on-ramp design.  28

Figure 31. Netherlands: opening sequence for 

hard shoulder running.  29

Figure 32. Netherlands: traffic safety at hard 

shoulder running and plus lane sites.  29
x CONTENTS

Figure 33. Netherlands: traffic benefits of 

hard shoulder running and plus lanes.  30

Figure 34. Netherlands: interchange 

with interchange merge control.  30

Figure 35. England: location of pilot test of hard 

shoulder running on the M42 in Birmingham.  33

Figure 36. England: variable mandatory speed 

limit compliance.  35

Figure 37. England: graphic showing managed 

motorway parts.  37

Figure 38. England: detection methods.  37

Figure 39. England: emergency refuge area 

and sign.  38

Figure 40. England: telephone in an emergency 

refuge area.  38

Figure 41. England: variable message signs.  39

Figure 42. England: variable speed limit and 

shoulder control signs in Birmingham.  40

Figure 43. England: mandatory lane signals.  41

Figure 44. England: M42 pilot safety case study.  41

Figure 45. England: comparison of hazards 

for active traffic management site and other 

comparable sites.  42

Figure 46. England: hazard log bar chart.  43

Figure 47. England: journey time improvements.  44

Figure 48. England: potential through shoulder 

running signs.  45

Figure 49. England: new legend for through 

shoulder running being tested.  45

Figure 50. Denmark: locations with ghost driver 

initiatives.  57

Figure 51. Denmark: treatments for ghost 

drivers.  57

Figure 52. Denmark: chevron markings.  58

Figure 53. Netherlands: pavement markings for 

three road classes.  58

Figure 54. Sweden: motorway and alternative 

four-lane cross sections from the 1970s.  61

Figure 55. Sweden: typical 2+1 median barrier 

design on 13-m paved width.  61

Figure 56. Sweden: overtaking lane principles with 

rumble or barrier median.  61

Figure 57. Sweden: median barrier project.  62

Figure 58. United Kingdom: WS2+1 layout.  63

Figure 59. United Kingdom: hard shoulder use.  63

Figure 60. Conceptualized driver decision 

model.  65

Figure 61. Relationship between efficiency and 

information to process.  66

Tables

Table 1. Hosted locations for the freeway geometric 

design scanning study.  9

Table 2. Germany: sections with dynamic hard 

shoulder running in 2009.  20

Table 3. Germany: sections included in safety study 

on hard shoulder running.  21

Table 4. Netherlands: road projects.  25

Table 5. Netherlands: results of pilot study on 

interchange merge control.  31

Table 6. Netherlands: cross section widths.  31

Table 7. England: Highways Agency managed 

motorway draft program.  36
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 1

Executive Summary

Introduction

Continued growth in travel along congested 

freeway corridors exceeds the ability of agencies 

to provide sufficient solutions and alternatives 

based on traditional roadway expansion and 

improvement projects. High construction costs, 

constrained right-of-way, statutory restrictions, 

and environmental factors are pushing agencies 

to explore solutions such as active traffic management and managed lanes, which improve safety 

by reducing collisions and nonrecurring congestion 

and maximize throughput under congested 

conditions. Finding cost-effective options to 

mitigate recurrent and nonrecurrent congestion 

on freeway facilities is one of the most significant 

challenges State and regional transportation 

organizations face. 

Several countries are implementing managed 

motorway concepts to move higher traffic volumes 

on their highways more efficiently without acquiring more land and constructing large-scale infrastructure projects. Managed motorway concepts 

introduce new and revised operational activities 

that place greater reliance on technology than 

traditional roadway projects. Managed motorways 

combine actively or dynamically managed operational regimes, specific infrastructure designs, and 

technology solutions. They use a range of traffic 

management measures to actively monitor the 

motorway based on real-time conditions:

 Dynamically control speeds (see figure 1). 

 Add capacity (figure 2, see next page). 

 Inform road users of conditions on the network 

(figure 3, see next page).

The objective of implementing this range of measures is to optimize traffic and safety performance. 

Examples of these measures include shoulder 

running, variable speed limits, lane control signals, 

dynamic rerouting, and the provision of driver 

information using variable message signs. Managed 

motorway concepts applied in Europe have been 

proven to reduce collisions, improve journey time 

reliability, and increase vehicular throughput.

Background

In 2006 a scan team observed that transportation 

agencies in Denmark, England, Germany, and the 

Netherlands, through the deployment of congestion management strategies, were able to optimize 

the investment in infrastructure to meet drivers’ 

needs. Strategies included speed harmonization, 

temporary shoulder use, and dynamic signing and 

rerouting. The team’s recommendations for U.S. 

implementation included promoting active traffic 

management to optimize existing infrastructure 

during recurrent and nonrecurrent congestion, 

Figure 1. England: variable speed limit in Birmingham 

(vehicles enter the roadway from the left, opposing traffic is 

on the right, and speeds shown are in miles per hour).
 

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

emphasizing customer orientation, focusing on 

trip reliability, providing consistent messages to 

roadway users, and making operations a priority 

in planning, programming, and funding processes.

Since the 2006 scanning study, active traffic 

management concepts have been implemented in 

Washington and Minnesota and are being considered in Virginia. During these implementations, 

several geometric design-related questions were 

voiced. A scanning study was proposed to obtain 

a better appreciation for how geometric design 

is being handled with active traffic management 

programs. The desk scan revealed that several 

European countries have implemented innovative 

geometric design solutions in their active traffic 

management programs. In June 2010 a team 

of 10 U.S. transportation professionals with 

expertise in planning, design, and operation of 

freeways visited four countries in Europe: England, 

Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. The purpose 

of the scanning study was to examine active traffic 

management design practices used in other countries to improve the operational performance of 

congested freeway facilities without compromising 

safety. This 2010 scan built on other scans that 

focused on congestion management and 

managed lane programs.

Key Findings

Key findings from the 2010 scan include the 

following:

 Much like the United States, many European 

nations face growing traffic and congestion 

levels on their freeway networks. Several 

European highway agencies are responding 

to growing congestion by implementing 

active traffic management systems that 

better use the existing roadway footprint. 

In Europe, “managed motorways” is the term 

used to describe the range of traffic management measures implemented to improve traffic 

flow, enhance safety, and inform road users of 

conditions on the freeway network. Managed 

motorway concepts have had great success in 

the countries the scan team visited, and these 

strategies and techniques are likely to provide 

great benefit if applied in the United States.

 The European countries 

visited comprehensively 

integrate a suite of complementary techniques 

to dynamically manage 

traffic flow in response to 

changing volumes, speeds, 

and incidents. The result is 

demonstrably improved 

safety, travel time reliability, and congestion relief 

on urban motorway 

sections. Techniques that 

integrate roadway design 

with operational strategies 

include the following:

Figure 2. Netherlands: shoulder running.

Figure 3. England: variable message signs in Birmingham (vehicles enter the roadway 

from the left, opposing traffic is on the right, and speeds shown are in miles per hour).
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 3

 Variable speed limits, line control, and 

speed harmonization (see figures 1, 4, 

and 5)

 Shoulder running (figures 2 and 4) with 

emergency refuge areas (figure 6)

 Queue warning and variable messaging 

(figure 3)

 24/7 monitoring of traffic with cameras 

and/or in-pavement sensors (both to 

detect incidents and identify when to 

reduce speed limits) (figure 7, see 

next page)

 Incident management (figure 8, 

see next page)

 Automated enforcement (see figure 9 

on page 5 for examples of signs)

 Specialized algorithms for temporary 

shoulder running, variable speed limits, and/

or incident detection and management

 Ramp metering (coordinated or 

independent function)

 Managed motorway strategies are synergistic 

and are most effective when applied in an 

integrated and dynamic system. 

 Many managed motorway concepts are 

applicable to all U.S. metro areas and rural 

high-volume freeway corridors. The management strategies appropriate for a freeway 

corridor evolve as the needs and demands of 

the area change. In other words, transportation 

officials should recognize that freeways need 

a continuum of operational and management 

strategies that change as traffic needs and 

demands change.

 European countries faced safety concerns 

similar to those in the United States and 

successfully addressed those concerns in 

managed motorway deployments. Managed 

motorways have contributed to substantial 

safety improvements in Europe. 

Figure 4. Germany: shoulder use and variable speed limit in 

Hessen (speeds are in kilometers per hour).(11)

Figure 5. Netherlands: variable speed limit

(speeds are in kilometers per hour).

Figure 6. England: emergency refuge area in Birmingham 

(traffic travels on the left side on England’s roadways).
4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 

 Many European countries went through a 

paradigm shift in their design policies and 

practices by adopting risk- and performancebased approaches to making design choices 

on actively managed freeway facilities. An 

example of changed design philosophy is 

considering the dynamic operating regimes 

of a managed freeway rather than selecting 

design criteria based on a static operating condition. Successful active traffic management 

deployments require a well-planned, interdisciplinary collaboration of design with operations 

and enforcement. Successful implementation 

also requires the following:

 High-level champions who lead a culture 

change in an agency and institutionalize 

the agency’s commitment to prioritizing 

traffic management 

 Overcoming the “we never did this before” 

attitude

 Funding commitments for adequate 

long-term operational maintenance

 Advancing active traffic management in 

the United States will require evolution of 

long-standing design practices, collaboration 

of design and operations disciplines, and 

advances in techniques to communicate 

with motorists in real time.

Figure 8. England: incident management in Birmingham.

Camera Loop detectors

Figure 7. Netherlands: surveillance camera and loop detectors.
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 5

Findings for Design 

 Functionality of shoulders. Representatives 

of the host highway agencies shared their 

evolving perspectives on the functionality of 

freeway shoulders. In both England and the 

Netherlands, it was noted that the need for the 

outside shoulder to serve as a disabled vehicle 

area has diminished because of improvements 

in vehicle mechanical reliability. Therefore, the 

risk level for not providing full shoulder widths 

may have diminished since fundamental 

freeway design criteria were first established. 

These types of considerations weigh into the 

host highway agencies’ assessment of the 

tradeoffs for continual or dynamic shoulder 

running. Each of the countries visited had a 

general practice of reducing the speed limits 

in freeway sections where shoulder width 

was reduced (both permanently and part time) 

to allow shoulder running. 

 Shoulder running (or plus lanes) with variable 

speed limits. On some motorway segments 

in England, Germany, and the Netherlands, 

the shoulder is used dynamically to create 

an additional travel lane when conditions are 

appropriate. When the travel lane is added on 

the outside edge (e.g., right side for Germany 

and the Netherlands, left side for England), 

“hard shoulder running” is the term generally 

used. When the additional lane is on the inside 

edge, “plus lane” is the term used. Gantries 

that include speed and lane control signs are 

provided in these sections and can show a 

green arrow when the lane is available for use 

and a red cross when it is closed. The signs can 

also show the appropriate speed limit for when 

shoulder running is allowed or the plus lane 

can be used. In Germany, when a paved shoulder is converted to a travel lane, a reduced 

speed limit of 120 kilometers per hour (km/h) 

(75 miles per hour (mi/h) is considered (from 

a normal speed limit of 130 to 150 km/h (81 to 

93 mi/h)). If reallocation of the roadway for 

hard shoulder running reduces lane widths 

to less than 3.5 meters (m) (11.5 feet (ft)), a 

speed limit of 100 km/h (62 mi/h) is instituted. 

During shoulder running, the speed limit 

of the hard shoulder and the general travel 

lanes varies based on data from surveillance 

systems (loop detectors and/or cameras). 

 Lane width. When an existing roadway cross 

section is reallocated to add a lane, existing 

lane widths may be narrowed to accommodate 

the new lane. In several locations, lane widths 

varied within the cross section, with narrower 

lanes typically on the inside (or the lane nearest 

the median). In some instances, no-passing 

Figure 9. Automated enforcement signs.

England: roadside 

sign in Birmingham

England: sign on overhead 

gantry in Birmingham

Netherlands: roadside sign
 

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

restrictions were instituted for trucks to restrict 

them from the narrow inside lanes, harmonize 

speeds, and maintain lane control.

 Shoulder running and ramp junctions. 

Different approaches are considered for 

shoulder running through ramp junctions. In 

England, initial operations of shoulder running 

used only shoulder segments between ramps 

(i.e., the shoulder functioned as a lane gain or 

lane drop at each interchange). In 2009 England implemented a pilot allowing through 

junction running on the M42 motorway at 

certain locations to increase capacity at 

key bottlenecks. 

 Lighting needs with shoulder running. 

Lighting for shoulder running sections has 

been a discussion topic in England and, over 

time, the Highways Agency has found that 

continuous lighting treatments are not highly 

essential. In Germany and the Netherlands, 

continuous lighting is considered beneficial. 

 Variable speed limits, line control, and speed 

harmonization. Speed harmonization is introduced through the use of variable speed limits 

to improve traffic flow on freeway sections that 

experience recurrent congestion and protect 

vehicles at the back of congestion- or incidentrelated queues. The speed harmonization 

system detects changes in traffic speeds and 

volumes along a corridor, and an algorithm 

automatically reduces speeds based on realtime traffic conditions. To ensure respect for 

the variable speed limits, communicating the 

reason for the lower speed and enforcement 

is essential. Representatives of the European 

agencies used the phrase “trust equals compliance” on several occasions to indicate that the 

speed limit needs to be reasonable and the 

reason for lower speed needs to be clear. 

 Gantry and detector spacing. The spacing 

between gantries that contain variable speed 

limit and line control signs and detectors that 

collect traffic data varies among counties. In 

Germany the national standard is 2.5 km 

(1.6 mi), but Hessen spaces its detectors at 1 

km (0.6 mi) and gantries at 1 to 1.5 km (0.6 to 

0.9 mi). It justifies the closer spacing to collect 

better traffic flow data, provide better alternate route information, and improve system 

management. Other countries use 600-m 

(0.37-mi) to 1,000-m (0.62-mi) spacing of 

gantries. For gantry spacing, the countries 

visited stressed the importance of having a 

continuum of information with intervisibility 

of signs on successive gantries for the driver. 

 Emergency refuge areas. When the shoulder 

was used as a travel lane—either part time or 

permanently—emergency refuge areas were 

added. The spacing of the refuge areas 

varied by facility and country. 

 Signs. There is an ongoing debate on the best 

balance between static and variable message 

signs. One thought is that variable message 

signs provide better opportunity to communicate with the driver, such as the reason for 

speed limit changes or the presence of a queue 

or anticipated delay downstream. Some suggest that all signs should be dynamic signs, 

whether electronic or mechanical. However, 

variable message signs are more costly and 

require backup power systems to maintain 

continuous operation during a power failure.

 Evolution in design philosophy: transition to a 

performance- or risk-based design approach. 

Representatives from England, Germany, and 

the Netherlands all emphasized the need to 

use performance- and risk-based methods for 

making design choices. Historically, highway 

design criteria have been developed with a 

static roadway in mind. On a dynamically 

operated roadway, the needs and solutions may 

differ from those of a statically designed roadway. Performance-based design is an outcomebased, operationally focused design approach 

that considers the desired goals and objectives 

of the transportation facility and establishes 

project design criteria accordingly. England has 

developed a risk-based approach to innovative 

design practices, providing additional flexibility 

to design for safe operations. 

 Evolution of design criteria. Countries 

continuously evaluate cost-saving approaches, 

including the tradeoffs of increasing the 

spacing between gantries, detectors, and 

emergency refuge areas. In England earlier 

implementations are now considered 

conservative and experience indicates 

that greater spacing may be appropriate.
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 7

Findings for Performance Measures

 Key performance measures: travel time 

reliability and safety. The key performance 

measures used in some European countries 

call for improving travel time reliability while 

improving or maintaining safety. The active 

traffic management strategies being implemented allow a wide range of options to 

improve or maintain safety while providing 

substantive mobility benefits. 

 Other performance measures: travel speed 

and congestion. Average travel speeds for a 

roadway section have been used to quantify 

successful implementation of traffic management strategies, in addition to recognized and 

documented improvement in congestion. In 

Germany, the Congestion-Free Hessen 2015 

initiative was started with the intent to ensure 

continual improvement of traffic flow. The vision 

of the initiative is that “mobility is one of the 

greatest issues for the future in Hessen. Both 

in economic and ecological terms, as well as 

with reference to social and cultural aspects, 

this task demands our full attention. Because 

for a transit state like Hessen at the heart of 

Germany and Europe, mobility and logistics are 

not only sustainable economic factors but also 

synonyms for a modern and progressive society.”(9) Hessen has experienced an 80 percent 

reduction in congestion,(10) but the initial large 

reduction in congestion duration was because 

of the completion of major road projects.

 Public relations. Education of drivers and 

stakeholders on managed motorway features 

is important for successful operations. Projects 

are driven by desired outcome, so understanding the overall goal and clearly and successfully communicating the goal to the public are 

critical. Experiences in Europe have identified 

radio and Web-based approaches as the best 

methods to reach the public. In some cases, 

the driver culture of the area may influence 

how the treatments are implemented and 

communicated to drivers.

Findings for Planning 

 Safety concerns. Politicians, citizens, designers, and implementers in England, Germany, 

and the Netherlands had concerns similar to 

those expressed in the United States about 

potential or perceived reductions or changes 

in safety because of the application of some 

management strategies. The Highways Agency 

in England developed a hazard index to systematically evaluate potential driver safety 

risks and aid in its decision to implement 

strategies and design choices on managed 

motorways. The agency uses a risk-based 

approach for transitioning the shoulder from 

an emergency lane to a travel lane. Its research 

has indicated that the risk of eliminating shoulders (at least for part-time use) is minimal. 

 Evaluation of feasibility. Before managed 

motorway treatments were implemented, 

extensive studies were conducted to determine 

a technique or strategy appropriate to the 

problem and the roadway geometry. 

 Stakeholders. It is important to bring all stakeholders (enforcement, trucking, traveling public, 

agency, and government leadership) in at the 

early stages of the planning and design process. 

Emergency management was a key stakeholder 

group to educate and strategize on in several 

European countries. 

 Legislation and policy. In England, Germany, 

and the Netherlands, national or state policy 

was a driving factor in implementation of 

managed motorway concepts. In 2003, the 

German state of Hessen initiated CongestionFree Hessen 2015, which specifically identified 

future technologies, traffic management, and 

mobility services as tools to optimize traffic 

flow and increase safety. In England, longstanding public concern about the environmental cost of highway expansion drove the 

development of various reports and policy 

initiatives that emphasized sustainability in 

seeking solutions to roadway congestion.

Findings for Lessons Learned

 Corridors in progression. There is an 

evolutionary path in the appropriate design 

and operational strategies of individual freeway corridors. As traffic and congestion levels 

increase in the corridor, different approaches 

and management strategies should be considered to accommodate changing needs, 

risks, and appropriate tradeoffs.
8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 Effective use of space. Several European 

countries dynamically manage the freeway 

space available. For example, they may use 

the paved shoulder space for traffic movement 

during peak travel periods and as a typical 

shoulder during offpeak travel times. 

 Importance of collaborative design process. 

Actively and effectively managing roadways 

requires coordination across disciplines, and 

collaboration among planning, operations, and 

design is imperative. In England the Highways 

Agency uses the operational regimes to determine design criteria rather than adhere strictly 

to design standards. 

 Operating costs. Stable, consistent, and 

ongoing funding for operations and maintenance is a critical component of the 

managed motorway concept. 

 Capital costs. The M42 in England was 

designed conservatively on spacing of gantries, emergency refuge areas, and ancillary 

equipment. After monitoring operations and 

results, the English are making incremental 

changes based on data that demonstrate 

they can maintain or improve flow and safety 

while increasing the spacing between gantries 

and refuge areas and reducing lighting 

to lower costs.

 Complementary treatments. Many applications 

are complementary. For example, line control 

(or variable speed limits) and shoulder running 

installations result in complementary and 

synergistic operations and benefits. 

 Benefits. The countries visited report that 

managed motorways result in improved safety, 

reliability, and air quality benefits and can be 

provided at less cost than traditional capacity 

expansion. 

 Public perception. The countries recognize 

that a proposed operational scheme will be 

successful only if the public perceives it to 

be successful (despite what data may say).

 Procurement. Construction methods are evolving as a result of the high degree of technology 

required for managed motorway concepts. 

England has used innovative construction 

methods and offsite locations to assemble 

managed motorway gantries, signs, and 

ancillary equipment and realized efficiencies 

in buying equipment.

 Sign messages. England, Germany, and the 

Netherlands have found that it is important 

to test new sign messages with users 

before implementation.

Next Steps 

As evidenced in this report, the scan team believes 

that much can be gained in the United States by 

implementing several concepts and strategies 

observed during the scanning study. The next 

critical step is the implementation phase. Scan 

team members are communicating key findings, 

promoting implementation ideas, and advancing 

the adoption of key approaches and practices 

described in this report. The scan team is also 

seeking champions from transportation agencies 

and organizations to implement policies and 

practices using flexibility and innovation in 

designing freeways for improved safety 

and operational performance. 
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 9

Chapter 1: Introduction

The purpose of this scanning study was to examine 

innovative design practices and techniques used 

in other countries to improve the operational 

performance of congested freeway facilities without compromising safety. This scan builds on other 

scans that focused on congestion management 

and managed lane programs.

Background

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) 

Office of International Programs leads and coordinates efforts to implement international programs 

and activities that meet the priorities of FHWA and 

the U.S. transportation community.(1) The International Highway Technology Scanning Program 

serves as a means to access innovative technologies 

and practices in other countries that could significantly improve highways and highway transportation services in the United States. The program 

enables innovations to be adapted and put into 

practice much more efficiently without spending 

scarce research funds to re-create advances already 

developed by other countries. Personal domestic 

and international networking, team dynamics, and 

the creation of domestic champions for promising 

foreign ideas are keystones of the scan process. 

Successful implementation in the United States 

of the world’s best practices is the goal of the 

program.(2) The program is undertaken jointly 

with the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the 

Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP).

Planning for this scanning study began in February 

2010 with a desk scan that recommended England, 

Germany, and the Netherlands as the countries to 

visit, along with Spain as the host of the 4th International Symposium on Geometric Design. In June 

2010 a team of 10 U.S. transportation professionals 

with expertise in planning, design, and operations of 

freeways visited the four countries. Appendix A 

provides contact information and biographies for 

the team members. Table 1 lists the locations visited. 

During the scan, the team also attended the 4th 

International Symposium on Geometric Design and 

a workshop on managed motorways. Key findings 

from the symposium are in Appendix B. Appendix C 

provides the workshop agenda. 

Table 1. Hosted locations for the freeway

geometric design scanning study.

Countries Visited Locations Visited

Spain Valencia

Germany Frankfurt, Hessen, and Mainz, 

Rheinland-Pfalz

Netherlands Delft and Utrecht

England Birmingham

Purpose

Continued growth in travel on congested urban 

freeway corridors exceeds the ability of agencies to 

provide sufficient solutions and alternatives based 

on traditional roadway expansion and improvement 

projects. High construction costs, constrained 

right-of-way, statutory restrictions, and environmental factors are pushing agencies to explore solutions 

such as active traffic management and managed 

lanes to maximize throughput under congested 

conditions and improve safety by reducing 

collisions and nonrecurring congestion.

The purpose of the scanning study was to examine 

design practices and techniques used in other 

countries to improve the operational performance 

and safety of congested freeway facilities. Finding 

cost-effective options to mitigate recurrent and 

nonrecurrent congestion on urban freeway facilities 
10 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

is one of the most significant challenges State and 

regional transportation organizations face. Internationally, transport agencies are using geometric 

design treatments linked to operational strategies, 

such as reallocating the roadway cross section, to 

dynamically reduce congestion while improving or 

maintaining safety of freeways in congested urban 

freeway corridors. 

Managed Motorways—A Definition

“Managed motorways” is a term used in Europe and 

Australia.(3) Managed motorways combine actively or 

dynamically managed operational regimes, specific 

infrastructure designs, and technology solutions. 

They use a range of traffic management measures 

to actively monitor the motorway and, based on 

the monitoring, dynamically control speeds, add 

capacity, and inform road users of conditions on the 

network to optimize traffic and safety performance. 

Examples of these measures include hard shoulder 

running, variable mandatory speed limits, lane 

control signals, incident detection and response, and 

driver information using variable message signs. 

Managed motorways provide a significant opportunity to improve the capacity of motorways (called 

freeways in the United States) without acquiring 

more land and building large-scale infrastructure 

projects. Managed motorway concepts introduce 

new and revised operational activities that place 

greater reliance on technology than previously. 

Managed motorways increase journey reliability and 

throughput of a motorway by speed management, 

and they increase capacity by hard shoulder 

running. Other techniques can be used to reduce 

disruption from joining traffic (e.g., ramp metering) 

and to improve safety (e.g., monitoring, detection, 

and emergency refuge areas). 

For terms used in connection with managed 

motorways, see the Glossary.

Scan Team Members

The 10 scan team members (see figure 10) 

represented Federal agencies, State departments 

of transportation (DOTs), metropolitan planning 

organizations, research agencies, and private firms:

 Jeffrey (Jeff) C. Jones (AASHTO cochair), 

assistant chief engineer of design, 

Tennessee DOT

 Martin C. Knopp (FHWA cochair), division 

administrator, FHWA Florida and Puerto 

Rico Divisions 

 Kay Fitzpatrick (report facilitator), senior 

research engineer, Texas Transportation 

Institute

 Mark A. Doctor, safety and design engineer, 

FHWA Resource Center

Figure 10. Freeway geometric design practices for improved performance scan team (from left 

to right, first row, Liz Young, Charlie Howard, Kay Fitzpatrick, Brooke Struve, Jim Rosenow; 

second row, Bart Thrasher, Jeff Jones, Martin Knopp, Mark Doctor, Greg Laragan).
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 11

 Charles (Charlie) E. Howard, transportation 

planning director, Puget Sound Regional 

Council

 Gregory (Greg) M. Laragan, assistant chief 

engineer, operations, Idaho Transportation 

Department

 James (Jim) A. Rosenow, State geometrics 

engineer, Geometric Design Support Unit, 

Minnesota DOT

 Brooke A. Struve, design program manager, 

FHWA

 Barton A. Thrasher, assistant State location and 

design engineer, Virginia DOT

 Elizabeth (Liz) G. Young, project manager 

and senior supervising transportation planner, 

Parsons Brinckerhoff.

Travel Itinerary

During the 2-week study, the team visited 

representatives in four countries and attended 

TRB’s 4th International Geometric Design 

Symposium. The itinerary was as follows:

 June 1: Valencia, Spain, team meeting

 June 2: Valencia, Spain, Geometric Design 

Managed Motorway Workshop 

 June 2–4: Valencia, Spain, TRB 4th International 

Geometric Design Symposium 

 June 4: Valencia, Spain, meeting with hosts

 June 5: travel day

 June 6: Frankfurt, Germany, team meeting 

 June 7: Frankfurt and Mainz, Germany, 

meetings with hosts

 June 8–9: Delft and Utrecht, Netherlands, 

meetings with hosts

 June 10–11: Birmingham, England, meetings 

with hosts

 June 12: Birmingham, England, 

final team meeting

 June 13: return to United States

Host Delegations

During the study, the team members met with 

representatives from various national and regional 

transportation agencies in the host countries. 

A list of individuals the team met with and 

contact information are in Appendix D.

Questions

To help the host countries address the team’s interests, a set of amplifying questions was provided to 

them several months before the trip. The questions, 

in Appendix E, were grouped in four topics:

 Geometric design. Questions on geometric 

design were targeted to geometric design 

practices used to optimize the performance of 

existing or future freeway capacity. Examples 

of geometric design practices include dynamically varying the allocated use of the roadway 

section, reducing lane widths, and providing 

reserved areas for vehicle refuge, enforcement, 

or incident response and recovery. Also 

reviewed were signing, pavement marking, 

traffic control, lighting, variable speed limits 

and lane control, queue warning, and other 

elements considered in the design. 

 Performance measures. The scan team asked 

questions on performance measures and 

metrics to evaluate, monitor, and report 

on geometric design alternatives aimed at 

improving the performance and flexible use 

of freeway facilities (e.g., full-time capacity 

addition, part-time capacity addition). The 

team sought information on existing and 

proposed methods, procedures, tools, public 

outreach, and techniques used to assess safety 

and operational implications or to compare 

geometric design alternatives, active traffic 

management strategies, and innovative uses 

of the cross section of a freeway. 

 Planning. The scan team asked questions on 

the planning components used to integrate 

geometric design practices for improving 

freeway performance. The team was interested 
12 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

in organizational impacts, such as the need to 

address competencies, processes, structures, or 

other resource and agency leadership priorities; 

public acceptance or controversy; and political 

leadership and involvement.

 Benefits and lessons learned. Information was 

sought on the benefits of and lessons learned 

from different types of geometric design 

practices used to optimize the performance 

and flexible use of existing or future 

expanded freeway capacity. 

Report Format

The purpose of this report is to describe the techniques being implemented in Europe to improve 

operations on motorways, summarize the findings 

from the scanning study, suggest strategies that 

might be applicable to the United States, and 

recommend activities that might increase awareness and knowledge of the need to and means for 

implementing managed motorway concepts.

Chapter 2 summarizes the visits to each country. 

Chapter 3 summarizes key findings, and Chapter 4 

outlines the scan implementation plan. Appendix A 

provides contact information and biographies for 

the team members. Appendix B presents findings 

from the symposium the scan team attended. The 

agenda for the workshop before the symposium 

is in Appendix C. Appendix D and E provide host 

country contacts and amplifying questions.
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 13

Chapter 2: European Agency Approaches 

to Managed Motorways

This chapter describes the findings from each site visit. It provides a context for 

each country’s overall approach to managing its motorways.

 Spain

Meeting and Presentations 

On June 24, 2010, the scan team met with and heard 

presentations from the following from the Ministry of 

Public Works:

 Jose A. Hinojosa, director

 Vicente Ferrer Perez, civil engineer 

 Jose Yuste Maizal, civil engineer

Design Overview

Spain has few cases in which right-of-way for 

expansion is a severe limitation. Normally, it uses 

the median to increase the number of lanes or 

the land beside the highway. Most high-capacity 

roads in Spain (autopistas and autovias) are under 

the authority of the General Roads Directorate 

(Dirección General de Carreteras) of the Ministry of 

Public Works, a department of the central government of Spain. The Ministry of Public Works focuses 

on construction, while other departments, such as 

Enforcement or Police, handle operations. There is 

some coordination between operations and public 

works, but no strong ties. In addition to the central 

government, Spain has 17 local autonomous communities with responsibility for many highways. 

The working relationships of the General Roads 

Directorate with urban and regional traffic operations and planning agencies are often minimal. 

Case Study Examples 

The meeting with and presentations by the Spanish 

officials focused on a series of case studies 

illustrating Spain’s approach to freeway design:(4)

Case study 1: 

Widening from two to three lanes 

Since 2000, typical freeway and highway 

construction has included a 9- to 10-meter (m) 

(30- to 33-foot (ft)) median that is preserved for 

future expansion. Before 2000, there was no set 

requirement for median widths or expansion preservation. The Spanish use median and shoulder 

width for expansion from two to three lanes. Lane 

widths of 3.5 m (11.5 ft) are required on the interregional freeways and highways, with no exceptions. 

In this particular instance, the widening resulted in 

a 1-m (3.3-ft) outside shoulder and 50-centimeter 

(cm) (1.6-ft) inside shoulder (or shy distance). 

Roadway expansions are permanent, and the 

Spanish have not yet implemented shoulder or 

median lane use on a congestion-related or 

temporary basis. In some instances, they have 

reduced speed limits on the roadway because 

of sight distance restrictions from lane expansions. 

However, in this case, they were able to maintain 

the 80-kilometer-per-hour (km/h) (50 mile-perhour (mi/h)) speed limit. Emergency pulloffs are 

located about every 1 km (3,300 ft).
14 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

 

Case study 2: Tunnel widening from three to 

four lanes on Madrid M40

The approach roadway and tunnel section on M40 

was widened from three to four lanes using the 

outside shoulder width. Traffic entering the roadway 

before the tunnel is restricted to the outside lane 

only, and merging to the adjacent traffic lanes is 

restricted (figure 11(5)). 

Case study 3: Table-stayed bridge (puente) 

between Spain and Portugal

On the international bridge between Spain and 

Portugal, the Spanish widened the approach 

roadway and bridge section from one to two lanes 

in each direction using the outside shoulder width. 

Because the bridge deck was too narrow for two 

standard-width lanes, the speed limit on the bridge 

deck was reduced to mitigate the reduced lane 

widths (100 to 70 km/h (62 to 43 mi/h)). Lane 

widths for the bridge section were 2.85 m (9.3 ft) 

inside and 3 m (9.8 ft) outside. In addition to the 

speed reductions, truck traffic was restricted to 

the outside lane. 

Case study 4: Carril Adicional, reversible use of 

ramales (Madrid A6)

The Spanish implement a single contraflow lane 

on a two-lane separated, four-lane carriageway for 

weekend and summer traffic. The reversible lane is 

for high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) traffic only with 

one grade-separated entrance point. Transition 

from two-lane single direction to contraflow 

operation is via manual transition using handplaced traffic cones. 

Case study 5: Shoulder use for a single-lane ramp

The Spanish allow shoulder use on a single-lane 

ramp to facilitate exiting traffic.

Case study 6: Variable speed limits in Barcelona

An over-lane speed and lane control signal system 

is in place in Barcelona. Overhead gantries are 

located about every 500 m (1,640 ft). Two 

algorithms are used, one for traffic congestion 

and control and the other for air quality 

mitigation. The traffic congestion and 

control algorithm is most typically used. 

The lane control signals can close a lane 

(using a red X) to move traffic out of the 

path of a crash. The Spanish have experienced a decrease in crashes with the 

variable speed limit system, but specific 

data were not available. Speeds are 

reduced in 10-km/h (6-mi/h) increments, 

and 40 km/h (25 mi/h) is the minimum 

speed. Automated enforcement is conducted using cameras and mailed tickets. 

The variable speed limit system was 

implemented by the regional traffic 

agency in Barcelona. 

Figure 11. Spain: view of approach and exit from tunnel.(5)

Source: Google EarthTM
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 15

 GERMANY

Meetings and Presentations

The scan team had meetings with the following:

 Dr. Justin Geistefeldt, director of strategic traffic 

section, Hessian Road and Traffic Authority 

 Reiner Dolger, Helga Rottenau, and Klaus Noll 

of the Ministry for Economics, Transport, 

Agriculture, and Viniculture in Rheinland-Pfalz

 Dr. Kerstin Lemke of the Federal Highway 

Research Institute (BASt) after her symposium 

presentation on hard shoulder running

The scan team met with representatives from two 

of Germany’s 16 states (Hessen and RheinlandPfalz). Responsibilities at the state level include 

the following:

 Planning, designing, constructing, maintaining, 

and operating motorways

 Finance

 Police and rescue services

 Framework for traffic information, including 

radio broadcasting

Federal government responsibilities include 

the following:

 Financing motorways, including equipment 

(such as intelligent transportation system 

(ITS) infrastructure)

 Setting technical guidelines and rules for 

motorways (as part of federal roads)

 Research and development (through BASt or 

dedicated projects)

Lemke’s presentation(6) and paper(7) provided 

background information on hard shoulder 

running and safety studies conducted by BASt. 

Hessen

In Hessen, Geistefeldt provided information on 

Congestion-Free Hessen 2015, hard shoulder 

running, and line control.(8)

Congestion-Free Hessen 2015

The Congestion-Free Hessen 2015 initiative started 

in 2003 with the intent to ensure continual improvement in the traffic flow on Hessen’s roads. The vision 

of the initiative is the following:

Mobility is one of the greatest issues for 

the future in Hessen. Both in economic and 

ecological terms, as well as with reference 

to social and cultural aspects, this task 

demands our full attention. Because for 

a transit state like Hessen at the heart of 

Germany and Europe, mobility and logistics 

are not only sustainable economic factors 

but also synonyms for a modern and 

progressive society.(9)

The initiative recognized that mobility is a crucial 

economic factor and that an important part of a 

work zone is the need to manage traffic. Along 

with improvements in flow, the goals are safer 

roads and reduced pollution. The project has three 

focus areas: future technologies, traffic management, and mobility services.

Under traffic management, several programs are 

being implemented. The following is an overview 

of each program from the pamphlet “CongestionFree Hessen 2015: A Success Story.”(9)

 The Hessen traffic center includes more than 

80 monitors and data from more than 3,000 

induction loops. 

 Temporary use of hard shoulders is allowed 

during peak times. The Hessen traffic center 

opens the shoulder to vehicles based on traffic 

demand. The shoulders are monitored by 

cameras. Positive effects include the following:

 Congestion reduced 30 percent

 Crashes caused by traffic jams reduced 

25 percent(9)
16 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

 A network control system using variable 

direction signs is used to provide information 

about alternate routes. Since 2005 additional 

dynamic information boards have been used. 

These displays can provide diversion information along with the reason for the diversion and 

expected delay. The additional information can 

increase acceptance of the diversion recommendations. Another feature of the network 

control system is the ability to provide delay 

data on signs. A model the state developed 

uses speed data from pavement sensors spaced 

at 3 to 4 km or at 1 km when within a line 

control section. The rule of thumb is that

drivers will willingly reroute if travel time 

exceeds 20 minutes.(9) The contact noted that 

others display length of queue, but drivers want 

to know minutes and the value on the sign can 

have a large impact on driver behavior.(8)

 Long-distance corridors reflect cross-border 

traffic management with other German states. 

In the event of disruption to long-distance 

corridors, previously agreed-on diversion 

strategies are activated. Test corridors in 

use include the following:

 South: Munich to Frankfurt

 West: Frankfurt to Cologne

 North: Dortmund to Hamburg

 Road works management involves scheduling 

road construction or maintenance to minimize 

the effect on traffic. Factors used and considered include an extensive historical database 

of traffic patterns, effective traffic models, 

planned special occasions (e.g., large trade 

fairs, sport events), and timing of maintenance 

on parallel routes.

Hessen has experienced congestion reduction of 

80 percent, as shown in figure 12.(10) The initial large 

reduction in congestion duration was because of 

the completion of major road projects.

Line Control in Hessen

Another traffic management technique used is 

line control, known in other areas as variable speed 

limits. It is not called variable speed limits in Hessen 

because the signs can display more than just speed 

limits. The speed limit is set to harmonize traffic 

flow at high volumes. It decreases the variance 

in speed and capacity. Line control is used on all 

major freeways in the Hessen area. It is also used 

with hard shoulder running. The detectors are 

spaced at 1 km and gantries are 1 to 1.5 km apart. 

National standards are 2.5 km, so Hessen must 

justify the shorter spacing.

Hard Shoulder Running in Hessen

The Hessen Web site(11) provides the following 

summary of the temporary use of hard shoulders:

(Their use) for regular traffic increases the 

capacity of busy motorways at peak times, 

thus preventing traffic jams, or at least considerably reducing them. A high degree of safety 

is ensured by monitoring the traffic by video 

and by deploying systems to influence sections. Hard shoulders retain 

their intended function, apart from 

temporary use for traffic, which is 

to provide space to park vehicles in 

case of accidents, breakdowns, and 

during maintenance work. Using hard 

shoulders can temporarily increase 

capacity by up to 25 percent (given 

three regular lanes). Studies for the 

A5 motorway between the Frankfurt 

North-West interchange and Friedberg have shown that the benefits 

gained from avoiding lost travel time 

are so great that the system has paid 

for itself in less than 3 years. No 

Figure 12. Germany: duration of congestion on motorways in Hessen. serious impairments to road safety (10)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 17

have been established to date. On the contrary: 

Studies for the A3 demonstrate that the 

higher capacity resulting from the use of 

hard shoulders noticeably reduces the 

potential congestion on a section, and thus 

the frequency of accidents caused by traffic 

jams. At present, hard shoulders are already 

in temporary use on 63 km (39.1 mi) in 

Hessen. Due to the very positive experience, 

further segments have been earmarked 

for temporary use of hard shoulders. Of 

these, around 12 km (7.4 mi) are presently 

undergoing implementation (A5 between 

the Darmstadt interchange and the 

Eberstadt junction in both directions).(11)

Hard shoulder running was first implemented in 

2001. Frankfurt now operates 65 km (40.3 mi) 

of hard shoulder running. Hard shoulder control 

is usually integrated with line control systems. 

Both static and dynamic signs are used. The static 

signs have the arrows on a rotating drum that is 

changed depending on whether hard shoulder 

running is allowed (see figure 13). The dynamic 

signs show the following:

 Blank = hard shoulder running is not allowed 

 Red X = disabled vehicle is on the shoulder 

 Green downward arrow = hard shoulder 

running is permitted

Figure 14 shows the dynamic impacts on congestion from temporary hard shoulder running on 

the A5.(8) Before 2001, more than 600 hours 

of congestion per year was experienced in the 

northbound direction. After hard shoulder 

running was implemented, congestion peaked at 

less than 200 hours of congestion. The southbound 

section did not experience as large a reduction, 

but most of the section did experience a reduction. 

The area near the interchange of Frankfurt did 

experience slightly more hours of congestion 

because of the transition to the nonmanaged 

Figure 13. Germany: signs for hard shoulder running.(7)

Figure 14. Germany: temporary hard shoulder running

impact on congestion for A5.(8)
18 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

section. Congestion, determined by sensors, was 

defined as speeds of less than 70 km/h (43 mi/h).

Figure 15 shows the impact of temporary hard 

shoulder running on road safety. The figure compares the years with hard shoulder use to the 

years during the provisional system (representing 

a 2-year implementation stage) and without hard 

shoulder use. The crash rate per hundred million 

vehicle-kilometers (109 veh*km) is similar or slightly 

lower for 2004 and 2005 compared to previous 

years. In 2005 crashes increased in the hard shoulder running section. Reasons for the increase are 

not known. The graph also shows a lower crash rate 

for the section of the motorway located upstream 

of the hard shoulder running, indicating that the 

safety benefits of implementing hard shoulder 

running extend beyond the location of the hard 

shoulder running. While benefits of hard shoulder 

running are apparent, Hessen takes a conservative 

approach and states that the system does not 

impact safety.(8) There were concerns that hard 

shoulder running would increase crashes, so finding 

no impact on safety is viewed as a positive result.

Based on the experiences on A5, the cost of the 

system was paid off in 2.5 years.(8)

General observations on hard shoulder running 

include the following:

 Acceptance for hard shoulder driving is high 

among truck drivers.

 Weaving maneuver challenges can occur at the 

end of the hard shoulder running.

 Trucks tend to move over to the hard shoulder 

once it opens.

 The Germans have not found any unique crash 

patterns around the hard shoulder running 

locations.

Hard should running is used only during congested 

periods; the shoulder operates as a shoulder when 

no congestion is experienced.

Long-Distance Corridors in Hessen

Since Hessen is a critical transportation hub for 

Germany and Europe, its traffic management and 

control systems must consider long-distance traffic 

from other German states. To be able to divert traffic 

in the event of major disruptions on the most important freeways, close cooperation between the neighboring German states is necessary. Cross-border 

traffic management on long- distance corridors 

was developed to facilitate this cooperation. In the 

event of a major traffic disruption on long-distance 

corridors, previously agreed-on diversion strategies 

are activated and the effectiveness of the freeway 

network beyond the state’s borders is fully used. 

Initially this management strategy was successfully 

tested for the Frankfurt-Cologne corridor, and it 

has now been extended to additional corridors. 

Rheinland-Pfalz

Rheinland-Pfalz has focused on the 

following traffic problems:

 Low accessibility in rural areas

 Recurrent congestion in 

urbanized areas

 Congestion caused by construction and severe weather

 Safety level (high in general, but 

problems remain on some roads)

 Lack of parking space for heavy 

goods vehicles (truck drivers are 

stopping on ramps when rest 

areas fill) Figure 15. Germany: temporary hard shoulder running impact on safety for A5.(8)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 19

Lane control systems have been in operation since 

1994 and rerouting variable message signs have 

been in place since 2009. Hard shoulder running 

was permitted after 2002 when the restriction 

on crossing the solid white line was removed. 

Line Control Systems

Line control systems in Rheinland-Pfalz include 

the following:

 Dynamic speed limits

 Overtaking bans

 Warning signs

Currently, Rheinland-Pfalz has three line control 

systems in operation. It reports good experiences 

with capacity and safety and has found the systems 

particularly useful for heavy truck traffic and in 

mountainous areas with bad weather.(12) It considers 

overtaking bans important. It limits truck speeds 

because trucks are not permitted to overtake. Trucks 

are estimated to be up to 30 percent of the traffic 

on the autobahn.

Mobile police rather than automated speed enforcement is used. An estimated 80 percent of motorists 

comply with the speed limit. When speeds are not 

restricted by a speed limit, the 85th percentile speed 

on the motorways is estimated at 150 km/h (93 

mi/h). Most drivers will accept the dynamic speed 

limit when the need is apparent. Dynamic speed 

limits have been set as low as 80 km/h (50 mi/h). 

At a location with cross slope concerns, different 

speed limits by lane have been used. For example, 

the right most lane was signed at 80 km/h (50 mi/h) 

and the other lanes at 100 or 130 km/h (62 or 81 

mi/h).(12) Crashes influenced by a lane control system 

dropped 30 percent, while all crashes dropped 20 

percent.(13)

Loop detectors and gantries are located every 2 to 3 

km (1.2 to 1.9 mi). Many motorways were designed 

for 130 km/h (81 mi/h). 

Dynamic Rerouting

Rhineland-Pfalz also has a dynamic rerouting 

system in place, providing drivers with alternate 

route information during congested, incident, or 

weather-related conditions. Even though the 

systems are not mandatory, they have experienced a 

high level of acceptance by drivers. Dynamic rerouting is particularly useful in urban areas and on dense 

roadway networks with available alternate routes. 

Hard Shoulder Running

Hard shoulder running can be either temporary 

or continuous. The temporary systems require less 

planning and fewer environmental evaluations, so 

they can be implemented faster. Rhineland-Pfalz has 

one temporary system under construction. Officials 

provided the following observations on hard 

shoulder running to the scan team:(12)

 Noise level has been an issue, and officials have 

considered noise walls or a roof to encase the 

motorway to manage the noise.

 If they implement hard shoulder running, they 

try to remove any cross slope breaks.

 They have some permanent hard shoulder 

running, but not all have lane control. 

 They believe safety has been good. 

 In some locations, pavement reconstruction 

was required.

 Minimum lane width is 3.25 m. 

 They have introduced speed limits (between 

100 and 130 km/h (62 and 81 mi/h)) with hard 

shoulder running.

 Hard shoulder running sections have emergency pullouts about every 1 km. These 

sections are more difficult to operate and 

maintain. Temporary hard shoulder running 

sections must have cameras. 

Overview of Hard Shoulder Running

According to Lemke,(7) the first pilot dynamic hard 

shoulder running scheme was implemented in 1996 

on 1.6 km (1 mi) of the A4 freeway near Cologne. The 

section is activated in response to traffic volumes as 

a running lane, usually between 6 and 10 a.m. The 

section has one emergency refuge area. The speed 

is limited to 100 km/h (62 mi/h) during the entire 

day. Travel lanes were narrowed to 3.25 m (10.7 ft) 

and the shoulder width is 3.5 m (11.5 ft). The annual 
20 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

average daily traffic (AADT) exceeds 40,000 vehicles 

per day with almost 10 percent heavy traffic.

Based on the experience of pilot measures of 

permanent and dynamic hard shoulder running, the 

Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and Housing 

defined a set of guidelines for the implementation of 

such measures. These guidelines, summarized from 

Lemke’s paper, include the following:

 According to the German Highway Capacity 

Manual, it must be demonstrated that level of 

service defined as “D” could not be reached 

during peak hours.

 A width of at least 3.5 m (11.5 ft) must be 

provided for the heavy vehicle lane and at 

least 3.25 m (10.7 ft) for other lanes.

 Emergency refuge areas must be located at 

intervals of 1,000 m (0.62 mi).

 When hard shoulder running is intended to run 

through junctions, additional lanes must be 

provided in merge areas.

 A speed limit of 100 km/h (62 mi/h) must be 

established if restriping leads to lane width 

of less than 3.5 m (11.5 ft). This speed limit 

is also advisable in times without hard 

shoulder running.

 When paved shoulders are converted into travel 

lanes by restriping, a speed limit of 120 km/h 

(75 mi/h) should be considered.

 Prohibition of overtaking could allow for rescue 

services to pass through in case of emergencies.

The signs for use in hard shoulder running sections 

are shown in figure 13. Around 200 km (124 mi) 

of German freeways have dynamic hard shoulder 

running (see table 2). Although Germany successfully implemented measures of hard shoulder 

running, hard shoulders are still considered a 

vital element of freeway cross sections. Therefore, 

all cross section types of the new freeway design 

guidelines contain hard shoulders. The typical 

cross section for four-lane freeways (see figure 16), 

however, was designed so that hard shoulder 

running would be possible without restriping the 

roadway. The main design-relevant prerequisites 

of hard shoulder running were integrated into the 

design guidelines. The 0.75-m (2.5-ft) strips on 

both sides of the main carriageway shown in figure 

16 are intended to stabilize the pavement and 

include the lane markings (shown as white squares 

in the figures). These strips are usually 0.5 m (1.6 ft) 

wide. On major motorways, their width is increased 

to 0.75 m (2.5 ft) to increase the sight distances 

in left curves and allow for more flexible planning 

of work zones (where lanes are shifted to the 

opposite carriageway).

Safety of Hard Shoulder Running

Lemke(7) reported on a study on road safety for hard 

shoulder running. Table 3 lists the sections included 

in the safety study along with their characteristics. 

Before-and-after data were examined for each 

section with hard should running along with 

Freeway Section Direction Length (kilometer) Lane no.

A3 Offenbacher Kreuz–AS Obertshausen both 5.7 + 6.0 3 + 1

A3 Monchhofdreieck–AS Kelsterbach both 3.3 + 2.0 3 + 1

A4 AS Refrath-AS Köln-Merheim Köln 1.6 2 + 1

A5 AS Friedberg–Bad Homburger Kreuz both 7.2 + 8.9 3 + 1

A5 Bad Homburger Kreuz–Nordwestkreuz Frankfurt both 4.8 + 7.7 3 + 1

A7 Border HH–AS Kalten kirchen Flensburg 22.5 2 + 1

A7 AS Neümnster-Süd–AD Bordesholm Flensburg 14.0 2 + 1

A7 AS Soltau-Ost–Dreieck Walsrode both 32.4 + 31.8 2 + 1

A8 AS Hofolding–AS Holzkirchen Salzburg 9.8 + 9.8 3 + 1

A99 AK München Nord–AS Haar both 18.0 + 18.0 3 + 1

Table 2. Germany: sections with dynamic hard shoulder running in 2009.(7)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 21

comparison sites located upstream, downstream, or 

in the opposing direction. Comparisons were done 

for each freeway separately. 

Figure 17 (see next page) shows one of the comparisons for the A7 freeway. The A7 freeway is characterized by commuter traffic to and from Hamburg as 

well as recreational traffic during summer holidays. 

Hard shoulders on three sections going north 

(leaving Hamburg) are activated as running lanes in 

response to traffic volume. The 11.5-m (37.7-ft) cross 

section was restriped so that lanes had widths of 3.5, 

3.8, and 3.6 m (11.5, 12.5, and 11.8 ft). Near the city of 

Neumunster, the section was only partly restriped 

so the hard shoulder is only 3.45 m (11.3 ft) wide, 

including the marking. The posted speed was set at 

120 km/h (75 mi/h) during hard shoulder running. 

The AADT is up to 35,000 vehicles. The portion of 

heavy vehicles is between 10 and 15 percent. The 

first two sites encountered while traveling north 

(Quickborn and Kaltenkirchen) had a crash rate 

below Germany’s average crash rate (about 0.16 

crashes per million vehicle-kilometers (0.26 crashes 

per million vehicle-miles)) before the implementation of hard shoulder running (see figure 17). For 

Neumunster, the safety level improved, bringing 

the crash rate to just below the country’s average. 

Lemke(7) concluded that well-designed hard 

shoulder running with a speed limit of 100 km/h 

(68 mi/h) when equipped with emergency refuge 

areas or a speed limit of 120 km/h (75 mi/h) when 

equipped with small (at least 2.5-m (8.2-ft) wide) 

shoulders can reach the same safety level as the 

average Germany freeway sections, which have 

the following rates:

Table 3. Germany: sections included in safety study on hard shoulder running.(6)

Freeway Section Type Length in km (mi) Width in m (ft) Speed Limit in km/h (mi/h)

A4 Refrath Traffic-activated 1.6 (1.0) 10 (32.8) 100 (62)

A6

Walldorf Permanent 5.5 (3.4) 13 (42.6) 120 (75)

Neckarsulm 1 Permanent 11.8 (7.3) 13 (42.6) 120 (75)

Neckarsulm 2 Permanent 9 (5.6) 12 (39.3) 100 (62)

Weinsberg Permanent 8 (5.0) 12 (39.3) 100 (62)

A7

Quickborn Traffic-activated 10 (6.2) 11.5 (37.7) 120 (75)

Kaltenkirchen Traffic-activated 12 (7.5) 11.5 (37.7) 120 (75)

Neumunster Traffic-activated 14 (8.7) 11.5 (37.7) 120 (75)

Figure 16. Germany: cross section for four-lane freeways allowing hard shoulder running.(7)
22 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

 Fatal and severe injury crashes: 0.03 crashes 

per million vehicle-kilometers (0.05 crashes 

per million vehicle-miles)

 Slight injury crashes and severe propertydamage-only crashes: 0.13 crashes per million 

vehicle-kilometers (0.21 crashes per million 

vehicle-miles).

An important prerequisite for this assumption 

is a detailed safety analysis of the section at the 

planning stage to eliminate high-risk road sites 

(especially near junctions). When the safety level 

is already better than these values before any 

hard shoulder running is implemented, no 

change is expected. 

German Lane Widths

The German design manual, Richtlinien fuer die 

Anlage von Autobahnen, includes standard cross 

sections.(14) The standard cross sections for interurban autobahn (freeways) are shown in figure 18. 

Figure 19 shows the standard cross section for 

four-lane highways, and figure 20 (see page 24) 

shows the standard cross section for intercity 

autobahns (freeways). 

Left shoulder width is typically 0.5 to 0.75 m 

(1.6 to 2.5 ft). Previous design guidance called 

for a lane width of 3.75 m (12.3 ft). Current design 

guidance specifies lane widths of 3.5 m (11.5 ft) 

or 3.25 m (10.7 ft).

Figure 17. Germany: road safety on the A7 where AR(I) = fatal and 

severe injury crash rate and AR(II) = slight injury crash + severe

property damage-only crash rate.(6)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 23

Figure 18. Germany: standard cross sections for interurban autobahn (freeway).(14)

Standard cross sections for interurban freeways

Ranges of application for standard cross sections on interurban freeways (DTV=average daily traffic)

Figure 19. Germany: standard cross section for four-lane highways.(14)
24 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

Figure 20. Germany: standard cross section for intercity autobahns (freeways).(14)

Standard cross sections for intercity autobahns (freeways)

Ranges of application for standard cross sections on intercity autobahns (freeways)

(DTV=average daily traffic)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 25

 netherlands

Meetings and Presentations

The scan team met with representatives of 

Rijkswaterstaat (Ministry of Transport, Public 

Works, and Water Management). The following 

made presentations to the scan team:

 Aad Wilmink, director of traffic management, 

provided the welcome.

 Alex van Loon discussed background information on the Netherlands to help the scan team 

understand the evolution of design in the 

country.

 Gerald Uittenbogerd presented on geometric 

design in the Netherlands.

 Bert Helleman discussed hard shoulder running 

and traffic management issues. 

 Marthe van Dongen and Roel Nijsten discussed 

planning processes.

 Alex van Loon talked about future road 

plans and accompanied the team to view 

sites in Utrecht.

National Mobility Scheme

Rijkswaterstaat is responsible for the national road 

network in the Netherlands. Helleman provided the 

team with background information on transport 

policy and the managed motorway concept in 

the Netherlands.(15) Dutch transport policy has 

three pillars for national mobility:

 Limited extension of infrastructure

 Emphasis on better use of existing roads 

(Urgent Act on Road Widening)

 Road pricing

Dutch managed motorways have three 

key components:

 Hard shoulder running

 Variable speed limits

 Interchange lane control

Hard Shoulder Running

The first hard shoulder running project was 

conducted in 1996. The use of the hard shoulder 

as an additional lane can occur two ways: hard 

shoulder running and plus lanes.

Table 4 lists current and planned road projects 

in the Netherlands.

Table 4. Netherlands: road projects.(15)

Time 

Sections of Hard Shoulder Running 

and Plus Lanes in km (mi)

Hard Shoulder Running Plus Lanes

Current 72 (45) 108 (67)

Planned

(2010–2014) 151 (94) 90 (56)

Total 223 (139) 198 (123)

In hard shoulder running, drivers can use the right 

shoulder as a travel lane. Refuge for vehicles is 

available at emergency refuge areas spaced every 

1,000 m (0.62 mi). The speed limit is 100 km/h 

(62 mi/h) when hard shoulder running is permitted. 

The hard shoulder is used only during the peak 

period. This approach results in less noise and 

fewer environmental concerns. Figure 21 shows 

an example of hard shoulder running in which 

the left shoulder is 1.1 m (3.6 ft). The figure also 

shows the German sign adopted by the Netherlands to communicate whether the shoulder lane 

Figure 21. Netherlands: hard shoulder running.(15)
26 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

is available. Figure 22 shows another 

example of hard shoulder running.

For plus lanes, the carriageway is restriped 

to reflect the permanent addition of another 

lane. Most of the additional lane width is 

from the left shoulder. The plus lane, the 

leftmost lane, is separated by typical lane 

lines and controlled by a lane control sign. 

The left lane is closed during offpeak times 

and the speed limit is higher. An advantage 

of the plus lane is at ramps (or junctions). 

The geometry is more conventional and 

familiar to drivers. The lane widths vary 

across the carriageway; the left lane is not as 

wide and has a width restriction (e.g., 2.3 m 

(7.5 ft)). Figure 23 shows an example of a 

plus lane. The photo, taken in 1998, does not 

include the pavement marking now used 

with plus lanes. Current markings are 9 m 

(29.5 ft) of stripe with a 3-m (9.8-ft) gap, 

commonly called 9-3. Figure 23 shows the 

typical lane marking of 3 m (9.8 ft) of stripes 

with a 9-m (29.5-ft) gap, called 3-9. Figure 

24 shows plus lanes on A12 with current 9-3 

lane markings and truck restriction signs. 

Figure 25 shows a closed plus lane.

Reasons hard shoulder running is used 

instead of permanently adding a lane 

include the following:

 Additional environmental concerns 

 Noise

 Cost

 Need for more space for a permanent 

roadway expansion

When hard shoulder running was not in 

use and the lane control signals were blank, 

between 6 and 60 violations occurred per 

hour.(15) In November 2006 the Netherlands 

introduced the use of a red cross to communicate that the hard shoulder is closed. 

Figure 26 shows the signs used when closing 

the hard shoulder. Figure 27 shows when 

hard shoulder running is not permitted, and 

figure 28 (see page 28) shows a closeup of 

a red cross indicating that hard shoulder 

running is not permitted.

Figure 22. Netherlands: hard shoulder running.

Figure 23. Netherlands: plus lane with former

style of lane markings.(15)

Figure 24. Netherlands: A12 plus lane with current plus

lane markings and truck restriction.(5)

Source: Google Earth

TM
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 27

Gantries are spaced at about 600-m (1,970-ft) 

intervals. Hard shoulder running does occur 

through on- and off-ramp junctions. Pavement 

markings with different gap patterns are used in 

the merge area, as shown in figure 29 (see page 

28) for off-ramp and figure 30 (see page 28) 

for on-ramp.

When an on-ramp is in a hard shoulder running 

section (figure 30), a solid white line indicates 

the location of the hard shoulder. The stripe is 20 

cm (0.7 ft) wide and about 100 m (330 ft) long. 

It follows the same dimensions as gore striping.

Truck overtaking bans are not used when the 

hard shoulder running area is short so trucks 

are not forced to make multiple lane changes.

Figure 31 (see page 29) shows the sequence 

followed before opening hard shoulder running. 

Safety measures employed with hard shoulder 

running include the following:

 Refuge havens (also known as 

emergency refuge areas)

 Automatic incident detection to warn 

operator of starting congestion

 Overhead signals and variable 

message signs

 Dynamic speed reduction (maximum 

speed limit is 100 km/h (62 mi/h))

 Roadway lighting

 Overtaking ban for trucks

 Incident management (maximum of 15 

minutes for assistance to be on the scene)

Figure 32 (see page 29) shows traffic safety 

data. It is based on 3 years of before data and 2 

years of after data. Improvements were observed 

at most sites, primarily because of reduced 

congestion. Two hard shoulder running sites did 

have slight increases in crashes. The increases 

were attributed to a closely spaced ramp and 

exit design (weaving). The overall conclusion is 

that safety has been predominantly positive, 

caused by strong reductions in congestion. The 

Figure 25. Netherlands: A12 plus lane closed to traffic.(5)

Source: Google EarthTM

Figure 26. Netherlands: signs used to indicate

hard shoulder running is closing.

Hard shoulder running sign when lane is closing

Overhead lane signal when lane is closing

Figure 27. Netherlands: example of when hard

shoulder running is not permitted.
28 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

Dutch have not observed an increase in 

hard shoulder running-related crashes, 

such as vehicles running on the hard 

shoulder colliding with a vehicle that 

has sought refuge on the shoulder. They 

are continuously looking for methods to 

detect incidents faster and minimize the 

number of incidents or disabled vehicles.

Figure 33 (see page 30) shows traffic flow 

benefits. Only one location experienced 

an increase in delay. For some sites, 

delay decreased over 90 percent. Larger 

decreases in delay were found for plus 

lanes than hard shoulder running. 

Performance showed increases for 

all sites except one.

Dynamic Speed Limits 

The Dutch are examining speed limits 

through the Dynamic Speed Limits 

project, which was developed “to gain 

more insight into the impact of variable, 

tailor-made speed limits.”(16) A pamphlet 

on dynamic speed limits provides the 

following discussion on the benefits:

Adjusting speed limits to unexpected 

and varying situations such as 

weather conditions, congestion, or 

an incident can improve traffic flow. 

It will also enhance the safety and 

improve local air quality. By applying 

a flexible and wide range of speed 

limits (50 to 120 km/h (31 to 75 

mi/h)), operators can influence the 

actual situation on the road. Thus 

road users can drive faster if possible 

and need to slow down if necessary.

Tests are being conducted on several 

roadways and evaluations are ongoing. 

The evaluation on permanent speed 

reduction found excellent compliance 

(about 1 percent violations) because of 

enforcement. Reductions in emissions and 

noise level were also identified. Residents 

along the sections also expressed 

appreciation for the change.

Evaluation of variable speed limits is 

ongoing, and the Dutch are also investiFigure 28. Netherlands: closeup of red cross used to indicate

hard shoulder running is not permitted.

Figure 29. Netherlands: off-ramp design.(15)

Figure 30. Netherlands: on-ramp design.(15)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 29

gating how to use data from traffic 

monitoring equipment to detect shockwaves and manage upstream speeds to 

limit the impact of the shockwave. A 

system called SPECIALIST (speed-controlling algorithm using shockwave theory) is 

being developed. Weather forecasts, such 

as a major rain storm, can also be considered when setting variable speed limits.

Interchange Lane Control 

The host discussed an interchange 

junction where lane control is used to 

optimize the merging of two facilities. 

Figure 34 (see page 30) shows an aerial 

view of the interchange and a schematic 

of the merge area. The rightmost lane on 

the motorway is closed to facilitate the 

merging of two lanes from the ramp. 

Table 5 (see page 31) shows the results 

of the pilot study. Mean travel time 

was reduced and mean travel speed 

increased for both vehicles on the ramp 

(as expected) and vehicles on the main 

lanes of the motorway. Both approaches 

also experienced a decrease in vehiclehours of delay, with ramp vehicles 

experiencing a slighter greater reduction. 

Geometric Design 

The Netherlands has dealt with challenges 

similar to those in the United States. For 

example, after the postwar rebuilding 

period came a period in the 1970s of “not 

in my backyard” opposition to building 

roads in certain areas. Between 1978 and 

2004, the ministry conducted planning, 

design, finance, and maintenance tasks. 

In 2004, a major reorganization resulted 

in contractors doing the design work 

along with construction and maintenance. 

The ministry now focuses on planning, 

finance, specification, and audits. The 

motivation for the change was so that 

Dutch consultants could develop skills 

they could export to other countries. 

They use a design speed of 120 km/h 

(75 mi/h) with 3.5-m (11.5-ft) lane widths, 

750-m (2,460-ft) minimum curve radius, 

and 5 percent maximum superelevation. 

They use spirals for transitions on any 

Figure 31. Netherlands: opening sequence for hard shoulder running.(15)

Figure 32. Netherlands: traffic safety at hard shoulder

running and plus lane sites.(15)

Injury Crash Rate
30 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

curves with radii of less than 2,000 m (1.24 

mi). They use “Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely” (SMART) guidelines for geometric design. As part of this, 

they do not use any left-side exit ramps.

A philosophy of their design approach 

is to create self-explaining roadways with 

sustainable safety. They monitor research 

efforts in Germany, such as a large research 

project on the effects of superelevation on 

driving during heavy rain. The Netherlands 

also must manage its system during heavy 

rainfall. Rain results in pavements being wet 

about 12 percent of time. The Dutch have 

developed porous asphalt to minimize 

splash on the pavement surface.

Examples of features of current documents 

include the following:

 White (also known as black) spots, 

sight distance, distance between 

successive ramp terminals, design 

speed (now have 120-km/h (75-mi/h) 

design speed), transition superelevation, and others

 Special books for alignment, 

markings, etc.

 Use of AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,

also known as the Green Book, for 

reference

The Dutch have debated lower design 

speed (politicians want lower design speed 

so roads take less space) versus higher 

design speed (drivers may be able to drive 

at 150 km/h (93 mi/h) in electric cars and 

not pollute the air).

International design law describes the 

minimum shoulder width of 2.5 m (8.2 ft), 

and a country must have good arguments 

to deviate from those standards.

Buses and trucks are 2.6 m (8.5 ft) wide, 

which is more or less the European standard.

The Dutch use a design speed of 120 km/h 

(75 mi/h) for rural areas. In urban areas the 

Figure 34. Netherlands: interchange with

interchange merge control.(15)

Figure 33. Netherlands: traffic benefits of hard

shoulder running and plus lanes.(15)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 31

Table 5. Netherlands: results of pilot study on interchange merge control.(15)

Route Measure Free Flow Without Interchange 

Merge Control

With Interchange 

Merge Control Percent Change

Red Route (Ramp)

Mean travel time

Mean travel speed

Vehicle-hours of delay

4.76

98

11.03

41

1,558

10.42

45

1,361

-8 percent

+8 percent

-13 percent

Blue Route (Main Lanes)

Mean travel time

Mean travel speed

Vehicle-hours of delay

2.78

106

7.07

42

1,455

6.56

45

1,398

-7 percent

+7 percent

-4 percent

Table 6. Netherlands: cross section widths.(17)

Vehicle Type Function of * Width in m (ft) for design speeds

Space of Interest Space to left Space to right 120 km/h (75 mi/h) 100 km/h (62 mi/h) 80 km/h (50 mi/h)

Passenger

Car

Driving Driving Driving 3.35 (11.0) 3.10 (10.2) 2.80 (9.2)

Emergency/

Recovery 3.25 (10.7) 3.05 (10.0) 2.75 (9.0)

Emergency/ 

Recovery

Driving 3.25 (10.7) 3.05 (10.0) 2.75 (9.0)

Emergency/ 

Recovery 3.30 (10.8) 3.10 (10.2) 2.80 (9.2)

Emergency Driving No lane 3.15 (10.3) 3.15 (10.3) 3.15 (10.3)

No lane Driving n.a. n.a. n.a.

Recovery Area Driving No lane 0.60 (2.0) 0.60 (2.0) 0.30 (1.0)

No lane Driving 0.60 (2.0) 0.60 (2.0) 0.30 (1.0)

Truck Driving Driving Driving 3.35 (11.0) 3.35 (11.0) 3.35 (11.0)

Emergency/

Recovery 3.30 (10.8) 3.30 (10.8) 3.30 (10.8)

Emergency/ 

Recovery

Driving 3.30 (10.8) 3.30 (10.8) 3.30 (10.8)

Emergency/ 

Recovery 3.35 (11.0) 3.35 (11.0) 3.20 (10.5)

Emergency Driving No lane 3.15 (10.3) 3.15 (10.3) 3.15 (10.3)

No lane Driving n.a. n.a. n.a.

Recovery Area Driving No lane 0.60 (2.0) 0.60 (2.0) 0.30 (1.0)

No lane Driving 0.60 (2.0) 0.60 (2.0) 0.30 (1.0)

*Driving = driving lane Emergency = shoulder area or area for emergency use Recovery Area = between shoulder and barrier

Emergency/Recovery = shoulder area or area for emergency use or area between shoulder and barrier

design speed is 90 km/h (56 mi/h), but the definition 

of an urban area is not always clear. They believe 

they have impressive decreases in crashes in sections 

where speeds were reduced to 80 km/h (50 mi/h).

Lane width is 3.5 m (11.5 ft), but some believe that is 

too wide. Narrowed lanes provide space for hard 

shoulder running through redivision of the carriageway. In other words, it can provide greater capacity 

for a section. The Dutch design manual has a table 

that shows which lane to reduce given the conditions 

present.(17) Table 6 shows an example of the dimensions for the width of cross-section elements.

Traffic behavior is different when there are three 

lanes with no shoulder versus two lanes with a 
32 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

shoulder, so speeds are reduced when hard shoulder 

running is permitted.

Comments on horizontal curvature included the 

following:

 Minimum radius is 750 m (2,459 ft) for 

100 km/h (62 mi/h), based on comfort, and 

1,500 m (4,918 ft), based on visibility or sight.

 Research has shown a significant difference 

in crashes over and under 1,500 m (4,918 ft).

 Maximum superelevation is 5 percent.

 When using a 750-m (2,459-ft) radius, 

compensation must be made for the tight 

radius, such as by widening the carriageway.

 Under 2,000 m (6,557 ft), a spiral transition 

is used.

Meetings and Presentations

The scan team had meetings over a 2-day 

period with the following:

 Ruth Tilstone, Highways Agency

 Paul Johnson, Highways Agency

 Nick Hopcraft, Highways Agency

 Max Brown, Highways Agency

 Brian Barton, Highways Agency

 Andrew Page-Dove, Highways Agency

 Sarah Garland, Highways Agency

 Mike Wilson, Highways Agency

 David Grant, Highways Agency

 Paul Unwin, Highways Agency

 Lucy Wickham, technical director, Mouchel

Highways Agency Strategic Plan

The Highways Agency is an executive agency of 

the Department for Transport responsible for 

operating, maintaining, and improving the strategic 

road network in England. Formed in 1994, the 

agency’s aims are safe roads, reliable journeys, 

and informed travelers.

In Strategic Plan 2010–15, the Highways Agency’s 

vision is “to be the world’s leading road operator.”(18)

The strategic goals are as follows:

 We provide a service our customers can trust.

 We set the standard for delivery.

 We deliver sustainable solutions.

 Our roads are the safest in the world.

 Our network is a dynamic and resilient asset.

England faces constraints of space (land) and 

money and anticipates building few new roads. 

Officials are discussing how best to use existing 

assets, such as the hard shoulder, and how to 

minimize investment and maximize benefits. Wider 

challenges England faces include carbon emissions, 

financial constraints, and network resilience. 

Controlled Motorways

The controlled motorway theory is based on relationships between speed and flow. Better highway 

flow can be achieved at lower speeds, which results 

in higher throughput. Therefore, the idea is to 

control the speed to maintain the flow. The slogan 

“go slower to get there faster!” communicates the 

idea.(19) Another benefit is improving journey time 

reliability. Improved reliability was emphasized in 

many of the Highways Agency’s presentations. Using 

the controlled motorway concept results in fewer 

flow breakdowns and shockwaves, producing 

smoother journeys.

 England
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 33

The controlled or managed motorway concept 

requires a different way of thinking about design 

and includes the following:(19)

 Operation of the road space is fundamentally 

altered by inclusion of the hard shoulder running concept.

 Operational regimes, rather than strict design 

standards, must drive the design of the scheme.

 The system must be operated and maintained.

 Understanding traffic flows and how a scheme 

will operate in all potential situations is needed.

 A new way of operating can introduce new 

hazards or reduce existing hazards. This 

requires a completely new approach to 

assessing the design of a managed motorway 

scheme to ensure safety is maintained.

Keys to success include creating an intuitive 

environment and anticipatory behavior along 

with driver compliance.

Managed Motorways

An outgrowth of the controlled motorway concept 

is managed motorways. Managed motorways 

stemmed from detailed desk studies and an onroad 

trial. A pilot scheme was implemented on the M42 

in 2004, with hard shoulder running from 2006. 

Whether managed motorways should have a wider 

rollout after publication of results from the M42 

was presented in the March 2008 Advanced Motorway Signaling and Traffic Management Feasibility 

Study.(20) Conclusions from the pilot and further 

analysis suggest the following about the managed 

motorways concept:

 Has high value

 Offers high journey time reliability benefits

 Can be delivered at 60 percent of the capital 

cost of conventional widening

 Shows safety benefits

 Shows environmental benefit(20)

M42 Pilot Study 

In 2001, the secretary of state asked the Highways 

Agency to conduct a trial of hard shoulder running 

on the M42 between junctions 3A and 7 southeast 

of Birmingham (see figure 35), with the following 

objectives:

 Optimize safety and performance, in accordance 

with the volume and makeup of the traffic.

 Provide more consistent journey times.

 Minimize harmful emissions and fuel 

consumption.

 Reduce delays and disruption from crashes 

and incidents.

Figure 35. England: location of pilot test of hard shoulder 

running on the M42 in Birmingham.(19)
34 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

 Provide improved warnings and traffic management in association with routine maintenance 

operations.(19)

Phased operation began in January 2005 and 

dynamic peak period hard shoulder running 

was implemented in September 2006.

The M42 pilot provided the opportunity to demonstrate and test a number of dynamic traffic management tools, positioned and used according to best 

practices, comprehensive safety hazard analysis, 

and predetermined operational regimes. The system 

included the following:

 Lightweight gantries with variable message 

signs about every 500 m (1,640 ft)

 Emergency refuge areas about every 500 m 

(1,640 ft)

 Appropriate road markings and fixed signing

 Continuous safety fencing

 Comprehensive closed-circuit television (CCTV) 

coverage with cameras typically at up to 250-m 

(820-ft) intervals

 Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic 

Signaling (MIDAS) loops

 Maximum 50-mi/h (80-km/h) speed limit 

(initially) for all lanes when the hard shoulder 

is in use

 Highways Agency Digital Enforcement Camera 

System (HADECS) for speed limit enforcement

 Lighting throughout the length of the scheme

 Necessary optical fiber cabling and 

communications links(19)

This infrastructure allows hard shoulders to be 

used as running lanes. Initially, this was implemented only during maintenance and incidents 

to prove that the concept was workable. It was 

followed by full-scale operation of peak-time 

hard shoulder running with the full involvement 

of emergency services.

The M42 active traffic management pilot 

accomplished the following:

 Development of a design tool to further 

develop controlled motorways and automatic 

enforced mandatory speed control activated 

by onroad loops and control algorithms

 Introduction of hard shoulder running and 

monitoring that has proved the validity of 

design and operation assumptions

 Monitoring of safety, environmental impact, 

and journey times, with results used to 

inform decisions on rollout of the managed 

motorways program

 Development of operation procedures to 

ensure safe use of the modified infrastructure 

(e.g., reduced barrier setbacks, narrow lanes 

with reduced sightlines that rely on driver 

compliance with speed and lane discipline).

Originally, the M42 pilot operated at a maximum of 

50 mi/h (80.4 km/h) with the following results:(19)

 Average journey time has improved up to 24 

percent in the worst p.m. peak time.

 Fewer vehicles experience speeds of less than 

45 mi/h (72.4 km/h).

 Journey time variability during weekdays has 

dropped significantly, an average of 22 percent.

 On average, compliance is 94 percent or better 

at 70-mi/h (112.6-km/h), 60-mi/h (96.5-km/h), 

and 50-mi/h (80.4-km/h) speed limits.

 Personal injury crashes have declined from 

5.08 per month before to 1.83 per month 

after implementation.

Following detailed safety review, the maximum 

speed limit was increased to 60 mi/h (96.5 km/h) 

with the following results:(19)

 Average journey times dropped 

(4 percent reduction).

 Average traffic speed increased 

(about 5 mi/h (8 km/h)).
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 35

 Speed limit compliance was maintained.

 Incidents did not increase; safety was 

maintained.

 The overall positive effect was that using a 

60-mi/h (96.5-km/h) speed limit with hard 

shoulder running helped maintain speeds at 

higher levels during periods of congestion, 

giving a better overall performance than 50 

mi/h (80.4 km/h) with hard shoulder running. 

Compliance With Variable 

Mandatory Speed Limits 

Compliance with the variable mandatory speed limit 

between January 2006 and May 2009 is shown in 

figure 36.(21) From late 2007 to early 2009, the 

mandatory speed limit was 50 mi/h (80.4 km/h) 

when hard shoulder running was permitted. During 

this time, compliance was not as good as when the 

mandatory speed limit was 60 mi/h (96.5 km/h) 

during hard should running (started in early 2009). 

Drivers did not see the reason for the lower speed 

and responded by driving at higher speeds. This 

behavior is also shown in the compliance when the 

mandatory speed limit was 40 mi/h (64.3 km/h). 

The managed motorway concept introduced a new 

approach to operations and design. Both had to be 

considered together, along with overall traffic flows 

and the driver environment. In January 2009, the 

Highways Agency announced a £6 billion investment 

in the trunk road network. An additional 520 lanemiles (836.8 kilometer-miles) of capacity will be 

added, of which 340 lane-miles (547.1 kilometermiles) will be managed motorways or hard shoulder 

running. The managed motorway program puts a 

stronger emphasis on the agency’s role to actively 

manage the motorway network using technology 

in control centers and on the network. The use of 

technology is key to improving the reliability of the 

strategic road network. The managed motorway 

(or active traffic management) concept provides 

a toolbox of integrated approaches to manage 

the motorway environment. 

The success of active traffic management on the 

M42 resulted in the Highways Agency being asked 

to extend the concept to the motorways around 

Birmingham, known locally as the Birmingham 

Motorway Box. Phase 1 of the Birmingham Box 

rollout (M6, M42, and M40) opened to traffic in 

December 2009. Work on phase 2 (M6 J8-10a) 

started in 2009–10, and it was scheduled to open 

to traffic in 2010–11. A through junction running trial 

started in December 2009. Table 7 (see next page) 

lists the planned program. 

Operating a managed motorway required a new 

delivery and procurement approach. Needed 

was seamless transition through development, 

construction, and commissioning into actively 

operating the network. During development of the 

managed motorway concept, briefing notes were 

produced on 31 topics, including the following:

 Scenario options

 Case studies

 Driver demographics

Figure 36. England: variable mandatory speed limit compliance.(21)
36 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

 Driver education

 Position of vehicle in the driving lane

 Public and media opinion

 Candidate sites

 Use of surrogates

 Cross section crash studies

 Through junction running

 Emergency refuge areas

 Speed

 Hard shoulder crashes

 Environmental impacts

 Use of the driver simulator

Web Sites

Interim Advice Notes (IANs), issued by the 

Highways Agency, contain specific guidance for 

use in connection with works on motorways and 

trunk roads in England, subject to implementation 

instructions contained in the IANs. Links to IANs 

are at www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ians/

index.htm.

Recent IANs on managed motorways include 

the following:

 Interim Advice Note 112/08. Managed Motorway 

Implementation Guidance—Through Junction 

Hard Shoulder Running. June 2008.

 Interim Advice Note 121/09. Advice Regarding 

the Application of Integrated Traffic Management. June 2009.

 Interim Advice Note 111/09. Managed 

Motorways Implementation Guidance—

Hard Shoulder Running. November 2009.

 Interim Advice Note 109/08. Advice Regarding 

the Motorway Signal Mark 4. April 2008.

General information on active traffic management 

is available at www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge/ 

1334.aspx.

Managed Motorway Elements

Managed motorways refers to a toolbox of measures 

or techniques that include the following:(19)

Table 7. England: Highways Agency managed motorway draft program.(21)

Start Date Scheme Start Date Scheme

2009–10 M4 J19-20/M5 J15-17

M1 J10-13

2015–16 M6 J2-4

M6 J15-19

M20 J3-5

M62 J10-12

M6 J13-15

2010–11 M1 32-35a

M6 J5-8 (B Box phase 3)

M62 J25-30

M62 J18-20

M60 J8-12

2016–17 M6 J21a-26

2012–13 M25 J23-27(DBFO s5)

M25 J5-7(DBFO s2)

M3 J2-4a

M6 J10a-13

M1 J39-42

M1 J28-31

2017–18 M1 J21-21a

M60 J24-27 and J1-4

M1 J13-17

2018–19 M1 J17-19

M5 J4a-6

M1 J21a-23a

2013–14 M4 J3-21 2019–20 M6 J8 – M5 J2 (B Box 4)

M23 J8-10

M1 J35a-39

M56 J6-8

2014–15 M27 J4-11

M60 J12-18

M62 J26 M606 Link

Post-2020 M5 J2-4a (B Box 5)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 37

 Hard shoulder running: using the hard shoulder 

dynamically as a running lane between junctions

 Variable mandatory speed limits: setting 

speed limits dynamically in response to 

congestion levels

 Through junction running: extending the 

dynamic use of the hard shoulder through 

the junction

 Controlled all-lane running: converting the 

hard shoulder permanently to a controlled 

running lane

 Queue protection: automatic queue 

detection and setting of lane signals 

and signs known as Message Sign 

Mark 4 (MS4s) to protect the back 

of a queue

 Lane control: setting Advanced 

Motorway Indicator lane signals 

(lane closed, lane diverted, reduced 

speed limits) to protect incidents 

and roadworks

 Access control (also known as 

ramp metering): regulating the 

amount of traffic entering the 

carriageway from the slip road 

to maintain the flow on the main 

carriageway

 Driver information: creating an 

informed driver environment by 

providing roadside information 

on variable message signs

Figure 37 shows components of the 

managed motorway. Supporting the 

managed motorway measures are a 

number of physical and operational 

features, including the following:

 Monitoring. The motorway is monitored through the use of CCTV and 

loop detectors (see figure 38). 

 CCTV cameras. CCTV monitoring 

provides Regional Control Centres 

with real-time traffic flow and incident 

information. The cameras were 

spaced at 100-m (330-ft) intervals. The 

Highways Agency is now considering spacing 

of 200 m (660 ft) or more. New cameras will 

be low-light cameras to offset less use of 

continuous roadway lighting. 

 Loop detection. Loop detectors are used 

to collect traffic data. The Highways Agency 

would like cameras to do more of the work 

of identifying incidents. Current camera 

technology, however, results in too many 

false alarms. In the agency’s experience, high 

quality control during loop installation results 

in low failures and false alarms. The Highways 

Agency does not consider radar and view 

loops critical. 

Figure 38. England: detection methods.(19)

Figure 37. England: graphic showing managed motorway parts.(19)
38 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

 Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic 

Signaling. MIDAS is used on much of the 

Highways Agency network. It measures vehicle 

speeds and duration over loops and identifies 

when traffic flows have exceeded a predetermined level. The automatic system sets suitable speed limits to keep traffic flows at a 

predetermined level.

 Incident detection. CCTVs are monitored 

from a dedicated control room. Comprehensive roadside detection technology using loops 

indicates the need for response. Traffic officers 

monitor, respond to, and manage traffic flow. 

Hard shoulder monitoring cameras are also 

used. An observation on incident detection 

is that on a managed motorway, operators 

constantly watch the roadway, which could 

result in faster response times after incidents 

than for similar roadways without surveillance 

(which leads to the observation that it 

may be safer to have a breakdown on 

a managed motorway). 

 Emergency refuge areas. These areas provide 

refuge away from the live carriageway (see 

figure 39). They are located about every 800 

m (2,600 ft). Vehicles are detected on entry 

by operators using CCTV and/or detection 

technology (loops). Each emergency refuge 

area contains an emergency telephone 

(see figure 40) linked directly to a regional 

control center.

 Gantries. Gantries support lane-specific 

signals, the MS4 driver information panel, 

and signing (e.g., fixed direction or automated 

enforcement signs). Spacing for gantries is 

under review. The philosophy is that spacing 

needs to be sufficient so that drivers know 

they are still on a controlled roadway. A driver 

should lose sight of a gantry for no more than 

1 to 2 seconds, based on Highways Agency 

advice. On the M42, gantry spacing is between 

500 and 800 m. There is concern that compliance would be less if gantries were spaced too 

far apart. The ability to almost continuously 

see the variable speed limit 

provides reassurance to 

drivers that they are still on 

a controlled motorway. Gantries do not include a walkway. 

When walkways were present, 

there were problems with 

people climbing and walking 

on them. The walkways also 

did not benefit maintenance 

efforts. Eliminating the 

walkways resulted in a 

less expensive design.

Figure 40. England: telephone in an emergency refuge area.(19)

Figure 39. England: emergency refuge area and sign.(19)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 39

 Variable message signs. Variable message 

signs provide road users with onroad information both for the wider network area and 

locally. The signs provide text and picture 

information (see figures 41 and 42). They 

are fixed to lightweight gantries.

 Mandatory signals. Every usable lane has a 

signal indicator. The indicators depict speed 

limits (numbers) and driver instructions 

(arrows or Xs), as shown in figure 43 (see page 

41). A red circle around the numbers indicates 

that the speed limit is enforceable. The signals 

are operated automatically by control system 

or manually by operators in the Regional 

Control Centre. When the signals are used to 

indicate an advisory speed limit, the beacons 

in the corner of the signal flash amber and the 

speed limit value does not have a red circle. 

 Speed limit. The maximum national speed limit 

is 70 mi/h (112.6 km/h). It applies at all times 

(i.e., it is not posted on signs) unless the variable speed limit is active. The speed limit is 

reduced before allowing hard shoulder running. 

Mandatory speed limits are set automatically 

using traffic data from MIDAS loop detectors 

embedded in the road surface. Speed limits of 

60 mi/h (96.5 km/h) and 50 mi/h (80.4 km/h) 

are displayed on overhead gantries to address 

congestion in response to the traffic conditions 

on the motorway. When necessary to protect 

traffic from queues, 40-mi/h (64.3-km/h) 

speed limits can also be set.(20)

 Enforcement. Automated enforcement is 

a component of the managed motorway 

system(19) The Highways Agency Digital 

Enforcement Camera System (HADECS) was 

“developed primarily to enforce the mandatory 

variable speed limits associated with schemes 

such as the M42 hard shoulder running and 

M25 controlled motorway schemes, whose 

safe and effective operation rely upon driver 

compliance with the displayed limits.”(20) The 

system uses radar-based speed detection by 

cameras mounted on overhead gantries, linked 

to the lane signals displaying the speed limit. 

The agency uses a mix of cameras and dummies. When in operation, all evidence is automatically retrieved and recorded at a secured 

police office. Officials observed that it is an 

onerous process to conduct automated 

enforcement, including the part of the process 

involving the courts.(19) Compliance is important for managed motorways to function, and 

the agency conducts enforcement only to 

ensure compliance. 

 Roadway lighting. The amount of roadway 

lighting needed is under debate. 

Managed Motorway Safety

 The safety objectives for managed motorways 

are as follows:(22)

 Continue to contribute to the overall 

department’s casualty reduction targets 

set by ministers.

 Use the procedures developed to assess 

road safety risk by detailed review of 

hazards and mitigations.

 Develop site-specific operational procedures 

that will ensure safe operation and maintenance 

of the modified highway. 

Figure 41. England: variable message signs.(19)
40 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

Several methodologies are being used to ensure 

safety and demonstrate that the safety objectives 

are being met. A key component is the use of a 

generic programwide hazard log. Analyses are 

conducted of site-specific hazards to investigate 

whether they represent a new hazard or an 

increase or decrease of an existing hazard. 

Another methodology is specification of design and 

operational requirements needed to control safety. 

Project hazard control review groups and a national 

safety group were established.

Understanding the risk profile of the network is 

important to maintaining safety. How the transition 

between operational regimes is handled is assessed. 

Relevant populations are assessed separately. These 

assessments are used to concentrate mitigations on 

key hazards. Steps used to verify the safety focus 

include the following:

 A safety report is generated.

 Accomplishment of safety objectives is 

demonstrated.

 Safety liabilities are understood.

 Whole-life ownership of safety requirements 

is defined.

Safety management activities include the following:

 Safety baseline and objectives

 Safety plan

 Risk assessment

 Hazard log

 Verification

 Safety report

 Validation

 Update of project safety documentation(22)

The safety plan, hazard log, and safety report 

must be logged before a project moves to the 

next stage.

Risks identified for typical motorway hazards 

include the following:

 Vehicle stops in running lane.

 Vehicle enters main carriageway unsafely.

 Tailgating occurs.

 Driver loses control of vehicle.

 Pedestrian runs in lane (live traffic).

 Vehicle rejoins running lane.

 Motorcycle filters through traffic.

 Vehicle reverses to exit slip.

 Individual vehicle drives too fast.

Variable speed limit and shoulder control signs in use 

(speeds are in miles per hour)

Closeup of variable speed limit sign

Sign being tested in shop

Figure 42. England: variable speed limit and

shoulder control signs in Birmingham.
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 41

 Vehicle stops on the hard shoulder when it 

is closed.

 Debris is in the running lane.(22) 

Anticipated hazards from hard shoulder running 

include the following:(22)

 Vehicles collide on hard shoulder while opening:

 Switching between three- and four-lane 

running is excessive.

 Vehicle is stopped on hard shoulder as hard 

shoulder opens.

 Motorcycle is stopped on hard shoulder as 

hard shoulder opens.

 Crash occurs in or around emergency 

refuge area:

 Vehicle exits emergency refuge area during 

four-lane running.

 Heavy-goods vehicle exits emergency 

refuge area during four-lane running.

 Vehicle is recovered from emergency refuge 

area during four-lane running.

Figure 44 summarizes early safety trends from the 

M42 pilot study. Observations from the evaluation 

include a decline in the personal injury crash rate 

of 50 percent, based on 3 years of data. Also, no 

crashes involving fatalities or serious injuries have 

Figure 43. England: mandatory lane signals.(19)

Figure 44. England: M42 pilot safety case study.(22)
42 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

occurred during hard shoulder running. 

Overall, incidents have dropped 25 to 

30 percent.(22)

Managed Motorway Hazard Log

The use of a generic programwide hazard log is 

a key element of the safety program in England. 

Because the concept of a managed motorway is 

new and evolving, sufficient data are not available 

for a crash-based evaluation. A risk-assessment 

methodology was developed to guide decisions. 

For managed motorways, this took the form of 

a generic hazard log. 

To develop the hazard log, more than 140 hazards 

were identified and scores were applied. The 

development of the risk level estimates required 

an understanding of how the motorway works. A 

thorough understanding of the interaction between 

operational schemes and design was needed.(23)

The hazard log is prepopulated with the incidents, 

hazards, and causes known to be associated with 

such schemes. It is also prepopulated with the 

probability that a hazard leads to a crash and the 

severity of crashes. At the project level, the specific 

responsibility is to complete the entry of required 

information in the hazard log, including the 

project-specific frequency of different hazards.

Figure 45 shows a comparison of the types of 

crashes for the active traffic management site and 

other comparable sites.(22) The comparable sites use 

data from STATS 19, the form used by police in the 

United Kingdom to record personal injury crash 

data. The observation from the comparison is 

that hazard logs can be used to help manage the 

safety of new schemes and that findings for the 

active traffic management site compare well with 

STATS 19 sites. Note that active traffic management-specific crash categories, such as crashes in 

or around emergency refuge areas, were removed 

from the generic hazard log analyses to make the 

analysis more readily comparable to the STATS 19 

data. Figure 46 shows the hazards in order of 

frequency for the active traffic management site. 

The most common hazard, representing 41 percent 

of hazards, is vehicles colliding in the running lane. 

The six most common hazards represent more 

than 80 percent of the total risk in the hazard log. 

The data shown in figure 46 include active traffic 

management-specific crash categories, such as 

crashes in and around emergency refuge areas.(22)

Reported Benefits

Sizable congestion and safety benefits have been 

realized with the active traffic management and 

managed motorway projects.(24) Figure 47 (see 

page 44) illustrates the change in average journey 

time profiles for the northbound direction between 

junctions 3A and 7. The time period for the before 

data was September to November 2005. The after 

period was for the same months in 2006. The 

change to four lanes with variable speed limits 

showed increased flows and reduced journey times. 

For example, the journey time for the Friday p.m. 

Figure 45. England: comparison of hazards for active traffic management site and other comparable sites..(22)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 43

peak period dropped from more than 25 minutes to 

just above 15 minutes (see figure 47). Also reported 

were the following benefits:

 Journey reliability increased 22 percent when 

the hard shoulder operated at 50 mi/h (80.4 

km/h).

 Journey reliability increased 27 percent 

when the hard shoulder operated at 

60 mi/h (96.5 km/h).

 Personal injury crashes dropped from 

5.1 to 1.8 per month.(24)

Other reported benefits of managed motorways 

include the following:(21)

 Support the economy by providing capacity 

where needed

 Provide benefits at lower delivery costs than 

conventional widening (more capacity is 

delivered for the taxpayers’ money)

 Result in less environmental impact than 

conventional widening

 Provide more reliable journeys for motorists

 Have a good safety record for the M42 

managed motorway scheme

 Have been proven to emergency stakeholders 

as safe

Heavy vehicles are governed to 56 mi/h (90.1 km/h). 

Officials said that heavy vehicle operators like the 

ability of cars to accelerate and pass them legally 

when the speed limit is 60 mi/h (96.5 km/h) with 

hard shoulder running. They also like the improved 

trip reliability.(22)

Recent Developments

The rollout of managed motorways has prompted a 

number of modifications to the original design, most 

aimed at increasing efficiency or reducing the scope 

of the projects while ensuring that safety and economic objectives are met. Recent developments 

include the following:(22)

 Increase in maximum speed from 50 mi/h 

(80.4 km/h) to 60 mi/h (96.5 km/h)

 No road lighting of links

Figure 46. England: hazard log bar chart.(22)
44 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

Before: September–November 2005

After: September–November 2006

Figure 47. England: journey time improvements.(24)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 45

 Pilot site for through junction running 

on the M42

 Increase in nominal spacing of gantries 

and emergency refuge areas

 Improved hard shoulder monitoring

 Improved operating procedures

Another recent development is an examination of 

how best to communicate to drivers the availability 

(or restriction) of through junction running.(19) New 

legends are being developed and examples are 

shown in figures 48 and 49.

Education

A key to success is the education of road users, 

including raising awareness, using the media, developing publications and Web sites, seeking buy-in 

from key stakeholders, and engaging emergency 

services. The results from a driver reaction survey 

included the following:(24)

 Ninety-three percent of participants who had 

used the hard shoulder believed the instructions 

for using it were clear.

 Eighty-four percent felt confident using the 

hard shoulder as a running lane.

 Thirteen percent of locals and 27 percent of 

long-distance users perceived it easier to join, 

change lanes, and exit the M42.

 Sixty-eight percent said that they felt more 

informed about traffic conditions.

 Sixty percent said it should be implemented 

elsewhere on the motorway network.

Advice provided to the scan team included the 

following:(24)

 Restrict interviews with the media until the 

day of launch. 

 Include material on managed motorways 

in the training of new drivers.

 Focus on a Web site and radio (flash messages, 

10-second sound bite, etc.). Have minimal use of 

Figure 48. England: potential through

shoulder running signs.(24)

Figure 49. England: new legend for through shoulder 

running being tested.(24)
46 CHAPTER 2: EUROPEAN AGENCY APPROACHES TO MANAGED MOTORWAYS

leaflets (experience has shown low value and 

they cannot be used while driving anyway).

 Consider what highway codes may need to be 

altered (e.g., ability to cross solid white line).

 Obtain early buy-in from key stakeholders, 

such as emergency services.

Traffic Officers

Before 2004, police officers managed traffic 

incidents on motorways. To provide faster response 

time, the Traffic Officers Services group was initiated.(25) This group is a part of the Highways Agency 

and is responsible for managing traffic incidents. 

In 2010 the Traffic Officers Services group had 

about 1,600 on staff, with about 1,000 on the road 

and 600 in control rooms. Normally, traffic officers 

operate only on motorways, but they operate on 

other roadway classifications during major events 

(e.g., visits of dignitaries). As a service agency, the 

group has performance goals such as travel time 

to an incident. Traffic officers have the power to 

direct traffic and close the motorway, but they 

do not have criminal authority. 

The training program for traffic officers lasts about 

3 years and includes 5-week foundation training and 

9-month classroom room training along with several 

months of on-the-job experience. Their vehicles have 

amber and red lights rather than blue lights. Patrol 

routes are structured so officers can respond within 

their 20-minute response time goal. Phone calls are 

to be answered within 20 seconds, and a typical 

phone call takes 5 minutes. 
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 47

Continued growth in travel on congested urban 

freeway corridors exceeds the ability of agencies to 

provide sufficient solutions and alternatives based 

on traditional roadway expansion and improvement 

projects. Several countries are implementing managed motorway concepts to improve the capacity 

of their freeways without acquiring more land 

and building large-scale infrastructure projects. 

Managed motorway concepts introduce new and 

revised operational activities that place greater 

reliance on technology than traditional roadway 

projects. Managed motorways combine actively or 

dynamically managed operational regimes, specific 

designs of infrastructure, and technology solutions. 

They use a range of traffic management measures 

to actively monitor the motorway and, based on 

the monitoring, dynamically control speeds, add 

capacity, and inform road users of conditions 

on the network to optimize traffic and safety 

performance. Examples of these measures include 

shoulder running, variable mandatory speed limits, 

lane control signals, dynamic rerouting, and the 

provision of driver information using variable 

message signs. Managed motorway concepts 

reduce collisions and improve journey reliability, 

travel time, and throughput on roadways 

through implementation of speed management 

and increase roadway capacity by allowing traffic 

to travel on the shoulder during peak periods. 

Other techniques can be used to reduce disruption 

from joining traffic (e.g., junction control and ramp 

metering) and to improve overall operations and 

safety (e.g., monitoring, detection, and emergency 

refuge areas).

Since a 2006 scanning study, active traffic 

management concepts have been implemented 

in Washington and Minnesota and are being 

considered in Virginia. During these implementations, several geometric design-related questions 

were voiced. In June 2010 a team of 10 U.S. 

transportation professionals with expertise in 

planning, design, and operation of freeways 

visited England, Germany, the Netherlands, 

and Spain. The purpose of the scanning study 

was to examine active traffic management design 

practices used in other countries to improve the 

operational performance of congested freeway 

facilities without compromising safety. 

Key findings from the 2010 scan include the 

following:

 The European countries visited comprehensively integrate a suite of complementary 

techniques to dynamically manage traffic flow 

in response to changing volumes, speeds, and 

incidents. The result is demonstrably improved 

safety, travel time reliability, and congestion 

relief on urban motorway sections. These 

strategies and techniques are likely to provide 

great benefit if applied in the United States.

 The management strategies appropriate for 

a freeway corridor evolve as the needs and 

demands of the area change. In other words, 

transportation officials should recognize that 

freeways need a continuum of operational and 

management strategies that change as traffic 

needs and demands change.

 European countries have safety concerns 

similar to those in the United States and have 

successfully addressed those concerns in 

managed motorway deployments. Managed 

motorways have contributed to substantial 

safety improvements in Europe. 

 Many European countries went through a 

paradigm shift in their design policies and 

practices by adopting risk- and performancebased approaches to making design choices 

on actively managed freeway facilities. 

Chapter 3: Key Findings
48 CHAPTER 3: KEY FINDINGS

 Successful active traffic management 

deployments require a well-planned interdisciplinary collaboration of design with operations 

and enforcement. Successful implementation 

also needs the following:

 High-level champions who lead a culture 

change in an agency and institutionalize 

the agency’s commitment to prioritizing 

traffic management 

 Overcoming the “we never did this 

before” attitude

 Funding commitments for adequate 

long-term operational maintenance

 Advancing active traffic management in 

the United States will require evolution of 

long-standing design practices, collaboration 

of design and operations disciplines, and 

advances in techniques to communicate 

with motorists in real time.
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 49

The scan team used findings from its study to 

develop recommended implementation actions, 

which are summarized in this section.

 Dissemination of information and promotion 

of findings. The scan team believes that much 

can be gained in the United States by implementing several concepts and strategies 

observed and identified during the scanning 

study. To promote scan findings, team members 

have made technical presentations at several 

national meetings and conferences sponsored 

by FHWA, AASHTO, and other organizations to 

disseminate information from the scan. Team 

members also plan to make presentations to 

national and local meetings of the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers and other groups.

 Research to support implementing recommended actions. A research approach is 

needed to investigate the following issues:

 Develop a synthesis of managed freeway 

geometric design practices as well as 

associated operational and safety 

performance for both European and U.S. 

applications. Identify the characteristics 

of circumstances in which managed 

freeway treatments could be successful. 

 Coordinate the design efforts with ongoing 

active traffic management research, synthesis, guidebook, and U.S. case study 

efforts underway by FHWA’s Office of 

Transportation Management.

 Conduct research on signing and marking 

needs in the United States for implementing 

shoulder running and assess the feasibility 

of implementing shoulder running in the 

United States.

 Conduct research to assess if the hazard 

index approach developed by the U.K. 

Highways Agency may be directly or 

indirectly applied to U.S. conditions.

 Conduct research to assess the air quality 

impacts of shoulder running and other 

managed motorway treatments.

 Varying lane widths in a cross section are 

being used in Europe. Conduct research to 

investigate applications in the United States 

and address key questions: How should the 

presence of a horizontal curve affect lane 

widths? What vehicle restrictions are 

needed for various lane widths? 

 Conduct a synthesis of practice to identify 

the best techniques to communicate with 

the public about the benefits and implementation of managed freeway treatments.

 Research program for managed freeway 

concepts. Also needed is a research program 

to investigate issues that are relevant to both 

managed freeways and all freeway design 

practices, such as the following:

 Sign interpretation by the traveling public

 Driver understanding of symbols on 

roadway signs

 Stopping sight distance on horizontal 

curves

 Tort liability issues

 Dissemination of results from U.S. managed 

lane pilot projects

Chapter 4: Implementation Strategy
50 CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

 Design guidelines. The following actions are 

suggested to assess the need to incorporate 

certain findings and recommendations of this 

scan into existing or proposed design guidance:

 Query the AASHTO Technical Committee 

on Geometric Design for potential future 

additions to the Green Book, such as 

general language on managed lanes 

and emergency refuge areas, as well as 

potential enhancements to its treatment 

of flexible design practice.

 Assess the AASHTO Guide for HighOccupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities for 

currency and consider broadening and 

updating it to include a managed freeway 

(active traffic management) focus.

 Ask FHWA to clarify Federal policy and 

its position on the eligibility and use of 

managed freeway tools.

 Query FHWA and the National Committee 

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to 

determine possible updates needed to the 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

for managed freeway applications. 
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 51

Contact Information 

Jeffrey (Jeff) C. Jones (AASHTO Cochair)

Assistant Chief Engineer of Design

Tennessee Department of Transportation

James K. Polk Building, Suite 700

505 Deaderick St.

Nashville, TN 37243-0349

Telephone: (615) 741-2831

Fax: (615) 741-0865

E-mail: jeff.c.jones@tn.gov

Martin C. Knopp (FHWA Cochair)

Division Administrator

Florida and Puerto Rico Divisions

Federal Highway Administration

Florida Division

545 John Knox Rd., Suite 200

Tallahassee, FL 32303

Telephone: (850) 942-9650, ext. 3019

Fax: (850) 942-9691

E-mail: martin.knopp@dot.gov

Puerto Rico Division

350 Avenue Carlos Chardon, Suite 210

San Juan, PR 00918-2148

Telephone: (787) 766-5600

Fax: (787) 766-5924

Kay Fitzpatrick (Report Facilitator)

Senior Research Engineer/Program Manager

Roadway Design Program

Texas Transportation Institute

Texas A&M University System 

3135 TAMU

College Station, TX 77843-3135

Telephone: (979) 845-7321

Fax: (979) 845-6481

E-mail: k-fitzpatrick@tamu.edu

Mark A. Doctor

Safety and Design Engineer

Federal Highway Administration Resource Center

61 Forsyth St., Suite 17T26

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

Telephone: (404) 562-3732

Fax: (404) 562-3700

E-mail: mark.doctor@fhwa.dot.gov

Charles (Charlie) E. Howard

Transportation Planning Director

Puget Sound Regional Council

1011 Western Ave., Suite 500

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone: (206) 464-7122

Fax: (206) 587-4825

E-mail: choward@psrc.org

Gregory (Greg) M. Laragan

Assistant Chief Engineer, Operations

Idaho Transportation Department

PO Box 7129

Boise, ID 83707-1129

Telephone: (208) 334-8535

Fax: (208) 334-8595

E-mail: greg.laragan@itd.idaho.gov

James (Jim) A. Rosenow

State Geometrics Engineer

Geometric Design Support Unit

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Mail Stop 676

395 John Ireland Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55155-1899

Telephone: (651) 366-4673

Fax: (651) 366-4699

E-mail: james.rosenow@state.mn.us

Appendix A: Scan Team Members
52 APPENDIX A: TEAM MEMBERS

Brooke A. Struve

Design Program Manager

Federal Highway Administration Office of 

 Infrastructure, Program Administration

HIPA-20, Room E73-447

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590-9898

Telephone: (202) 366-1317

Fax: (202) 366-3988

E-mail: brooke.struve@dot.gov

Barton A. Thrasher

Assistant State Location and Design Engineer

Virginia Department of Transportation

1401 East Broad St.

Richmond, VA 23219

Telephone: (804) 786-5869

Fax: (804) 786-9311

E-mail: ba.thrasher@vdot.virginia.gov

Elizabeth (Liz) G. Young

Senior Supervising Transportation Planner

Certified Project Manager

Parsons Brinckerhoff

401 B St., Suite 1450

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: (619) 321-4181

Fax: (619) 338-8123

E-mail: youngl@pbworld.com

Biographies 

Jeffrey (Jeff) C. Jones (AASHTO cochair)

is the assistant chief engineer of design for the 

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) 

in Nashville, TN. Before that, he served as the 

director of the TDOT Design Division for 11 years. 

In that capacity, Jones was responsible for the 

roadway design criteria and plan development 

procedures used for projects in Tennessee. Before 

joining TDOT, Jones served as an engineer with the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for more 

than 10 years, including assignments in the Georgia 

and Tennessee Divisions. Jones has a bachelor’s 

degree in civil engineering from the University of 

Tennessee at Knoxville. He is a licensed professional 

engineer in Tennessee. He serves on National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 

Technical Panels for Project 3-88 on Guidelines 

for Ramp and Interchange Spacing and Project 

3-99 on Development and Application of Access 

Management Guidelines. He is a member of the 

American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee 

on Design and Technical Committee on 

Geometric Design. 

Martin C. Knopp (FHWA cochair) is the division 

administrator for FHWA’s divisions in Florida, Puerto 

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As a key member of 

FHWA’s management team, he exercises executive 

direction over one of the largest and most complex 

Federal-aid programs in the Nation. He leads a 

professional staff in providing guidance to the State 

of Florida and local officials in identifying surface 

transportation needs and implementing national 

transportation goals. He previously served as the 

FHWA Resource Center’s Operations Technical 

Services Team leader. In this position, he led a team 

of traffic operations experts to provide technical 

assistance, training, and technology transfer services 

for program and project needs. Before rejoining 

FHWA in 2003, Knopp served for 4 years as the 

director of the Intelligent Transportation Systems 

(ITS) Division at the Utah Department of Transportation, where he led overall strategic direction of the 

ITS areas. He also chaired the ITS Subcommittee for 

the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City 

and served as a consultant with the U.S. Department 

of State, assisting transportation and security 

organizers for the 2004 Summer Olympic Games in 

Athens, Greece. His FHWA assignments included 

traffic management engineer in the Georgia Division, 

traffic and safety engineer in the Utah Division, and 

ITS and Olympics operations engineer in the Utah 

Division. Knopp graduated from Pennsylvania State 

University in 1989 with a bachelor’s degree in civil 

engineering. He is a licensed professional engineer 

in Utah.

Dr. Kay Fitzpatrick (report facilitator) is a 

senior research engineer at the Texas Transportation Institute. She has been the principal investigator for numerous research projects for the Texas 

Department of Transportation (TxDOT), NCHRP, 

Transit Cooperative Research Program, and FHWA. 

Fitzpatrick conducted the TxDOT research project 

that developed new criteria for design speeds over 

80 miles per hour (128 kilometers per hour) and 

another TxDOT project that evaluated best practices on access to managed lanes in an existing 

freeway. She leads the FHWA project investigating 

engineering countermeasures for improving pedestrian and bicycle safety. She has bachelor’s and 
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 53

master’s degrees from Texas A&M University and 

a doctor of philosophy degree from Pennsylvania 

State University. She is a registered professional 

engineer in Texas and Pennsylvania. Fitzpatrick is 

a member of the Transportation Research Board 

(TRB) Operations and Preservation Group and the 

Operational Effects of Geometric Design Committee. She is a member of several Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) committees and wrote 

the chapter on intersection design for the ITE 

Urban Geometric Design Handbook. 

Mark A. Doctor is a safety and geometric design 

engineer for FHWA’s Resource Center in Atlanta, 

GA. He advances the use of flexible and innovative 

geometric design practices on a national level and 

within FHWA’s design discipline. He also serves as 

the coteam leader of FHWA’s Design Focus Area 

Team on Interstate Access and Interchange Design 

and is responsible for coordinating the agency’s 

internal communication and technical capacitybuilding activities related to interchange design and 

interstate access requests. Doctor has served with 

FHWA for more than 21 years in a variety of positions and geographic locations with responsibilities 

in project development, design, traffic engineering, 

and operations. He has a bachelor’s degree in civil 

engineering from Clemson University and a master’s 

degree in transportation engineering from the 

University of Florida. He is a licensed professional 

engineer in Georgia and serves on several TRB 

technical committees. 

Charles (Charlie) E. Howard is the transportation planning director for the Puget Sound Regional 

Council in Seattle, WA. He is responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the long-range 

transportation plan for a metropolitan planning 

organization in a rapidly growing four-county 

region and directs the development of a regional 

congestion management process that is evaluating 

managed lane networks. Before joining the council, 

Howard worked for the Washington State Department of Transportation for 18 years, most recently 

as the director of strategic planning and programming in charge of statewide policy, planning, 

program development, and data functions. Howard 

is a graduate of Ohio State University and has a 

master’s degree in city and regional planning from 

Harvard University. He chairs the TRB Transportation Systems Planning, Policy, and Process Section, 

is a member of the Future Strategic Highway 

Research Program capacity research development 

panel and the Association of Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations Policy Committee, and serves 

on several NCHRP research project panels 

on planning issues. 

Gregory (Greg) M. Laragan is the assistant 

chief engineer, operations, for the Idaho 

Transportation Department (ITD) in Boise, ID. 

He manages the statewide construction, maintenance, materials, traffic, ITS, highway safety, and 

technical training activities of ITD. In the past, 

Laragan served as roadway design engineer, 

assistant district engineer, State traffic engineer, 

and assistant maintenance engineer for ITD. 

He has a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering 

from Oregon State University and has been a 

registered professional engineer in Idaho since 

1979. Laragan is a member of the Idaho Society of 

Professional Engineers, Intelligent Transportation 

Society of America, Women’s Transportation 

Seminar, and ITE. He represents ITD on the 

AASHTO Subcommittee on Systems Operation 

and Management and chairs the panel for NCHRP 

Project 20-86 on Attracting, Recruiting, and 

Retaining Skilled Staff for Transportation 

System Operations and Management.

James (Jim ) A. Rosenow is the State 

geometrics engineer for the Minnesota 

Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) in St. Paul, 

MN. Rosenow leads the Geometric Design Support 

Unit, which is responsible for review and approval 

of preliminary engineering documents and geometric design exceptions on State highway projects. 

He is also a key person in the development of 

geometric design policy and criteria for Mn/DOT, 

and he directs and develops geometric design 

training programs for statewide audiences. Before 

that, Rosenow worked for 15 years in various highway design and project management capacities in 

the public and private sectors. He has a bachelor’s 

degree in civil engineering from the University of 

Minnesota and is a registered professional engineer 

in Minnesota. Rosenow is a member of the AASHTO 

Technical Committee on Geometric Design (Green 

Book committee) and a friend of the TRB Committee on Geometric Design. He served as a member 

of the planning committee and as a small-group 

facilitator for Mn/DOT’s Flexible Design for 21st 

Century Challenges forum in February 2009, 

and he served as a panel presenter at the Oregon 

Department of Transportation Practical Solutions 

Peer Exchange Workshop in July 2009. 
54 APPENDIX A: TEAM MEMBERS

Brooke A. Struve is a design program manager 

in the FHWA Office of Infrastructure. Her responsibilities include leading a team to develop tools and 

resources to advance expertise and practices on 

geometric design across the agency, participating 

on a similar team on the design of freeway interchanges, and reviewing complex proposals for 

access to the Interstate System. Before her current 

job, she was a project manager with the FHWA 

Office of Federal Lands Highway, leading a team 

designing highway construction projects in national 

parks, wildlife refuges, and forest highways. Before 

joining FHWA, Struve was a design team leader 

with the Utah Department of Transportation, 

where she led teams designing highway construction projects on freeways and urban arterials. 

Struve is a licensed professional engineer in Utah 

and is certified as a project management professional by the Project Management Institute. She is 

a member of the AASHTO Technical Committee on 

Geometric Design and has participated on several 

NCHRP panels.

Barton (Bart) A. Thrasher is the assistant 

State location and design engineer for the Virginia 

Department of Transportation in Richmond, VA. 

He is responsible for statewide oversight of all 

geometric and hydraulic design policies, standards, 

and technical guidelines. Thrasher has served with 

the Virginia DOT for more than 13 years and has 

more than 16 years of progressive and varied 

experience in the design and management of 

highway projects. He has a bachelor’s degree and 

a master of business administration degree from 

Old Dominion University, as well as a bachelor’s 

degree from Emory and Henry College. He is 

a licensed professional engineer in Virginia. He 

is a member of the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Design, AASHTO Technical Committee on 

Geometric Design, and TRB Committee 

on Geometric Design. 

Elizabeth (Liz) G. Young is a senior supervising 

transportation planner for Parsons Brinckerhoff in 

San Diego, CA. Young works with FHWA to define 

the emerging practice of active traffic management 

(ATM) and develop a series of products that will 

guide ATM applications and practices in the United 

States. She works on a project team assessing the 

application of managed lanes, tolling, and ATM 

strategies for the Metropolitan Council, the metropolitan planning organization for the MinneapolisSt. Paul, MN, area. Young was the consultant project 

manager for the Washington State Department of 

Transportation’s ATM Feasibility Study to assess the 

feasibility of implementing ATM strategies observed 

on the 2006 Planning and Designing Freeways 

for Congestion Management scanning study in 

the Puget Sound region. Young is a graduate of the 

University of Washington with a bachelor’s degree in 

geography and a master’s degree in transportation 

planning. She is an American Institute of Certified 

Planners certified planning professional and a 

member of the American Planning Association 

and Women’s Transportation Seminar. 
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 55

Overview

The scan team attended the 4th International 

Symposium on Highway Geometric Design in 

Valencia, Spain, as well as a workshop on managed 

motorways held before the symposium. This appendix includes summaries of papers presented at the 

symposium and the workshop related to the issues 

examined by the scanning study. Also included 

are relevant findings from the desk scan.

4th International Symposium 

on Highway Geometric Design 

The 4th International Symposium on Highway 

Geometric Design, held June 2 to 5, 2010, was 

sponsored by the Transportation Research Board. 

The symposium had 305 attendees representing 

46 countries. The aim of the symposium was to 

stimulate continuous improvement in different 

areas of highway geometric design. It built on the 

success of symposiums held in Boston, MA, in 1995; 

Mainz, Germany, in 2000; and Chicago, IL, in 2005. 

They demonstrated that design practitioners, 

policymakers, and researchers worldwide face 

similar issues and can learn much by sharing 

their challenges and successes. 

Workshop on Managed Motorways—

Way Forward for the Future 

John Smart of the Chartered Institution of 

Highways & Transportation and Jon Obenberger 

of the Federal Highway Administration coordinated 

the workshop on managed motorways. The 

presenters and their topics are in Appendix C. 

Smart and Obenberger provided the following 

introduction to the workshop:

With climate change on most countries’ 

agendas, emission targets being imposed, 

financial constrains being imposed due to 

the current global financial situation, and 

the need to improve performance, there is 

a growing need to better manage and make 

better use of the highway assets that authorities control. Limited public funding, increasing 

construction costs, restricted urban environments, environmental constraints, and continued growth in travel are further limiting the 

ability of agencies to construct new capacity 

on congested urban motorways.

Looking to actively manage the cross section 

and operation of a freeway or motorway is 

now becoming commonplace in a number of 

countries. Managed motorways is a contextsensitive solution countries are pursuing to 

mitigate the detrimental effects of congestion 

within these corridors while optimizing the 

investment that has or will be made in the 

roadway infrastructure. Agencies are using 

innovative geometric design treatments in 

an attempt to optimize the utilization of the 

roadway cross section in support of actively 

managing traffic and dynamically using 

different operational strategies (e.g., speed 

harmonization, vehicle restrictions (occupancy, trucks), pricing or tolling) to improve 

the performance of specific lanes of the 

entire motorway.

The workshop will explore the issues technical, 

behavioral, and political surrounding the 

introduction of managed motorways on a 

strategic road network. The workshop will 

also examine the use of innovative geometric 

design techniques that are being used in 

support of these managed motorways.

Appendix B: Symposium Findings
56 APPENDIX B: SYMPOSIUM FINDINGS

Australia

Coordinated Ramp Metering

J. Cunningham reported on the Australian M1 

motorway, which has coordinated ramp metering 

along the entire corridor.(26) The M1 connects to 

privately operated segments with tolls. The system 

functions only when needed with startup and 

shutdown of the ramp metering based on algorithms. When the motorway is saturated and the 

ramp metering is functioning, the system allows 

only as many vehicles on the motorway as are 

leaving it. The Australians have developed the

VicRoads Freeway Ramp Signals Handbook 

and technical specifications for ramp metering 

devices. In Cunningham’s words, unmanaged 

lanes are a chaotic system.

Sight Distance Around Concrete Barriers and 

Structures on Freeways and Interchanges

The provision of stopping sight distance around 

concrete barriers and structures on freeways and 

interchanges was examined by O.K. Arndt et al.(27) 

They noted that strict application of the normal 

stopping sight distance model yields very wide 

shoulders that can act as parking areas and 

decrease barrier performance. Based on anecdotal 

evidence, ignoring sight distance requirements 

altogether is likely to decrease safety. Assuming 

a lower design speed can result in the design of 

inappropriate geometric features that violate driver 

expectations and degrade road safety, especially 

if the design speed chosen is too low. The criteria 

proposed for sight distance around concrete 

barriers and structures in this paper were developed using less conservative, but realistic, values 

for many of the parameters in the stopping sight 

distance model. For example, the authors used a 

perception-reaction time of 1.5 seconds and noted 

that the value represents at least a mean value 

for surprise stopping for all drivers from several 

studies. Alternative deceleration rates and object 

heights were discussed, and higher deceleration 

and object heights than used in the current stopping sight distance procedure were considered in 

their sight distance calculations. Using these less 

conservative values was justified because the 

normal stopping condition that has been universally 

used is extremely conservative. The design stopping condition is a combination of several 85th 

percentile (or even higher) conditions. The use of 

85th percentile conditions is common in road 

design. The combination of many 85th percentile 

values, however, can yield a very conservative 

value. The criteria developed by Arndt et al(27) retain 

the intents of the sight distance models by providing reasonable stopping and maneuvering capability. They noted that when using these criteria, it is 

paramount to not underestimate the design speed 

because of the smaller latitude in the models. Their 

new criteria comprise two sections:

 Sight distance over roadside safety barriers 

is possible. 

 Sight distance over roadside barriers and 

structures is not possible. 

The new criteria have been incorporated into the 

latest Australian road design guidelines (Austroads, 

2009, Guide to Road Design Series). 

Denmark

Ghost Drivers

In recent years, Denmark has seen a significant 

increase in the number of motorists driving against 

the traffic flow on motorways. The Danish name for 

these motorists is “ghost drivers.” Figure 50 shows 

the 80 locations in Denmark where untraditional 

ghost drivers initiatives were established on or at 

motorway ramps, as reported by K. Kjemtrup.(28)

The number of ghost drivers was 91 in 2006, 

compared to 65 in 2005. Kjemtrup noted that 

only about every sixth ghost driver was stopped 

by the police. Drivers were often under the influence of alcohol or confused (per police records), 

and the starting point of the ghost driver could 

not always be determined. Treatments used to 

minimize ghost drivers include the following.

 Traditional measures: 

 “Ghost gates” consisting of an extra set 

of “No Entry” road signs and two arrows 

marked on the ramp

 Adjustment of the placement of road signs, 

the cutting of plants in front of signs, and 

restoration of road markings and arrows 

on motorway ramps
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 57

 Untraditional measures:

 Special mandatory sign, “the Austrian 

hand,” over a sign with the text “Turn 

Around” (see figure 51).

 Flashing red lights beside the “No Entry” 

road sign (figure 51). When driving down 

the ramp, the road user activates the 

flashing red lights to the right of the road 

above the “No Entry” sign. According to 

Kjemtrup,(28) the system has been used for 

some years on seven ramps and has been 

established on 11 additional ramps.

 Road lighting to make the access ramp 

more visible while the exit ramp remains 

in darkness. According to Kjemtrup,(28)

the system is being tested at 14 selected 

access ramps. 

 Red flashing lane lights laid down in the 

road on exit ramps (figure 51). According 

to Kjemtrup,(28) the system has been 

established on a ramp and is planned 

for 10 ramps within 6 months.

Chevron Markings

According to P. Greibe, 45 percent of all injury 

crashes on Danish freeways are categorized as 

crashes with vehicles driving in the same direction.(29)

Rear-end crashes typically occur in situations with 

very short headways and/or in combination with 

high speeds. Inspired by positive results from the 

use of chevron markings in the United Kingdom 

and France, a trial of chevron markings on Danish 

freeways was conducted in 2007. The markings were 

established on five road sections (each 4 kilometers 

(km) (2.5 miles (mi)) long) and consisted of a series 

of white arrowheads on the road surface at 36-meter 

(m) (118-foot (ft)) intervals. The chevron markings 

were accompanied by roadside signs advising 

drivers to keep a distance of two chevron markings 

from the vehicle in front. Figure 52 (see next page) 

shows photos of the markings and the signs.

Figure 50. Denmark: locations with

ghost driver initiatives.(28)

Figure 51. Denmark: treatments for ghost drivers.(28)

“Austrian hand” Flashing lights on “No Entry” sign Red flashing lane lights
58 APPENDIX B: SYMPOSIUM FINDINGS

Two months after the markings were installed, 

significantly fewer vehicles had small gaps (less 

than 1 second). The largest reduction was in the 

left lane. The number of vehicles with gaps less 

than 2 seconds was also reduced, but the reduction 

was smaller. Speed was reduced slightly. Data 

were collected in 2010 to determine the long-term 

(2-year) effect. Telephone interviews were conducted 4 to 6 months after the chevron installations. Of the 916 respondents, 80 percent noticed 

the chevron markings. Of those 80 percent, 

96 percent knew the purpose of the markings.(29)

Netherlands

Sustainable Safety

Rapid economic growth generated increased traffic 

demand in the 1980s and 1990s, which contributed 

to increased safety concerns on the Dutch roadway 

network. In 1998 the principles of sustainable safety 

were adopted in most of the design guidelines in the 

Netherlands. One method used to put the sustainable safety concept into practice was establishment 

of three classes of roads:

 Roads with a through function for rapid 

movement of through traffic

 Roads with a distributor function

 Roads with an access function

Each road class must comply with certain 

functional requirements, making each category 

different and readily recognizable to the road user. 

Pavement marking is an example of how the roads 

are to look different. As figure 53 shows, rural 

Figure 52. Denmark: chevron markings.(29)

Figure 53. Netherlands: pavement markings for three road classes.(30)

Through road Distributor road Access road
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 59

access roads have a driving lane with a broken 

edge marking, distributor roads have a broken edge 

marking plus a double continuous centerline, and 

regional through roads have a continuous edge 

marking and double continuous centerline with a 

green marking in between. About 40 percent of the 

rural distributor road network had been provided 

with the essential road marking strategy.(30)

During the past 10 years, the Netherlands has 

widely implemented the vision and ambitions of 

the sustainable safety program.(30) The entire road 

network has been reclassified and more than 70 

percent of the urban network has been converted 

(many of these roads with some form of physical 

speed control measures) to 30-kilometer-per-hour 

(km/h) (19-mile-per-hour (mi/h)) zones and nearly 

60 percent of the rural network to 60-km/h (37-

mi/h) zones (about half of which have physical 

speed control measures). In addition, significant 

strides have been made to realize the essential 

recognizable characteristics, with more than 40 

percent of the 80-km/h (50-mi/h) distributor roads 

and 70 percent of the 60-km/h (37-mi/h) access 

roads being provided markings that comply with 

the new guidelines. About 2,000 roundabouts 

have been built. These efforts have prevented 

an estimated 300 to 400 deaths per year.

Mobility Policy

A mobility policy was developed, focusing on three 

aspects: reducing congestion, increasing reliability, 

and shortening door-to-door travel times.(30) To 

achieve the goals, the policy relies on construction 

of new road space, road pricing, and better use of 

existing road space.

The current taxes on vehicle mass, fuel type, and 

new vehicles will be replaced with a charge per 

kilometer traveled on all roads. Therefore, motorists 

will pay road taxes based on how much they actually 

drive their vehicles instead of paying a flat rate for 

owning a vehicle. The proceeds from the kilometer 

charge will not exceed the combined proceeds from 

the old taxes. Motorists who drive relatively little 

will benefit from the system. The proceeds from the 

kilometer charge will go to a new infrastructure fund 

for financing investments in roads, railways, and 

related infrastructure. 

Better use focuses on making the best possible use 

of available road capacity.(30) It is defined as the best 

possible management of traffic demand over a road 

infrastructure supply. Examples include extending 

a weaving section or entry or exit lanes, improving 

interchanges, or providing peak hour and plus lanes. 

Other suggestions for better use include making 

traffic flow smoother through surveillance or use of 

roundabouts, warning of dangerous locations and 

situations, in-car systems, and spreading traffic 

demand by informing road users of conditions.

2+1 Roads

The Netherlands also uses 2+1 roads as an interim 

condition until the road can be widened into a dual 

carriageway.(30) The 2+1 road is a single carriageway 

rural road with three lanes on which the center lane 

is used to provide overtaking opportunities in each 

direction. The guidelines published in 2008 were 

developed based on German and Swedish design 

standards. The implementation of the first 2+1 road 

(N50 between Kampen and the A28 motorway) was 

in 2007. Bearing the ultimate solution in mind, the 

designer is encouraged to design the 2+1 section as 

one of the carriageways and provide for a second 

carriageway in the overall design (especially ensuring that bridges, overpasses, etc., allow for this). This 

way, construction costs are spread while the design 

provides the necessary flexibility to introduce the 

second carriageway the moment traffic demand 

warrants it. Furthermore, the construction of the 

second carriageway causes minimal disruption 

to existing traffic.

Hard Shoulder

The first area to use hard shoulder lanes was the A27 

roadway in Utrecht. When hard shoulders are used, 

they are monitored manually from a traffic control 

center and are operated through variable signs 

mounted on gantries. The following measures are in 

place when hard shoulder running is in operation:

 Maximum speed limit is reduced from 120 km/h 

(75 mi/h) to 90 km/h (56 mi/h).

 Emergency refuge areas are provided about 

every kilometer.

 Speed detection loops are placed every 500 to 

600 m (1,640 to 1,970 ft) on normal lanes and 

every 75 m (246 ft) on the hard shoulder.

 Maximum spacing between gantries is about 

700 m (2,300 ft).
60 APPENDIX B: SYMPOSIUM FINDINGS

 A green arrow is displayed when the lane 

is available for use and a red cross when 

it is closed.

 During hard shoulder running operation, 

the maximum speed limit is also displayed.

 Rescue vehicles are placed at junctions for 

rapid deployment in the event of an incident.(31)

Plus Lanes

The Netherlands also uses plus lanes in many areas, 

which are narrow lanes on the inside of the roadway 

that are opened at peak times to create capacity 

while at the same time speed limits are reduced to 

improve safety.(32,33) The plus lane is provided by 

reconstructing the existing roadway while keeping 

the hard shoulder. It is opened for travel use when 

traffic volumes reach levels that indicate congestion 

is growing.

Sweden

Higher Speed Roads

In Sweden, the objective is to decrease the number 

of people killed in crashes by 50 percent and 

severely injured by 25 percent from 2007 to 2020. 

The long-term “Zero Vision” is that nobody complying with system laws (e.g., driving while sober 

and using a seatbelt, a modern car, and no excessive speeding) should be killed or severely injured.(34)

According to their report, T. Bergh and M. 

Petersson(34) reported that to a great extent the 

design debate has focused on how to contribute 

to the safety objectives in a cost-effective way. 

The following information on higher speed 

roadways was discussed: 

 The first Swedish motorway (Malmo-Lund) was 

about 20 km (12.4 mi) and was opened in 1953 

with a prewar German design without outer 

hard shoulders, with a narrow median, and 

without tapers at entries and exits. Most of the 

normally 110-km/h (68-mi/h) rural motorway 

system has a 26.5-m (87-ft) cross section 

(see figure 54). The fatality rate for 110-km/h 

(68-mi/h) motorways has decreased because 

of heavy implementation of median and side 

fences on older motorways. A political intervention based on environmental impact concern 

triggered a number of four-lane projects in the 

mid-1990s with an 18.5-m (61-ft) cross section 

(see figure 54). The crash rates for these projects, some 100 km (62 mi), “have not redeemed 

our expectations on safety performance.” 

Figure 54 shows a compromise for new 

design with a 21.5-m (71-ft) cross section.

 The 2+1 cable barrier design has a cross 

section that is normally within a 13-m (43-ft) 

paved width (see figure 55). The first project 

opened in 1998 and was judged a major 

success by politicians and public opinion. 

More than 2,000 km are now open with 

the following distribution:

 About 30 percent are 110-km/h (68-mi/h) 

semimotorways (i.e., grade separated, full 

access control).

 About 30 percent are 90-km/h (56-mi/h) 

semimotorways.

 About 30 percent are normal 90-km/h 

(56-mi/h) roads (i.e., with at-grade intersections, accesses, and vulnerable road users 

and slow-moving vehicles permitted).

Speed limits were changed to 100 km/h (62 

mi/h) in 2008–2009 in the speed limit overview. 

The crash evaluation found an overall fatality 

rate almost equal to motorways, giving a 

reduction for some projects of 80 percent 

and over 50 percent including severe injuries, 

resulting in a savings of 50 lives a year. Main 

disadvantages are major barrier crash repairs.

 Major efforts are being concentrated on 

improved safety design on normal two-lane 

roads (6.6- to 11.5-m (21.6- to 37.7-ft) paved 

width) with a speed limit of 90 km/h (56 mi/h). 

These roads, some 10,000 km (6,213 mi), have 

about 90 fatalities a year, 40 percent in headon and overtaking crashes and 25 percent in 

single roadway departure crashes. Average 

daily traffic is normally in the range of 1,000 

to 5,000 vehicles. Three main alternatives 

are being examined: 

 Centerline rumble strips have been implemented on 4,000 km (2,485 mi) since 2005. 

The anticipated effect on fatalities and 

severe injuries is estimated at 10 to 15 

percent based on Finnish and U.S. results, 
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 61

but those results have not been achieved 

yet in Sweden. The noise disturbance 

distance to avoid levels above 45 

A-weighted decibels (dBA) has been 

extended to 150 m (492 ft) to occupied 

houses, giving an average of some 60 

to 70 percent rumble strips on a project.

 The rumble median with overtaking lanes 

concept includes the addition of overtaking 

sections at slightly longer intervals than 

in the 2+1 concept. A no-overtaking zone 

with a narrow rumble median is between 

the overtaking sections with information 

signs on the next overtaking opportunity. 

Figure 56 illustrates the concept. Side safety 

fences are used in sharper outer bends. The 

costs of overlays, signs, and road markings 

are to be from maintenance money to 

facilitate a large-scale implementation 

over a reasonably short period. 

 A median barriers with overtaking lanes 

project was implemented in December 

2009 at National Road 26 outside Vaxjo 

(see figure 57 on next page). The 1+1 

sections are squeezed into the existing 

9-m (30-ft) width, with 0.75-m (2.5-ft) 

outer shoulders, 3.25-m (10.7-ft) traffic 

lanes, and a 1-m (3.3-ft) median.

Figure 55. Sweden: typical 2+1 median barrier design on 13-m paved width.(34)

Figure 54. Sweden: motorway and alternative four-lane cross sections from the 1970s.(34)

Traditional 26.5 m:

• 2.75-m outer shoulders

• 3.75-m traffic lanes

• 1.0-m inner shoulder

• 4.0-m median with barrier

Alternative 18.5 m:

• 0.5-m outer shoulders

• 3.5-m traffic lanes

• 0.5-m inner shoulder

• 2.5-m median with barrier

Present design 21.5 m:

• 2.0-m outer shoulders

• 3.5-m traffic lanes

• 0.5-m inner shoulder

• 2.5-m median with barrier

Figure 56. Sweden: overtaking lane principles with rumble or barrier median.(34)
62 APPENDIX B: SYMPOSIUM FINDINGS

United Kingdom—England

Making Better Use

In his country report, J. Smart(35) discussed a strategy known as “Making Better Use.” In 2000, after a 

government review of transport policy in the United 

Kingdom, the Highways Agency (highway authority 

for the strategic road network) was asked to 

develop a roads improvement strategy that would 

speed up delivery of large-scale road construction 

schemes over 10 years. The strategy became known 

as the 10-Year Plan. One element of the strategy 

became known as the Making Better Use program, 

which has a goal of creating additional capacity 

without moving outside the existing footprint of a 

highway. In addition, safety should not be compromised and environmental impact should be minimal. 

In geometric terms, this meant looking at the existing standard highway cross section and junction 

layouts to establish where additional lane widths 

could be developed or where using technology 

could assist in increasing capacity of existing lane 

configurations or enable lane control, lane entry, and 

lane designation changes to be made. This approach 

is to be considered for all levels of road hierarchy, 

whether the route is a single carriageway, dual 

carriageway, or motorway.

Wide Single 2+1

The wide single 2+1 is used when upgrading a single 

carriageway road into a dual carriageway is being 

considered. The single carriageway is marked in 

three lanes, with the center lane used for alternating 

directional overtaking sections (see figure 58). The 

existing 10-m (33-ft) width is used or combined with 

minor widening to 11 m (36 ft). Trials of this layout 

have been undertaken in the United Kingdom, and 

similar layouts operate in Finland, Germany, Ireland, 

and Sweden.(35)

Active Traffic Management With 

Hard Shoulder Running

A trial project using the hard shoulders of the M42 

roadway was conducted as a possible congestion 

relief solution. Motorists traveling southbound on 

the M42 at Junction 5 near Solihull were first to use 

the hard shoulder between motorway slip roads. 

The initiative created a continuous four-lane section 

of the motorway between Junctions 6 (Birmingham 

Airport) and 4 (Monkspath).(36) Initial results of the 

use of the shoulder on the M42 to relieve congestion 

showed that travel time was reduced by as much 

as 27 percent on weekdays.(37) Black and yellow 

electronic variable message signs inform motorists 

whether the hard shoulder is open to traffic and 

which lanes can be used to exit from or stay on 

the motorway.(36) The success of this trial resulted 

in the expansion of the program to the M6 roadway. 

Construction on the M6 to replace bridge joints, 

make surface repairs, and add lane markings are 

projected to be completed by spring 2011.(32)

Smart(35) provided additional details on the trial 

of the M42 section near Birmingham, England. The 

section is a three-lane motorway (six lanes plus full 

hard shoulders). Management techniques include 

mandatory variable speed limits, enhanced driver 

information signs, and a new congestion and 

incident management system. The system allows 

operators to open and close any lane on the motorway to traffic to help manage congestion at busy 

times of the day or during traffic buildup from an 

incident. Eventually, this will include using the hard 

shoulder as a running lane between junctions under 

controlled conditions. The infrastructure includes 

new lighting, gantries, electronic and static signing, 

emergency roadside telephones, emergency refuge 

areas, cameras, and mandatory variable speed 

limits. Use of the hard shoulder as an extra running 

lane during busy peak periods or incidents was 

introduced in September 2006 as the final phase 

in the active traffic management (ATM) project 

(see figure 59).(35) The key aspects of ATM are 

the following:

 Use of variable mandatory speed limits

 Dynamic use of the hard shoulder during 

periods of congestion or incidents

Figure 57. Sweden: median barrier project.(34)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 63

 Provision of dedicated emergency refuge 

areas for use when vehicles break down

 Installation of gantries with signals and 

variable message signs(38)

A proposed method to compensate for the loss of 

the hard shoulder during certain times of the day is 

emergency refuge areas. Located next to the hard 

shoulder, emergency refuge areas are designed to 

be used in all cases of emergency or breakdown, 

not only when the hard shoulder is being used as 

a running lane. One is located about every 500 m 

(1,640 ft) along the length of the ATM section of 

the M42.(39)

In the first 12 months of the full M42 trial, use of the 

hard shoulder in peak periods was a success, with 

average journey times falling by more than a quarter 

on the northbound carriageway. A report on the 

trial, ATM Monitoring and Evaluation(38) is at www.dft.

gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/m42activetrafficmanagement/atm12mthsumrep.pdf. 

Managed Motorways

“Managed motorways” is a term used to encapsulate 

a range of techniques that can be employed to 

control the level and speed of traffic on a highspeed interurban route. According to Smart,(35) the 

managed motorway has developed in the United 

Kingdom from the successful trial of the ATM 

concept. The managed motorway concept is a 

context-sensitive solution being pursued to mitigate 

the detrimental effects of congestion while optimizing the investment that has or will be made 

in the roadway infrastructure. Agencies are using 

innovative geometric design treatments to optimize 

the use of the roadway cross section to actively 

manage traffic. They dynamically use operational 

strategies such as speed harmonization, vehicle 

restrictions (e.g., occupancy, trucks), or pricing 

and tolling to improve the performance of 

specific lanes or the entire motorway.

Truck Restrictions

The first truck restrictions in England were 

implemented on a pilot basis on northbound M42 

near Warwickshire between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. This 

5-km (3-mi) stretch of roadway between Junction 10 

(Tamworth) and Junction 11 (Appleby Magna) is only 

two lanes in each direction, and heavy vehicles, 

which make up 17 percent of the traffic, must 

travel slowly up the steep grade.(40) The ban 

prevents heavy trucks from overtaking each other 

and restricts them to one lane, leaving the other 

lane for faster moving vehicles. The intent is to 

enhance operations and safety and reduce congestion along this part of the roadway. Results of the 

ban, including safety impacts and travel time 

savings, are still unknown.(40)

Exclusive Bus Lanes on M4

The first bus lane on a motorway opened in 1997 

on the M4 Spur motorway to Heathrow Airport. 

The Central Bus Station at the airport serves more 

than 1,600 buses per day, and the traffic during 

peak periods can be backed up the entire 1.4-km 

Figure 58. United Kingdom: WS2+1 layout.(35)

Figure 59. United Kingdom: hard shoulder use.(38)
64 APPENDIX B: SYMPOSIUM FINDINGS

(0.9-mi) length of the spur.(41) The bus lane is 

identified by red surfacing treatment. Only buses, 

coaches, and emergency vehicles are allowed to 

use the bus lane; all other vehicles are prohibited. 

In 1999 a bus lane also opened on the M4 motorway on the eastbound lanes into London. The bus 

lane starts at Junction 3 and extends for 5.6 km 

(3.5 mi) to the point where the carriageway width 

reduces from three running lanes plus hard shoulder to two running lanes on the elevated motorway 

on Chiswick flyover. In this scheme, the offside 

running lane has been converted into a bus lane, 

reducing the number of lanes for other traffic 

to two lanes. This bus lane also has red surface 

treatment, but in this case taxis are also 

allowed to use it.(41)

United States

User Information Needs

In his presentation during the Workshop on 

Managed Motorways, M. Brewer discussed critical 

user information needs related to ATM.(42) Key 

questions include the following:

 Who is your driver audience?

 Familiar (commuter) drivers versus 

unfamiliar (tourist) drivers

 Long distance versus short distance

 Commercial versus personal

 What do they need to know?

 Motorway information (hours of 

operation, open lanes and shoulders, 

final destination, payment)

 Traffic information (congestion, 

incidents, time savings)

 Vehicle information (occupancy, 

prohibitions, method of payment)

 When do they need to know it?

 Enough advance notice to process the 

information, determine if it applies, decide 

how to respond, and execute the response

 Earlier notice for unfamiliar or 

untrusting drivers

 How can you best convey that information?

 No one-size-fits-all answer because 

ATM solutions can take many forms, 

but some common principles apply

Figure 60 shows a conceptualized model for driver 

decision. The model was developed as part of a 

Texas Department of Transportation project on 

managed lanes.(43) Figure 61 (see page 66) shows 

the relationship between the amount of information 

provided to drivers to process and the safety and 

efficiency of a driver’s decisions. Drivers have limits 

to their ability to process information. Beyond that 

threshold, the safety and efficiency of drivers’ 

decisions begin to degrade.

Identifying Locations With Sunglare 

During the symposium, two papers were presented 

that discussed techniques for identifying locations 

with sunglare concerns.

Spain

The paper by R. Jurado-Pina et al(44) discusses a 

software tool developed at the Technical University 

of Madrid to identify and quantify driver vision 

impairment problems caused by sunglare and 

facilitate the design of countermeasures to prevent 

potential safety hazards. The computer program is 

based in a methodology developed at the university 

to determine the days and times of the year when 

sunglare may impair driver’s vision on a particular 

road and the physical characteristics of its 

environment. The computer program has been 

implemented to represent the intervening variables 

in cylindrical charts and to perform the calculations 

to determine the times and days when drivers will 

experience sunglare vision impairment. The resulting 

software tool was applied in Spain in several studies 

of locations where sunglare could pose a safety 

hazard, including tunnel exits, freeway entrance 

ramps, and intersection approaches.

United States 

A.M. Churchill and D.J. Lovell(45) of the University 

of Maryland discussed a procedure for auditing 

highway alignments for the effects of sunglare. 
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 65

Figure 60. Conceptualized driver decision model.(43)
66 APPENDIX B: SYMPOSIUM FINDINGS

They developed a mathematical method to 

determine, for a given geometrical description 

of a highway alignment, at what locations and 

times that alignment might be susceptible to 

sunglare problems. The calculations include 

astronomical algorithms to determine the vector 

direction of the sun from a given location on the 

highway at any time during the year, as well as 

the optical refinements necessary to account for 

atmospheric refraction. Essentially, the output of 

the model is a list of locations and times expected 

to suffer from sunglare effects. They noted that the 

algorithm could serve as one of a number of road 

safety audits conducted in a safety review for a 

given alignment, or it could serve as an input to 

an automated highway design process to account 

for safety deficiencies of candidate alignments.

Figure 61. Relationship between efficiency

and information to process.(42)
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 67

Appendix C: Workshop on Managed Motorways—

A Way Foward for the Future

Agenda 

9:00 a.m. Welcome—Opening Instructions

John Smart, Chartered Institution 

of Highways & Transportation, 

United Kingdom

9:05 a.m. From Freeways to Managed Motorways: 

A Generation of Change

Jon Obenberger, Federal Highway

Administration, United States

9:40 a.m. Critical User Information Needs Related

to Active Traffic Management

Marcus Brewer, Texas Transportation 

Institute, United States

10:15 a.m. Design Considerations and the 

Changes Imposed by Managed 

Motorway Operation

Lucy Wickham, Mouchel, and 

David Grant, Highways Agency, 

United Kingdom

10:50 a.m. Coffee Break

11:05 a.m. Planning and Implementing a Freeway 

Management System on Melbourne’s M1

John Cunningham, VicRoads, Monash—

CityLink, Australia

11:40 a.m. Developments in Safety and 

Performance of Managed 

Motorways in the Netherlands

Aad Wilmink, Dutch Ministry of 

Transportation, Netherlands

12:15 p.m. IT and Its Role as a Fundamental 

Element of Managed Motorways

Matthew Clarke, ATKINS, Highways 

and Transportation, United Kingdom

12:50 p.m. Panel Discussion

Moderator: John Smart, Chartered

Institution of Highways & Transportation,

United Kingdom

All presenters and

Brian L. Ray, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.,

United States

Aniceto Zaragoza Ramirez,

Universidad Politecnica de Madrid y 

Presidente de EUPAVE, Spain

Charlie Howard, Puget Sound Council 

of Governments, Seattle, Washington, 

United States

1:30 p.m. Adjourn
Appendix D: Host Country Contacts

68 APPENDIX D: HOST COUNTRY CONTACTS

Spain

Alfredo García, Ph.D.

Department of Transportation

Polytechnic University of Valencia

Camino de Vera, s/n

46071-Valencia, Spain

Telephone: 011+34 963 871 374

Fax: 011+34 963 877 379

E-mail: argarcia@tra.upv.es

Ana Yago

Polytech University of Valencia

Camino De Vera, s/n

46071-Valencia, Spain

Telephone: 011+34 963 871 374

Fax: 011+34 963 877 379

E-mail: ishagd4@hotmail.com

Jose A. Hinojosa

Telephone: 011+34 915 977 822

E-mail: jahinojosa@fomento.es

Vicente Ferrer Perez

Civil Engineer

Ministerio De Fomento

Valencia, Spain

Telephone: 011+34 963 079 525

E-mail: vferrer@fomento.es

Jose Yuste Maizal 

Civil Engineer

Ministry of Public Works

Valencia, Spain

Telephone: 011+34 963 079 538

Fax: 011+34 963 079 511

E-mail: jyuste@fomento.es

Minguel Mondria Garcia

Ingeniero do Caminos y Puertos

Director de Produccion y Calidad

Valencia, Spain

Telephone: 011+34 963 379 220

Fax: 011+34 963 371 429

E-mail: mmondria@typsa.es

Germany

Ulfert Joop

International Affairs Office

Federal Ministry of Transport,

 Construction, and Urban 

 Development

Robert-Schuman-Platz 1 

D-53175 Bonn, Germany

Telephone: 011+49 228 300 5401

E-mail: ulfert.joop@bmvbs.bund.de

Konstantin Sauer

Referat StB 12

Federal Ministry of Transport,

 Construction, and Urban 

 Development

Robert-Schuman-Platz 1 

D-53175 Bonn, Germany

Telephone: 011+49 228 300 5120 

 or 5121

E-mail: ref-stb12@bmvbs.bund.de

Prof. Dr. Justin Geistefeldt

Institute for Traffic Engineering 

 and Management

Ruhr-University Bochum

Universitaetsstr. 150

D-44801 Bochum, Germany

Telephone: +49 234 32-25936

Fax: +49 234 32-14151

E-mail: justin.geistefeldt@rub.de

Kerstin Lemke

Federal Highway Research 

 Institute (BASt)

Bruderstrabe 53

D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach, 

 Germany

Telephone: 011+49 2204 43-510

Fax: 011+49 2204 43-683

E-mail: lemke@bast.de

Reiner Dolger 

Referat fur Verkehrsanalyse 

 und Forschung

Rheinland-Pfalz Ministerium 

 fur Wirstschaft, Verkehr, 

 Landwirtschaft und Weinbau 

Stiftsstrasse 9

D-55116 Mainz, Germany

Telephone: 011+49 06 130 162 283

Fax: 011+49 06 131 162 449

E-mail: reiner.doelger.mwvlw.rlp.de

Klaus Noll

Referent fur Strassenplanungen 

Rheinland-Pfalz

Ministerium fur Wirtschaft, 

 Verkehr

Landwirtschaft und Weinbau

Stiftsstrasse 9

55116 Mainz, Germany

Telephone: 011+49 06 131 162 209

Fax: 011+49 06 131 164 044

E-mail: klaus.noll@mwvlw.rlp.de
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 69

Helga Rottenau

Referat fur Verkehrsanalyse 

 und-forschung

Verkehrsinformationssysteme, 

 Verkehrstelematik

Rheinland-Pfalz

Ministerium fur Wirtschaft

Verkehr, Landwirtschaft Und 

 Weinbau

Stiftsstrasse 9

55116 Mainz, Germany

Telephone: 011+49 06 131 162 171

Fax: 011+49 06 131 162 449

E-mail: helga.rottenau@mwv.rlp.de

Netherlands

Richard van der Elburg 

Senior Advisor

Policy Analysis and Forecasts

Ministry of Transport, Public 

 Works, and Water Management 

Rijkswaterstaat Centre for 

 Transport and Navigation

Schoemakerstraat 97, 

 PO Box 5044

2600 GA Delft, Netherlands

Telephone: 011+31 887 982 372

Fax: 011+31 887 982 999

E-mail: richard.vander.elburg@rws.nl

Bert Hellerman

Senior Advisor

Rijkswaterstaat

Ministry of Transport, Public 

 Works, and Water Management

Rijkswaterstaat Center for 

 Transport and Navigation

Schoemaderstraat 97c

2628 vk Delft

PO Box 5044

2600 GA Delft, Netherlands

Telephone: 011+31 08 87 98 24 78

Fax: 011+31 08 87 98 29 99

E-mail: bert.helleman@rws.nl

Alex van Loon 

Advisor, Policy Analysis and 

 Forecasts

Ministry of Transport, Public 

 Works, and Water Management 

Rijkswaterstaat Centre for 

 Transport and Navigation

Schoemakerstraat 97, 

 PO Box 5044

2600 GA Delft, Netherlands

Telephone: 011+31 08 87 98 22 90

Fax: 011+31 08 87 98 29 99

E-mail: alex.van.loon@rws.nl

Marthe van Dongen, Ph.D.

Senior adviseur Trace 

m.e.r.-centrum

Afdeling Inpassing Netwerken

Rijkswaterstaat

Dienst Verkeer en Scheepvaart

Van der Burghweg 1

Postbus 5044

2600 GA Delft, Netherlands

Telephone: 011+31 08 87 98 23 45

Fax: 011+31 08 87 89 29 99

E-mail: marthe.van.dongen@rws.nl

Gerald Uittenbogerd

DVS Consultant

E-mail: gerald.uittenbogerd@rws.nl

Huib Kwint

Advisor

Rijkswaterstaat

Ministry of Transport, Public 

 Works, and Water Management

Rijkswaterstaat Center for 

 Transport and Navigation

Van der Burghweg 1

2628 CS Delft, Netherlands

PO Box 5044

2600 GA Delft, Netherlands

Telephone: 011+31 08 87 98 22 89

Fax: 011+31 08 87 98 29 99

E-mail: huib.kwint@rws.nl

Roel Nijsten

Team Leader Transportation/

 EIA centre

Section Landscaping and 

 Environment

Rijkswaterstaat

Centre for Transport and 

 Navigation

Van der Burghweg 1

PO Box 5044

2600 GA Delft, Netherlands

Telephone: 011+31 08 87 98 23 57

Fax: 011+31 08 87 98 29 99

E-mail: roel.nijsten@rws.nl

United Kingdom

Paul Johnson 

Head of Research Strategy

Network Services Directorate

Highways Agency

The Cube, 199 Wharfside St.

Birmingham B1 1RN, 

 United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 121 678 8275

E-mail: paul.johnson@highways.

 gsi.gov.uk

Clair Griffin 

Highways Agency

The Cube, 199 Wharfside St.

Birmingham B1 1RN, 

 United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 121 678 8480

Fax: 011+44 121 678 8108

E-mail: clare.griffin@highways.gsi.

 gov.uk

David Grant 

Group Manager

Highways Agency, The Cube

199 Wharfside St.

Birmingham B1 1RN, 

 United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 07 802 919 582

E-mail: david.grant@highways.gsi.

 gov.uk
70 APPENDIX D: HOST COUNTRY CONTACTS

Martin Stott 

Operations Manager

Highways Agency 

West Midlands Regional 

 Control Center

Quinton Business Park, 

 1 Ridgeway

Birmingham B32 1AF, 

 United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 121 421 8851

Fax: 011+44 121 421 8849

E-mail: martin.stott@highways.

 gsi.gov.uk

Mike Wilson

Regional Director–East Midlands

Telephone: 011+44 121 678 8055

E-mail: mike.wilson@highways.gsi.

 gov.uk

Nick Hopcraft

Divisional Director, 

 Managed Motorways

Highways Agency

C3 5 Broadway

Birmingham, B15 1 BL, 

 United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 121 678 8342

Fax: 011+44 121 678 8211

E-mail: nick.hopcraft@highways.

 gsi.gov.uk

Max Brown

Senior Traffic Technology Officer

 Network Services Directorate, 

 Research and Operational 

 Guidance Division

Highways Agency

Temple Quay House

2 Square Temple Quay

Bristol BS1 6HA, United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 117 372 8541

Fax: 011+44 117 372 8810

E-mail: max.brown@highways.gsi.

 gov.uk

Vicky Bowden

Assistant Knowledge 

 Strategy Coordinator

Highways Agency

403 City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza

Manchester, M1 4BE, 

 United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 161 930 5809

Fax: 011+44 161 930 5256

E-mail: vicky.bowden@highways.

 gsi.gov.uk

Ruth Tilstone 

Highways Agency 

403 City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza

Manchester, M1 4BE, 

 United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 161 930 5809

Fax: 011+161 930 5256

E-mail: ruth.tilstone@highways.

 gsi.gov.uk

Paul Unwin 

Senior Project Manager

Highways Agency 

The Cube, 199 Wharfside St.

Birmingham B1 1RN, 

 United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 121 678 8180 

E-mail: paul.unwin@highways.gsi.

 gov.uk

Brian Barton, Bsc. CEng.MICE

NetServ, Technical Services 

 Division

Highways Agency

3C Federated House 

London Road, Dorking 

Surrey RH4 1SZ, United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 130 687 8292

Fax: 011+44 130 687 8301

E-mail: brian.barton@highways.

 gsi.gov.uk

Sarah Garland

Managed Motorway

Delivery Office (Operations 

 and HOV Lanes)

Telephone: 011+44 121 087 4161

E-mail: sarah.garland@highways.

 gsi.gov.uk

Andrew Page-Dove

Program Manager–Managed 

Motorways (Operations)

Telephone: 011+44 781 807 7913

E-mail: andrew.page-dove@

 highways.gsi.gov.uk

Lucy Wickham, CEng MICE MIHT

Technical Director–Transport 

 Operations & Technology

Mouchel

Export House, Cawsey 

 Way Woking

Surrey GU21 6QX, 

 United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 148 373 1122

E-mail: www.mouchel.com
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 71

Appendix E: Amplifying Questions

Scan Purpose

Continued growth in travel along congested urban 

freeway corridors exceeds the ability of agencies to 

provide sufficient roadway capacity in major metropolitan areas based on limited public funding for 

roadway expansion and improvement projects. High 

construction costs, constrained right-of-way, and 

environmental factors are pushing agencies to 

explore solutions, such as active traffic management 

or managed lanes, to maximize throughput under 

congested conditions and improve safety to 

reduce collisions and nonrecurring congestion. 

The purpose of this scan is to examine innovative 

geometric design practices and techniques used in 

other countries to improve the operational performance of congested freeway facilities without 

compromising safety. Finding cost-effective options 

to mitigate traffic congestion on urban freeway 

facilities is one of the most significant challenges 

State departments of transportation and regional 

transportation organizations face. Internationally, 

transport agencies are using geometric design 

treatments linked to operational strategies, such 

as reassigning the roadway cross section, to 

dynamically reduce congestion while maintaining 

or improving the safety performance of freeways 

in congested urban freeway corridors. 

Amplifying Questions

A. Geometric Design Practices

The questions in this section are targeted to 

geometric design practices used to optimize the 

performance of existing or future freeway capacity. 

Examples of geometric design practices include 

special-use lanes, such as high-occupancy vehicle 

(HOV) or exclusive truck lanes; value-priced or 

high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes; and reserved areas 

for vehicle refuge, enforcement, or incident response 

and recovery. Other examples of geometric design 

practices include temporary use of shoulders, lane 

restrictions, and access control. Also to be reviewed 

during the scanning study are signing, pavement 

marking, traffic control, lighting, speed, and other 

elements considered in the design. 

1. In the United States, the prevailing document 

used for highway geometrics is the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric 

Design of Highways and Streets, also known 

as the Green Book. 

 a. What document is established that sets your 

national design criteria?

 b. Do you recognize AASHTO and the guidance 

given in the Green Book and, if so, in what 

capacity?

2. What practices have been used in your 

country to support active traffic management? 

Were they successful or unsuccessful? Why? 

3. What cross sections and dimensions are used 

for the different geometric design practices? 

Can you provide example schematics?

 a. For example, what are the acceptable 

shoulder widths? Does it vary based on the 

length of the shoulder encroachment? In 

other words, can you get by with a narrower 

shoulder for a short distance (such as a 

bridge), but need wider shoulders for longer 

roadway segments? Are there any increments of shoulder width that are avoided 

(such as avoiding a 6 foot (1.83 meter) inside 

shoulder because it is too narrow to safely 

accommodate a disabled motorist, but not 

narrow enough to discourage motorists to 

move to the outside shoulder for refuge)? 
72 APPENDIX E: AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS

 b. For example, when considering lane width 

reductions below standard values, what 

geometric factors and other elements 

are reviewed to make the decision, 

(e.g., tangent-versus-curvy alignment, 

percent trucks)? 

4. Where constraints require the use of dimensions 

for cross section elements that are less than 

desired, is there an order in which the elements 

are prioritized for reduction? For example, one 

might reduce a buffer width between mixed and 

managed lanes first, reduce left shoulder width 

second, reduce lane width third, etc.

5. What types of geometric modifications to 

other-than-cross-section features of existing 

freeways have proven necessary where active 

traffic management is deployed? For example, 

how is ramp design affected (i.e., acceleration 

or deceleration lengths, location of junctions, 

where and how an HOV lane is accessed, 

changes needed because ramp is located 

along side of a dynamic shoulder)? Another 

example could be overhead or roadside sign 

support locations. Specific geometric details 

and/or specific roadway examples would 

be of interest. 

6. Is it inherent with the use of alternative 

geometric design practices—particularly 

dynamic shoulder use and managed lanes—

that features such as lighting, signing, and 

delineation need to be enhanced beyond 

typical provision? If so, to what extent?

7. Is enforcement provided in a separate area for 

monitoring and citation issuance?

8. What are practitioners’ thoughts and practices 

on the use of less-than-desired dimensions, 

such as the use of narrower-than-standard lane 

widths? These practices are likely to be proposed as retrofits to existing corridors with 

space restrictions. The navigational and decision demands associated with them would 

most likely compound demands related to 

substandard geometric elements.

9. Under what circumstances has or would 

dynamic shoulder use be considered? Adding 

lane capacity to main lanes is the obvious 

application, but has or can the strategy be 

used to optimize operations in other ways 

(e.g., a one-lane versus two-lane ramp exit for 

offpeak versus peak-hour demand conditions)?

 a. Are weather issues such as rainwater runoff 

or spread and snowmelt considered before 

running traffic on shoulders? 

 b. Is traffic running on the shoulders allowed 

during daylight hours only? If it is allowed 

at night, are these sections lighted? 

10. Has deployment of the alternative geometric 

design practices caused designers and jurisdictions to reduce design speeds in these corridors?

11. For restriping retrofit applications, is cross slope 

broken on lane lines or in between?

12. Have there been any studies or simulations to 

evaluate driver reading comprehension of 

complex signing? Do you have examples of 

signing (both static and dynamic) used with 

active traffic management?

13. Please address the following on vehicle type:

 a. What kind of vehicle-type restrictions, if any, 

have been instituted on corridors where 

these treatments have been employed?

 b. Have any geometric design strategies (e.g., 

narrow lanes) been particularly problematic 

for trucks?

 c. Are there any innovative design practices to 

accommodate operation of buses?

14. Are there any innovative design practices to 

accommodate congestion pricing facilities?

B. Performance Measures

The following questions focus on performance 

measures (and/or metrics) to evaluate, monitor, 

and report on the performance of geometric design 

alternatives aimed at improving the performance and 

flexible use of freeway facilities (e.g., full-time capacity addition, part-time capacity addition). The scan 

team seeks information on existing and proposed 

methods, procedures, tools, public outreach, and 

techniques used to assess safety and operational 

implications or compare geometric design alterna-
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 73

tives, active traffic management strategies, and 

innovative uses of the cross section of a freeway.

1. Before implementing new geometric design 

practices, did your agency undertake any formal 

or informal evaluation of the potential risks in 

the design process? If so, please explain the 

evaluation process used. 

2. Have any studies been performed to evaluate 

the operational and safety changes experienced 

after implementing active traffic management 

and/or specific geometric design alternatives 

(e.g., cross section tradeoffs that support active 

traffic management)? If so, please describe. 

 a. For example, if you have tried strategies that 

involve using the shoulder as an additional 

travel lane during certain peak times, have 

you performed any safety studies to assess 

the effects of such strategies?

3. What relationships have you found between 

geometric design practices and active traffic 

management or operational strategies?

4. Has your agency developed any specific 

performance goals for evaluating active traffic 

management and/or specific geometric 

design practices? 

5. What performance measures do you use to 

evaluate the effects of geometric design alternatives used in active traffic management on 

your roadways?

 a. Do you use some form of level of service, 

such as number of congested hours, travel 

speed, or amount of delay?

 b. Do these measures show clear improvements 

in safety, operations, and maintenance?

 c. What types of alternatives appear to provide 

the best benefits? 

 d. Do you apply a lessons-learned approach to 

help refine existing alternatives and develop 

new ones?

6. How do you face the challenge of balancing your 

project between designing for safety and 

designing for increased mobility? 

 a. Do the decisions you make have differing 

effects on safety and mobility? 

 b. How do you quantify the effects on safety 

and mobility?

 c. What risk management tools and processes 

have been used to understand these tradeoffs 

in planning and design and make decisions?

7. Have you been successful in implementing 

innovative technologies into your overall traffic 

operations program? Specifically, have you 

developed control devices other than the 

traditional items, such as signs, markings, 

and signals?

8. What role do traffic signal control, signage, 

metering of roadways, and alternate route 

selection play in managing your overall 

capacity?

9. How do you relate traveler information or 

mobility management to the placement 

of traffic restrictions or pricing in dealing 

with operational strategies?

10. How are speed limits determined? 

 a. How are speed limits determined for sections 

with geometric designs that have been 

modified to accommodate active traffic 

management? 

 b. Are speed limits considered when selecting 

or developing geometric design alternatives? 

 c. Is compliance with speed limits good or 

poor? 

 d. Where local laws do not allow dynamic 

signing to dictate regulated speed posting, 

have advisory speed messages been effective 

in controlling or influencing travel speeds?

C. Planning

The following questions focus on the planning 

components used to integrate geometric design 

practices for active traffic management strategies. 

The scan team is interested in institutional issues 

experienced, such as political involvement; public 

acceptance or controversy; and organizational 
74 APPENDIX E: AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS

impacts, such as the need for addressing 

competencies, processes, structures, or other 

resource and leadership matters.

1. What are the typical steps in initiating your 

project development process? 

2. Please describe the procedures used for defining and developing projects from a conceptual 

through final design stage?

3. How are improvements to motorway lanes 

planned? Who undertakes that planning? At 

what points in your plan development process 

do you begin to look at various forms of active 

management strategies? When do you consider 

the geometric design alternatives that need to 

be in place to use the active management 

strategies?

4. Have you made changes in your planning or 

design process to better accommodate active 

traffic management?

5. Please describe how policy decisions are made 

when using geometric design criteria to fit the 

overall context of a project.

6. How do you address public involvement in your 

project development?

 a. Specifically, how do you articulate the 

benefits of alternative geometric design 

techniques?

 b. What role do both the public and media play 

in political perceptions?

 c. Are particular issues raised by decisionmakers 

and, if so, how have they been addressed?

7. Have these corridorwide applications been 

deployed as a limited-length interim approach 

to getting more life out of existing roads in 

advance of a larger fix, or are they used as 

long-term, permanent corridor reinventions—

or both?

8. Is there an institutional process to ensure the 

consideration or inclusion of active traffic 

management in developing long-range 

regional plans?

9. What techniques have been used to integrate 

enforcement and traffic incident management 

needs into planning and design?

10. What specialized training programs have you 

developed to accommodate your innovative 

projects or technologies? 

11. Active traffic management requires a long-term 

commitment to operations, as well as 

to maintenance, enforcement and patrolling, 

and traffic management. How has this commitment been planned and budgeted for? 

D. Benefits and Lessons Learned

The following questions focus on the benefits of and 

lessons learned from different types of geometric 

design practices used to optimize the performance 

and flexible use of existing or future expanded 

freeway capacity. 

1. What types of mitigation measures to minimize 

safety risks were implemented in conjunction 

with geometric design practices implemented 

as part of active traffic management strategies?

2. What tools and methods of communicating the 

benefits have been developed and how have 

they been implemented?

3. In planning or after the fact, have the owning 

agencies explored the life-cycle costs of these 

alternatives (including management, maintenance, increased enforcement), and have they 

computed life-cycle benefit/cost ratios for 

comparison with more conventional freeway 

strategies?

4. Should agencies consider these types of innovative strategies for deployment only selectively 

on their cities’ freeway systems, 

or are they considered viable for application 

systemwide? 

5. For the concept of self-explaining roads, what 

level of study and research has been completed 

in your country to demonstrate which geometric design elements and traffic control devices 

are most effective at conveying the proper 

message to drivers?
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 75

Glossary

Active traffic management. Active traffic management is an approach to dynamically manage and 

control traffic demand and available capacity of 

transportation facilities based on prevailing traffic 

conditions, using one or a combination of real-time 

and predictive operational strategies. When 

implemented with traditional traffic demand management strategies, these operational strategies 

help maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of 

the transportation facility and result in improved 

safety, trip reliability, and throughput. A truly active 

management philosophy dictates that the full range 

of available operational strategies be considered, 

including the various ways these strategies can be 

integrated with existing infrastructure, to actively 

manage the transportation system to achieve system 

performance goals. This includes traditional traffic 

management and intelligent transportation system 

(ITS) technologies, as well as new technologies and 

nontraditional traffic management technologies 

used in other parts of the world.

Carriageway. The part of a main road used for 

vehicles, especially one side of a major two-way 

highway carrying traffic in one direction only.

Dynamic rerouting. The provision of route information on overhead sign gantries along a roadway in 

response to recurrent and nonrecurrent congestion. 

The signs provide en route guidance information 

to motorists on queues, major incidents, and 

appropriate routes.

Dynamic message sign. A permanently installed or 

portable electronic traffic sign used on roadways to 

give travelers information about roadway conditions, 

including traffic congestion, crashes, incidents, 

work zones, speed limits, alternate routes, or special 

events on a specific highway segment. It can be 

changed or switched on or off as required and can 

be used to provide roadway lane control, speed 

control, and operational restrictions. Also known as a 

changeable message sign or variable message sign.

Hard shoulder running. See temporary shoulder use.

Line control or lane control. Line or lane control 

is the procedure of controlling the use of a lane 

through signs mounted on a gantry. The variable 

lane control sign shows a green arrow when the 

lane is open, a yellow arrow when the lane is closing, 

and a red X when the lane is closed to traffic.

Managed lanes. Highway facilities or a set of lanes 

in which operational strategies are implemented 

and managed (in real time) in response to changing 

conditions to preserve unimpeded flow. They are 

distinguished from traditional lane management 

strategies in that they are proactively implemented 

and managed and may involve using more than one 

operational strategy with the goal of achieving 

unimpeded flow.

Managed motorways. The managed motorway 

concept includes a combination of active or 

dynamically managed operational regimes, specific 

designs of infrastructure, and technology solutions. 

It uses a range of traffic management measures 

to actively monitor the motorway and, based on 

the monitoring, dynamically control speeds, add 

capacity, and inform road users of conditions on 

the network with the objective of optimizing 

traffic and safety performance. 

Merge control. A variation of the temporary 

shoulder used in Germany. Typically, it is applied at 

entrance ramps or merge points where the number 

of downstream lanes is fewer than the number of 

upstream lanes. Lane control signals are installed 

over both upstream approaches before a merge. 

They provide priority to the facility with the higher 

volume and give a lane drop to the lesser volume 

roadway or approach. Also known as junction 

control or mainline merging control.

Motorway. A limited-access road intended for 

traveling relatively fast over long distances. 
76 GLOSSARY

A term commonly used in Europe, a motorway in 

the United States is known as a freeway.

Plus lane. The practice of opening up the shoulder 

next to the inside lane of traffic for temporary use 

to address capacity bottlenecks on the freeway 

network during times of congestion and reduced 

travel speeds. Travel on the shoulder is permitted 

only when speed harmonization is active and speed 

limits are reduced. Signs indicate when travel on 

the shoulder is permitted.

Queue warning. The display of warning signs 

and flashing lights along a roadway to alert 

that congestion and queues are ahead.

Ramp metering. Procedures used to reduce 

congestion by managing vehicle flow from localaccess on-ramps. The entrance ramp is equipped 

with a traffic signal that allows vehicles to enter 

the freeway at predetermined intervals.

Smarter highways. Term used by the Washington 

State Department of Transportation to describe 

implementation of active traffic management to 

increase roadway efficiency and help drivers travel 

in a safer and smarter manner. Smarter highways 

include overhead signs that display variable speed 

limits, lane status, and real-time traffic information.

Speed harmonization. The practice of using an 

expert system to monitor data coming from fielddeployed sensors on a roadway and automatically 

adjust speed limits when congestion thresholds 

are exceeded and congestion and queue formation 

are impending. Sign gantries that span the facility 

provide speed limits and additional information, 

depending on roadway conditions. 

Symbology. The use of graphic symbols to represent 

information pertinent to roadway users. The 

European practice of using symbology follows 

the Vienna Convention.

Temporary shoulder use. The practice of opening 

up the shoulder next to the outside lane of traffic 

for temporary use to address capacity bottlenecks 

on the freeway network during times of congestion 

and reduced travel speeds. Travel on the shoulder is 

permitted only when speed harmonization is active 

and speed limits are reduced. Signs indicate when 

travel on the shoulder is permitted. Also known as 

hard shoulder running or a rush-hour lane.

Truck restrictions. Any restrictions along a roadway 

on the operation of trucks or heavy goods vehicles. 

Examples include restricting trucks to specific lanes, 

prohibiting them from using particular lanes, limiting 

their operating speed, or prohibiting their use of the 

entire facility during specific periods of the day.

Variable speed limits. Speed limits that change 

based on road, traffic, or weather conditions. 

Also known as dynamic speed limits.
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 77

Endnotes

1. “International Programs” (2008). Federal 

Highway Administration Web site. Available 

at http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/tmpl.

cfm?title=scanning.

2. “International Technology Scanning Programs” 

(2010). Federal Highway Administration Web 

site. Available at http://international.fhwa.dot.

gov/scan/. 

3. Clark, E. I. M. “IT and Its Role as a Fundamental 

Element of Managed Motorways” (2010). 

Transportation Research Board 4th International 

Symposium on Highway Geometric Design, 

Managed Motorway Workshop. Valencia, Spain.

4. Hinojosa, J. A., V. F. Perez, and J. Y. Maical. 

“Gestion De Autopistas.” Presentation to Freeway Geometric Design Scan Team, June 4, 2010.

5. Google Earth. Map Data. (2010).

6. Lemke, K. “Hard Shoulder Running as a 

Short-Term Measure to Reduce Congestion” 

(2010). Transportation Research Board 4th 

International Symposium on Highway 

Geometric Design. Valencia, Spain.

7. Lemke, K. “Hard Shoulder Running as a 

Short-Term Measure to Reduce Congestion” 

(2010). Transportation Research Board 4th 

International Symposium on Highway 

Geometric Design. Valencia, Spain.

8. Geistefeldt, J. “Traffic Management and ITS in 

Hessen.” Hessian Road and Traffic Authority. 

Presentation to Freeway Geometric Design 

Scan Team, June 2010. Frankfurt, Germany.

9. Hessian State Office for Road and Traffic Affairs. 

“Congestion-Free Hessen 2015: A Success Story” 

(2009). Available at www.staufreieshessen2015.

de/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/slimp.

CMReader/ HMWVL_15/Staufrei_Internet/

med/9da/9da0999c-199c-021f-3efef91921321b2c,22222222-2222-2222-

2222-222222222222.

10. German “Duration of Congestion on Motorways 

in Hessen” pamphlet (undated). Project 

Management, Congestion-Free Hessen 2015.

11. Hessisches Landesamt fur StraBen- und 

Verkehrswesen “Temporary use of hard 

shoulders” (2010). Staufreies Hessen 2015. 

Available at www.staufreieshessen2015.de/irj/

Staufrei_Internet?rid=HMWVL_15/Staufrei_

Internet/nav/09f/09f20b18-af71-ff11-f3efef91921321b2,f4c7b18a-f71f-f11f-3efef91921321b2c,,,11111111-2222-3333-4444-1000000

05003 percent26overview=true.htm&uid= 

09f20b18-af71-ff11-f3ef-ef91921321b2.

12. Dolger, R. “FGD Scanning Tour, Welcome to 

Rheinland-Pfalz!” Referat fur Verkehrsanalyse 

und Forschung, Rheinland-Pfalz Ministerium fur 

Wirstschaft. Presentation to Freeway Geometric 

Design Scan Team, June 2010. Mainz, Germany.

13. Federal Ministry of Transport. Unfallgeschehen 

im Bereich von Streckenbeeinflussungsanlagen 

unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der 

Verkehrsbelastung. (2000).

14. RAA. Richtlinien fuer die Anlage von 

Autobahnen. (2008).
78 ENDNOTES

15. Hellernan, B. “Managed Motorways in the 

Netherlands.” Centre for Transport and 

Navigation. Presentation to Freeway 

Geometric Design Scan Team, June 8, 2010.

16. Rijkswaterstaat. “Dynamic Speed Limits” 

pamphlet. (undated).

17. Strookbreedtes voor gestrekte wegvakken 

(hoofdrijbanen en parallelrijbanen). (2007). 

18. Johnson, P. “Welcome and Introduction.” 

Presentation to Freeway Geometric Design 

Scan Team, June 10, 2010.

19. Brown, M. “Managed Motorways: Design 

Standards and Technology.” Presentation 

to Freeway Geometric Design Scan Team, 

June 10, 2010.

20. Advanced Motorway Signaling and Traffic 

Management Feasibility Study: A Report to the 

Secretary of State for Transport. (March 2008). 

Available at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/network/

policy/mtorsigntrafmanagement/

advancedmotorwaysignal.pdf.

21. Hopcraft, N. “Managed Motorways Overview 

and Introduction.” Presentation to Freeway 

Geometric Design Scan Team, June 10, 2010.

22. Barton, B. “Procedures, Tools, Public Outreach 

Tools to Assess Safety or Compare Design 

Alternatives.” Presentation to Freeway 

Geometric Design Scan Team, June 10, 2010.

23. Wickham, L. “Questions and Answers Session.” 

Discussion with Freeway Geometric Design 

Scan Team, June 10, 2010.

24. Unwin, P. “Managed Motorways.” Presentation 

to Freeway Geometric Design Scan Team, 

June 11, 2010.

25. Stott, M. “Traffic Officers.” Presentation to Freeway Geometric Design Scan Team, June 11, 2010.

26. Cunningham, J. “Planning and Implementing a 

Freeway Management System on Melbourne’s 

M1.” Presentation to Freeway Geometric Design 

Scan Team During Workshop on Managed 

Motorways—A Way Forward for the Future, 

June 2, 2010. Valencia, Spain.

27. Arndt, O. K., R. L. Cox, S. C. Lennie, and M. T. 

Whitehead. “Provision of Sight Distance Around 

Concrete Barriers and Structures on Freeways 

and Interchanges” (2010). Transportation 

Research Board 4th International Symposium 

on Highway Geometric Design. Valencia, Spain.

28. Kjemtrup, K. “Country Report—Denmark” (2010). 

Transportation Research Board 4th International 

Symposium on Highway Geometric Design. 

Valencia, Spain.

29. Greibe, P. “Chevron Markings on Freeways: 

Effect on Speed, Gap, and Safety” (2010). 

Transportation Research Board 4th International Symposium on Highway Geometric 

Design. Valencia, Spain.

30. Schermers, G., F. Wegman, P. van Vliet, R. van 

der Horst, and J. Boender. “Country Report—

the Netherlands” (2010). Transportation 

Research Board 4th International Symposium 

on Highway Geometric Design. Valencia, Spain.

31. Department for Transport. Annex to the 

Department for Transport Advanced Motorway 

Signaling and Traffic Management Feasibility 

Study Report. (undated). Accessed at 

Department for Transport Web site: 

www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/.

32. Whitelaw, J. “Managed Motorways: Refining 

the Art” (September 24, 2009). The New Civil 

Engineer. Accessed at New Civil Engineer 

Web site: www.nce.co.uk. 

33. Mirshahi, M., J. Obenberer, C. Fuhs, C. E. Howard, 

R. A. Krammes, B. T. Kuhn, R. M. Mayhew, M. A. 

Moore, K. Sahebjam, C. J. Stone, and J. L. Yung. 

Active Traffic Management: The Next Step in 

Congestion Management (2007). FHWAPL-07-012, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.

34. Bergh, T., and M. Petersson. “Country Report—

Sweden” (2010). Transportation Research Board 

4th International Symposium on Highway 

Geometric Design. Valencia, Spain. 

35. Smart, J. “Country Report—United Kingdom” 

(2010). Transportation Research Board 4th 

International Symposium on Highway 

Geometric Design. Valencia, Spain.
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe 79

36. Transport News. “Drivers to use M6 hard 

shoulder to ease congestion” (Sept. 10, 2008). 

Birmingham Post. Accessed at 

www.birminghampost.net.

37. “Public Exhibitions Announced for M1 J10 to J13 

Improvement Scheme” (March 19, 2009). COI 

News Distribution Service Release. Accessed 

at www.highways.gov.uk/ news/pressrelease.

aspx?pressreleaseid=171923. 

38. MacDonald, M. “ATM Monitoring and Evaluation, 

4-Lane Variable Mandatory Speed Limits, 

12-Month Report (Primary and Secondary 

Indicator)” (June 30, 2008). Highways Agency. 

Accessed at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/

m42activetrafficmanagement/

atm12mthsumrep.pdf.

39. “What Happens If I Break Down.” Highways 

Agency Web site: www.highways.gov.uk/

roads/projects/4690.aspx. 

40. “Lorries banned from overtaking to cut 

congestion on three miles of the northbound 

M42 in Warwiskchire” (undated). Highways 

Agency Web site: www.highways.gov.uk/news/

press_releases /general/2005_10_03d.htm. 

41. White, C., and M. MacDonald. “Motorway 

Bus Lanes—A False Dawn or the Start of A 

Revolution” (1999). UK 249, poster session 

of the European Transport Conference. 

42. Brewer, M. “Critical User Information Needs 

Related to Active Traffic Management.” 

Presentation to Freeway Geometric Design 

Scan Team, June 1, 2010.

43. Kuhn, B., G. D. Goodin, A. Ballard, M. Brewer, R. 

Brydia, J. Carson, S. Chrysler, T. Collier, W. Eisele, 

D. Fenno, K. Fitzpatrick, B. Ullman, G. Ullman, 

and S. Venglar. Findings from Texas: Five Years 

of Research on Managed Lanes. (2005). FHWA/

TX-06/0-4160-25.

44. Jurado-Pina, R., J. M. Pardillo-Mayora, and J. 

Puy-Huarte. “Software Tool for the Analysis 

of Highway Alignments to Detect and Prevent 

Sun Glare Vision Impairment Hazards” (2010). 

Transportation Research Board 4th International 

Symposium on Highway Geometric Design. 

Valencia, Spain.

45. Churchill, A. M., and D. J. Lovell. “A Procedure 

for Auditing Highway Alignments for the Effects 

of Sun Glare” (2010). Transportation Research 

Board 4th International Symposium on 

Highway Geometric Design. Valencia, Spain.




OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

FHWA/US DOT (HPIP)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: (202) 366-9636

Fax: (202) 366-9626

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Publication No. FHWA-PL-11-004

HPIP/3-11(3.5)EW