International Technology Exchange Program • June 2001

	

	

	
	


The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts

and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official

policy of the Department of Transportation.

The metric units reported are those used in common practice by the persons interviewed.

They have not been converted to pure SI units because in some cases, the level of precision

implied would have been changed.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the

document.

The publication of this document was sponsored by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration

under contract number DTFH61-99-C00005. awarded to American Trade Initiatives, Inc. Any

opinions, options, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of

the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Government, the authors’ parent

institutions, or American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 

FHWA-PL-01-026

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

4. Title and Subtitle 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads 

5. Report Date 

June 2001

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) Jim Brewer, John German, Ray Krammes, Kam Movassaghi, 

John Okamoto, Sandra Otto, Wendell Ruff, Seppo Sillan, Nikiforos 

Stamatiadis, Robert Walters

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-0005 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of International Programs 

Office of Policy 

Federal Highway Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTR: Donald W. Symmes, Office of International Programs 

16. Abstract

The objective of the scanning tour was to review and document European procedures and practices in roadway 

geometric design and context-sensitive design, in which a balance is sought between safety and mobility needs 

and community interests. The U.S. group visited sites in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, England, and 

Germany, and met with numerous representatives from transportation and highway ministries, research 

organizations, and consultants. 

In the European countries, the general philosophy for highway design and project development is to develop a 

transportation program and system that enhances community values and integrates roadways into communities 

and the environment. This philosophy is supported by very high safety goals. 

The U.S. delegation found potentially transferable practices regarding public involvement in project planning; 

self-explaining, self-enforcing rural roads; design flexibility; area-wide traffic calming measures; intersection 

control through roundabouts; and integration of bicyclists and pedestrians.

17. Key Words

Context-sensitive design, traffic calming, 

roundabout, self-explaining, self-enforcing roads

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

from the 

Office of International Programs 

FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

Washington, DC 20590 

international@fhwa.dot.gov 

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 

60

22. Price 

Free

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

i

Geometric Design Practices

For European Roads

Prepared by the study tour team

American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

&

Avalon Integrated Services, Inc.

for the

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

and

The American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials

and

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program

(Panel 20-36)

of the Transportation Research Board

June 2001

Jim Brewer

Kansas DOT

John German

City of San Antonio

Ray Krammes

FHWA

Kam Movassaghi

Louisiana DOT

John Okamoto

Washington DOT

Sandra Otto

FHWA

Wendell Ruff

Mississippi DOT

Seppo Sillan

FHWA

Nikiforos Stamatiadis

University of Kentucky

Robert Walters

Arkansas DOT

iii

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

The FHWA’s international programs focus on meeting the growing demands of its

partners at the Federal, State, and local levels for access to information on state-ofthe-art technology and the best practices used worldwide. While the FHWA is

considered a world leader in highway transportation, the domestic highway

community is very interested in the advanced technologies being developed by

other countries, as well as innovative organizational and financing techniques used

by the FHWA’s international counterparts.

INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SCANNING PROGRAM

The International Technology Scanning Program accesses and evaluates foreign

technologies and innovations that could significantly benefit U.S. highway

transportation systems. Access to foreign innovations is strengthened by U.S.

participation in the technical committees of international highway organizations

and through bilateral technical exchange agreements with selected nations. The

program has undertaken cooperatives with the American Association of State

Highway Transportation Officials and its Select Committee on International

Activities, and the Transportation Research Board’s National Highway Research

Cooperative Program (Panel 20-36), the private sector, and academia.

Priority topic areas are jointly determined by the FHWA and its partners. Teams of

specialists in the specific areas of expertise 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. Teams usually include Federal and State highway officials, private sector

and industry association representatives, as well as members of the academic

community.

The FHWA has organized more than 40 of these reviews and disseminated results

nationwide. Topics have encompassed pavements, bridge construction and

maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, organizational management,

winter road maintenance, safety, intelligent transportation systems, planning, and

policy. Findings are recommended for follow-up with further research and pilot or

demonstration projects to verify adaptability to the United States. Information

about the scan findings and results of pilot programs are then disseminated

nationally to State and local highway transportation officials and the private sector

for implementation.

This program has resulted in significant improvements and savings in road

program technologies and practices throughout the United States, particularly in

the areas of structures, pavements, safety, and winter road maintenance. Joint

research and technology-sharing projects have also been launched with

international counterparts, further conserving resources and advancing the state

of the art.

For a complete list of International Technology Scanning topics, and to order free

copies of the reports, please see the last page of this publication.

Website: www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Email: international@fhwa.dot.gov
iv

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... v

Background ................................................................................................................ v

General Conclusions ................................................................................................ vi

Recommendations and Implementation Strategies ............................................viii

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1

Trip Objective ............................................................................................................ 2

Trip Approach ............................................................................................................ 2

CHAPTER TWO – HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE ............................ 5

Sweden........................................................................................................................ 5

Denmark ..................................................................................................................... 5

The Netherlands ........................................................................................................ 6

England ....................................................................................................................... 7

Germany ..................................................................................................................... 8

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER THREE – SCAN RESULTS ......................................................................... 9

Project Planning ........................................................................................................ 9

Environmental Considerations .............................................................................. 12

Speeds ....................................................................................................................... 13

Design Flexibility .................................................................................................... 15

Rural Roads .............................................................................................................. 17

Traffic Calming ........................................................................................................ 19

Roundabouts ............................................................................................................. 22

Bicyclists and Pedestrians ...................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER FOUR – RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

STRATEGIES................................................................................................................. 29

Project Planning ...................................................................................................... 29

Rural Roads .............................................................................................................. 30

Traffic Calming ........................................................................................................ 30

Roundabouts ............................................................................................................. 31

Bicyclists and Pedestrians ...................................................................................... 31

Context-Sensitive Design ....................................................................................... 32

Implementation Strategy ........................................................................................ 32

REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX A – TEAM MEMBERS ............................................................................. 37

APPENDIX B – AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS ............................................................ 42

APPENDIX C – EUROPEAN CONTACTS ................................................................. 45
v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

A properly designed roadway takes into consideration mobility and safety while

addressing natural and human environmental aspects. To achieve such a balance,

tradeoffs among these factors are needed and are routinely performed either

explicitly or implicitly. Recently, an emphasis has been placed on the existing

flexibility in design guidelines and the use of creative design in addressing the

site-specific project needs has been encouraged. This philosophy was coined in the

United States as context-sensitive design (CSD) and represents an approach in

which a balance is sought between safety and mobility needs within the community

interests. Both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recognize the

flexibility that exists in the current design guidelines, while acknowledging that

the current focus on providing high levels of mobility may conflict with some

interests of the community. The use of

multi-disciplinary teams and public

involvement at the appropriate stages of

the project are also aspects that promote

the application of CSD. Research and

workshops have increased awareness

of CSD issues within the highway

community and encouraged a desire

to improve and enhance established

roadway design practices and address

elements of community interest.

The CSD approach is a current practice in several European countries, which use

these roadway geometric design concepts and tools to address mobility, safety, and

community issues. From experience, European agencies may offer to U.S.

practitioners valuable new insights and concepts on these issues and practices.

Such concepts may be transferred or adapted to the U.S. environment to enhance

the knowledge base regarding CSD and roadway geometric design.

The objective of the scanning tour was to review and document European

procedures and practices in roadway geometric design and CSD. Sweden,

Denmark, the Netherlands, England, and Germany were identified as countries

that have innovative methods and procedures related to roadway geometric design

and project development. The goal of the tour was to identify practices in the

selected countries that, when implemented in the United States, would enhance

current procedures and promote roadway designs that equally address mobility,

safety, and community issues.

The International Scanning Tour for Roadway Geometric Design was jointly

sponsored by FHWA and AASHTO, and the tour was coordinated by FHWA’s Office

of International Programs. The delegation included members representing FHWA,

AASHTO, State departments of transportation (DOTs), the American Public Works

Association (APWA), and academia. Individual team members brought their

expertise in many roadway design and project developments areas, including CSD

practices and procedures, application of geometric design principles for enhancing

traffic safety and enforcing speed moderation, and consideration and integration of

bicyclists and pedestrians in roadway design.

The objective of the scanning tour

was to review and document

European procedures and practices

in roadway geometric design and

context-sensitive design.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vi

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

The U.S. delegation met with numerous representatives from transportation and

highway ministries, research organizations, and consultants, who shared many

interesting ideas and insights with the scanning team. Practices that the

delegation found most significant are summarized below.

Project Planning

The countries visited have an underlying philosophy of a project planning process

that aims to improve safety yet remains sensitive to the needs of the community.

The focus is on improving the existing system by making better use of it. All

countries visited generally have project development processes similar to those in

the United States; however, they devote a longer period of time to the planning

process and consider longer sections, typically entire corridors. The Europeans

also place greater emphasis on integrating projects in communities by addressing

the public’s concerns about speed management and aesthetics, particularly in

urban areas.

In Europe, public involvement also is an integral part of the project development

process, although degrees and levels of involvement vary on the basis of project

type and country. Some concepts and methods to involve the public could be

transferable to the United States and could help streamline existing practices. To

avoid potential conflicts and problems after a project has been fully developed, all

governments that the team met with stressed public involvement at the earliest

stage possible.

Environmental Considerations

All the countries visited include environmental issues as an integral part of a

project. It was interesting to find that several countries have copied or adapted the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, used in the United States, but

have integrated it more efficiently within the project development process. The

Dutch believe that recognition of environmental concerns is an everyday practice

and that these concerns are addressed sufficiently through their normal design

process. Currently, the Dutch are considering means by which the regulations and

process can be streamlined to reduce project completion time. A general

observation was that the highway agencies of the countries visited are more

committed to addressing environmental issues than their U.S. counterparts; most

of the issues presented were related to humans, including noise and concerns

about historical preservation. The reliance on local governmental agencies to

develop environmental impact studies (EIS) also was presented as a means of

identifying problems and possible solutions more easily and at the local level.

Speeds

Although representatives from each country used different terms to describe their

design speed, all use a guiding speed for designing roadways that ties the various

roadway elements together. Roadway design philosophies common to all countries

were the reliance on the physical roadway design to “enforce” operating speeds and

the development of a “consistent” or “self-explaining” appearance for each road

category. These self-explaining, self-enforcing roads are designed for specific
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vii

purposes or functions. Safety is addressed in an efficient way, by implementing an

aesthetic approach to explain the road function and enforce speeds. An interesting

observation was that European road users accept lower operating speeds than

users in the United States. This attitude may be attributable, in part, to a selfenforcing roadway design.

Design Flexibility

All countries visited utilize guidelines for roadway design that are considered

central to the design philosophy, and all have a design exception process through

which to address departures from guidelines. This process is more frequently

applied to non-motorways (or non-freeways). It was also apparent that all these

countries have or are currently revising their design guidelines, which are now

more focused on addressing road purposes and creating a uniform appearance for

each road category. This experience has encouraged an understanding of the value

of design flexibility and exceptions. Generally, the countries are shielded from legal

liability regarding design defects. The exception is England, where litigation

generated by departures from design guidelines is expanding; most of the litigation

is settled out of court. In the countries visited, the guidelines issued by the

national highway authorities are usually considered to be recommendations for

any projects under the authority of local governmental agencies. This provides

great flexibility in designing to meet local needs and conditions.

Rural Roads

High speeds on rural roads is also a safety issue in the countries visited, and

officials are focusing on attempts to control and reduce speeds. To achieve this

objective, higher speeds are sacrificed to preserve safety. A common treatment on

high-volume rural highways is 2+1 facilities, where the middle lane serves as a

passing lane in which the right of way alternates. Use of this design instead of fourlane facilities has created gains in capacity and improvements in safety that may

be transferable to the United States. Another approach for improving safety on

these roads is the use of narrower lane widths, which requires drivers to slow

down. This approach is implemented either by physically narrowing travelways or

by visually decreasing the available roadway width. To further enforce the

narrower roadway concept, clear zones are typically not provided, and some

roadway objects are shielded by guardrails. It should be pointed out that such

measures are only applied to non-motorways, where flexibility in design guidelines

is permitted. On motorways, the guidelines are more rigid.

Traffic Calming

All countries are committed to reducing speeds through urban areas and are

guided by the concept of integrating all modes and users in the same space. To

achieve this objective, several traffic calming practices have been implemented in

urban areas, including chicanes, islands, tables, cushions, humps, bumps, gates,

landscaping, staggering, bollards, plantings, pavement textures and colors, and

optical narrowing; i.e., narrowing the travelway with markings. For a successful

implementation, an area-wide strategy is required, where a systemic, rather than

localized, solution is sought. Thus the concept of traffic calming is enforced for the
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

viii

entire area, providing drivers with a clear and continuous message. Moreover, if

roads are properly designed for the intended speed, drivers exceeding the speed

are uncomfortable, but those traveling at the desired speed are not. Community

acceptance is also very important for successful implementation. Most of these

practices are transferable to the U.S. urban environment, although differences in

land use, development, and transportation users must be recognized. In Europe,

there appears to be greater public acceptance of reduced speed and mobility than

in the United States.

Bicyclists and Pedestrians

All countries visited consider and address the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians,

although there are two different philosophies regarding their levels of consideration.

Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands place a high level of importance on addressing

the needs of these users and provide separate facilities, as part of the network.

Moreover, in those countries cycling and walking are heavily and systematically

promoted as alternative transport modes. Germany and England, on the other hand,

include these users in the planning process, but they are considered less important

than in the other countries. One reason for the difference may be levels of demand,

which are lower in Germany and England. All five countries place equal importance

on the mobility needs of vehicles. One issue that all countries are struggling with is the

integration of cyclists and pedestrians into roundabouts. Denmark and the

Netherlands provide completely separate paths for these users, while other countries

provide paths within the same travelway.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

In the European countries visited, the general philosophy for roadway design and

project development is to develop a transportation program and system that

enhances community values and integrates roadways into communities and the

environment. This philosophy permeates the project development process, safety

improvements, roadway design concepts, geometric design guidelines, public

involvement, and environmental commitments. This philosophy is the essence of

the recent emphasis on promoting the CSD approach in the United States. A shift

toward this philosophy is supported by FHWA and many State DOTs. Moreover,

the roadway design philosophy of the Europeans is to develop roadways designed

for specific purposes, implement an aesthetic approach to visually explain the

concepts, and address safety in a way that considers all users. Finally, all countries

have very high safety goals (ranging from zero fatalities to reductions of more than

40 percent for all crashes) that guide the design approach and philosophy. To

achieve the goals, planners are willing to provide roadways that self-enforce speed

reductions, potentially increase levels of congestion, and promote alternative

modes of transportation. This approach contrasts with the U.S. design philosophy,

in which wider roads are deemed safer, there is heavier reliance on signs to

communicate the intended message, and there is a lower tolerance for congestion

and speed reduction.

While all practices are not entirely new to all U.S. States, lessons could be learned

from the forms and extent of the applications in Europe. To this end, the U.S.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ix

delegation identified a list of possible implementation strategies for enhancing

existing project development and roadway geometric design practices in the

United States.

Project Planning

While developing projects, State agencies may want to consider longer sections, to

allow for a more systematic overview and definition of needs and deficiencies

throughout the entire system. State and local agencies should, in urban areas,

emphasize better integration of projects in communities by addressing the public’s

concerns about speed management and aesthetics. Public involvement, at the

earliest possible stage of a project, is essential for a successful project, and this

concept could be applied in the United States. Finally, the use of design workshops,

in which all project alternatives are developed with public involvement, merits

further examination, and could be transferable to U.S. practice.

Rural Roads

The concept of 2+1 roads has been shown to simultaneously address safety issues

when addressing capacity on two-lane roadways. The practice requires further

investigation for possible implementation in the United States, to determine

specific design elements and guidelines. Self-explaining, self-enforcing roads are

facilities designed for a specific purpose or function, and they address safety in an

efficient way, for all users, by implementing an aesthetic approach to explain road

function and enforce speed. Reliance on the roadway design to transmit its

operating speed is integral to the concept, which contrasts with the higher reliance

on traffic signs to convey speeds in the United States.

Traffic Calming

Traffic calming is an effective means of controlling speeds through urban areas and

deserves wider implementation in the United States. Even though there are a

variety of speed reduction levels, all studies completed indicate that, indeed, such

devices reduce speeds. Traffic calming is most effective if done on a neighborhood

or area-wide basis, and not just at spot locations. While some of the measures have

been tried in the United States, to a limited degree, more testing of various

European traffic calming strategies is needed in U.S. cities.

Roundabouts

Roundabouts are a very safe and efficient means of intersection control.

Roundabouts with a single-lane approach are used widely and successfully in

Europe, and they can easily accommodate peak flows of 2,500 vehicles per hour,

without significant delays. Safety studies completed in most of the countries

visited indicate that significant safety gains were achieved by implementing

roundabouts instead of conventional intersections. Although roundabouts have

been introduced in a few areas in the United States, this modern tool is still

underutilized. State and local agencies should consider implementing and using

roundabouts as an alternative to conventional intersection designs, as well as a

means for improving traffic safety.
x

Bicyclists and Pedestrians

European countries place a significant emphasis on addressing the needs of

pedestrians and bicyclists. In some countries, addressing the needs of these users

is as important as improving vehicle mobility. Bicycle networks exist in all

countries visited, and in some they are complete and rival the vehicle networks. In

the United States, addressing mobility needs has been traditionally viewed as

providing a roadway network where drivers can move as quickly and freely as they

desire. This notion needs to be expanded to include all users, in order to address

the safety needs of these vulnerable road users. State and local agencies are

essential to promoting the use of these modes of transport and should focus on

providing bicycle and pedestrian networks.

Context-Sensitive Design

The development of transportation projects and systems that enhance community

values while integrating roadways into the environment is an everyday practice

that all countries follow. Consideration is given to the desires and needs of the

community by inviting the appropriate stakeholders to participate in the

development of a project, thus influencing some of the solutions so they are

acceptable to the community. This approach is currently promoted by FHWA and

AASHTO, and it should be continued in the future, until CSD becomes an integral

part of the design process in the United States. Although not unheard of in the

United States, design solutions that reduce motor vehicle speeds or reduce the

space available to drivers may increase trip times and are not often viewed as

appropriate. But wider, high-speed roads that address only the mobility of

automobiles may not meet the needs of other users of the transportation system

and often encourage higher travel speeds that contribute to the greater severity of

crashes. CSD implies a flexible application of the established geometric criteria in

designing roadways. The use of innovative design to address local problems and

provide solutions within the context of the area is essential to applying the CSD

concept. The self-explaining, self-enforcing road is an example of such innovative

design, because it encourages lower operating speeds for automobiles while

incorporating safety and mobility for all transportation modes.
1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

A properly designed roadway takes into consideration mobility and safety issues

while addressing natural and human environmental aspects. To achieve such a

balance, tradeoffs among these factors are routinely performed, either consciously

or unconsciously. The passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act of 1991 (ISTEA) emphasized the importance of such roadway design. Practices

that demonstrate such a design were compiled and documented in a report by the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) titled Flexibility in Highway Design.(1)

This document emphasized the existing flexibility in design criteria and

encouraged the use of creative design in addressing site-specific project needs.

Moreover, the need for project teams became apparent, because such creative

solutions often require a cohesive effort among the planning, designing, and

construction engineers. At the same time, the use of interdisciplinary teams and

public involvement were also identified as integral components of successful

solutions. This philosophy was coined in

the United States as context-sensitive

design (CSD) and represents an approach

where a balance is sought between safety

and mobility needs within the community

interests. Both FHWA and the American

Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

recognize the flexibility that exists in the

current design criteria, while

acknowledging that the current focus on

providing high levels of mobility may

conflict with some community interests.

There is increasing awareness of these

CSD issues within the highway

community; the Transportation Research

Board (TRB) has initiated research to address CSD issues and several States have

developed workshops. Moreover, there is a desire among the highway design

community to improve roadway design practices and incorporate new elements to

enhance established practices and address the community interest elements.

The CSD approach is current practice in several European countries, which use

these roadway geometric design concepts and tools to address mobility, safety, and

community issues. Therefore, European agencies can offer the United States

valuable new insights and concepts from their experience with these issues and

practices. Such concepts can be transferred or adapted to the U.S. environment to

enhance the knowledge base regarding CSD and roadway geometric design.

Recognizing the potential benefits from examining such international practices, a

team of engineers was formed to observe and document practices that might have

value to U.S. practitioners. Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, England, and

Germany were identified as countries with innovative methods and procedures

related to roadway geometric design and project development. In June 2000 the

team traveled to these countries and met with transportation officials to exchange

ideas and document European practices. This report presents the findings of the

scan tour and includes recommendations of practices that have potential for

implementation in the United States.

A properly designed roadway takes

into consideration mobility and safety

issues while addressing natural and

human environmental aspects. To

achieve such a balance, tradeoffs

among these factors are routinely

performed, either consciously or

unconsciously.
2

CHAPTER 1

TRIP OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scanning tour was to review and document procedures and

practices in roadway geometric design and CSD in five European countries. The

goal of the tour was to identify practices in these countries that, if implemented in

the United States, would enhance current procedures and promote roadway

designs that equally address mobility, safety, and community issues. The team’s

objective was to meet with representatives of transportation agencies in these

countries, discuss their approach on these issues and, thus, understand and

identify the possible similarities and differences between U.S. and European

approaches to roadway geometric design and CSD. The team also wanted to

observe applications of these concepts within the existing transportation system

and gather information on examples of successful and not-so-successful

applications to allow for a broader understanding of these issues. Therefore, a

mixture was sought between team meetings and visits to sites where some of the

concepts have been applied.

TRIP APPROACH

Panel Members

The International Scanning Tour for Roadway Geometric Design was jointly

sponsored by FHWA and AASHTO, and the tour was coordinated by FHWA’s Office

of International Programs. American Trade Initiatives provided logistical support

and guidance. The delegation included members representing FHWA, AASHTO,

State departments of transportation (DOTs), the American Public Works

Association (APWA), and academia. The delegation members offered expertise in

many roadway geometric design and project development areas, including CSD

practices and procedures, application and use of geometric design principles for

enhancing traffic safety and enforcing speed moderation, and consideration and

integration of bicyclists and pedestrians in roadway design. The team members and

their affiliations are listed in Table 1, while a short biography of each member is

included in Appendix A.

Table 1. Team members and affiliations.

Kam Movassaghi (Team Co-leader) Sandra Otto (Team Co-leader)

LA Department of Transportation AR Division of FHWA

Jim Brewer John German

KS Department of Transportation Public Works City of San Antonio, TX

Ray Krammes John Okamoto

Office of Safety R & D, FHWA WA Department of Transportation

Wendell Ruff Seppo Sillan

MS Department of Transportation Office of Program Administration, FHWA

Nikiforos Stamatiadis (Report Facilitator) Robert Walters

University of Kentucky AR Department of Transportation
3

CHAPTER 1

Amplifying Questions

To provide the European hosts with an understanding of the objectives of the scan

tour, the team developed a set of amplifying questions that focused on six major

topics: project development, design and operating speeds, design solutions for highvolume rural roads, roundabouts, speed moderating techniques on rural roads, and

accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians. These questions were intended to

clarify and expand on the team’s topics of interest. The questions were grouped on

the basis of major concepts within each of the six areas. The amplifying questions

developed by the team are listed in Appendix B.

Trip Itinerary

The team toured the five countries from June 3, 2000, through June 18, 2000, as

shown below (Table 2). The names of the European contacts for each country are

listed in Appendix C. The team also met three times during this period to plan the

trip actions and address areas of emphasis (June 3), to review findings and adjust

focus if deemed necessary (June 11), and to identify key findings and develop a

preliminary list of the team’s recommendations (June 17).

Table 2. Scan program dates.

Country Dates

Sweden June 4, 2000

Denmark June 5-6, 2000

The Netherlands June 8-9, 2000

England June 12-13, 2000

Germany June 14-16, 2000
4
5

Chapter 2

HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE

This section of the report briefly describes the structure of the highway authority

for each country visited. This step established the state of practice of each country

regarding roadway geometric design and CSD. The countries are presented in the

order in which they were visited.

SWEDEN

The Swedish National Road Administration (SNRA) is the highway agency responsible

for planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining the transportation network in

Sweden. The country is divided into seven regions, similar to states, and has a roadway

network of approximately 421,000 km.(2) A small percentage of these roads (88,000 km)

is under the direct responsibility of SNRA and the remaining roads are either

municipal (39,000 km) or private roads (284,000 km). However, the bulk of travel (70

percent of vehicle-km) is completed on the state-maintained roads. The SARA has a

primary goal “to ensure a socio-economically efficient transport system that is

sustainable in the long term for individuals and industry throughout the country.” To

achieve this goal, five subgoals have been identified, including high accessibility of the

system, high transport quality, no fatalities or serious injuries, a good fit in the

environment, and promotion of regional development. The most important subgoal

among these is the desire to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries (zero mission) by

2007, which is a parliamentary objective regarding road safety.(3)

A strategic infrastructure plan addresses transportation system needs in a 10-year

process with a 4-year planning cycle. These plans cover national road and rail

requirements and are developed by SNRA in cooperation with regional authorities.

Regional plans are developed by regional authorities for each county. The plans include

investment schemes, maintenance requirements, safety and environmental concerns,

and capacity requirements. The 10-year budget for the national road plan is

approximately 87 billion SEK (US$10 billion) with 56 billion SEK allotted to roadway

maintenance, which includes operational and rehabilitation costs. To address the zero

mission, projects have been reoriented to increase the number and, thus, funding for

projects that contribute to the overall safety goal. Funding is also provided by the

European Union (EU) for the Trans European Road Network, a roadway network that

is similar to the U.S. Interstate system.

DENMARK

The Road Directorate is the state agency of the Ministry of Transport responsible

for roadways in Denmark. The Directorate has two primary tasks: 1) road sector

activities, including roadway guidelines, research and development, educational

responsibilities, maintenance of databases, support and development of policy, and

international activities; and 2) highway authority activities, including planning,

construction, and operation of the state road network. The Danish roadway

network consists of approximately 72,000 km, only 1,650 km of which are under the

direct supervision of the Directorate. Approximately 10,000 km are regional roads

under the supervision of county agencies, and the remaining local roadways are

under the supervision of municipalities. An interesting statistic for Denmark is the

average car and bicycle ownership per household: 0.7 cars and 2 bicycles. These
6

CHAPTER 2

vehicle figures also shape the focus of the Road Directorate, which has to address

the needs of many more bicyclists while considering vehicle requirements.

In 1993, the Danish Masterplan for Transport was developed with goals to create a

new balance by sustaining development in transport, reducing traffic growth,

improving alternatives to cars, increasing traffic safety, enhancing the urban

environment, and increasing research and development.(4) Specific targets for each of

these goals were initially set, such as

reducing traffic casualties by 45 percent

for the 1988-2000 period, stabilizing CO2

levels by 2005 to 1988 levels and reducing

them by 25 percent by 2030, promoting

urban cycling and walking, and improving

the traffic environment in urban areas to

achieve an overall better quality of life. An

additional focal point of this plan is the

National Road Safety Policy, which states that “every accident is one too many.” This

vision guides most of the Danish design approach, which aims to not only achieve the

goal stated above but exceed it, if possible. To reduce crashes, safety strategies are

focusing on safety of cyclists, speed management, reduced alcohol use and driving,

and intersection areas. The focus is on these areas in light of an analysis of crash

data that showed approximately 85 percent of all crashes involve at least one of

these factors.(5)

The Road Directorate has established a National Cycling Policy to address the

needs of the large number of cyclists. The main goal of the policy is not to abandon

travel by car but to strengthen travel by bike and increase its use as a transport

mode. The main objective of the policy is to improve the urban environment by

developing coherent planning and design of a bicycle network, improving

maintenance and comfort of bicycle facilities, improving safety, initiating local

activities, increasing research, and improving cooperation between state and local

authorities. The planning and design philosophy of the Road Directorate for urban

areas considers the ease of car travel secondary to traffic safety, the ease of

vulnerable users to travel, and public transport.

THE NETHERLANDS

The Ministry of Transport and Public Works is responsible for policy, operation,

and research of the Dutch transport network. Five directorates each deal with a

specific component of the system, including public works and water management,

freight transport, passenger transport, civil aviation, and telecommunications and

post. Research centers are part of these directorates, and the Transport Research

Center (AVV) is one of three centers with responsibilities for research on

infrastructure, statistics, and policy development. The Ministry is responsible for

2,500 km of roadways, which are mostly motorways (freeways), while the remaining

125,000 km are under the responsibility of the local governments.

The Dutch version of safety goals and targets is similar to that of the Swedish and

Danish governments. The objective of the plan, called “Sustainable Safety,” is to

achieve a 50 percent reduction in crashes and a 40 percent reduction in serious

injury crashes by 2010.(6) These goals are expected to be achieved by focusing on

An additional focal point of the Danish

plan is the National Road Safety

Policy, which states that “every

accident is one too many.”
7

CHAPTER 2

reduced alcohol use, increased use of seat belts, speed management, separation of

cyclists and vehicles, improving hazardous locations, addressing issues regarding

heavy vehicles, and providing a road network infrastructure that is self-explaining.

Three cardinal rules for sustainable safety include recognizing human limits

within the roadway design, developing vehicles that prevent users from getting

harmed, and educating users in road behavior. The design approach reflects these

objectives as “functionality” (use of roadway as intended), “homogeneity” (no highspeed variations), and “predictability” (roadways should drive as they look). The

ultimate objective is development of a uniform roadway network where similar

roadways will look and drive alike.

Dutch officials are currently reviewing

geometric design guidelines and

reclassifying roadways to conform with

their new classification concept.

The Dutch Ministry is taking several

steps to reach its goal of sustainable

safety, including introducing uniform

speed limits in residential areas of 30

km/h in urban and 60 km/h in rural areas, altering the priority rules in

roundabouts, increasing public education campaigns, and incorporating safety

audits as part of a uniform design check. Phase 1 of the sustainable safety program

will cost approximately 400 million guilders (US$200 million), half of which will

come from the central government and half from the provincial and local

governments. Implementation of the next phase requires an investment of 12

billion guilders (US$6 billion); the entire program will cost approximately 30

billion (US$15 billion). Currently, 60 percent of the urban and 40 percent of the

rural roadway network have been converted to enforce the concept of the new

lower speeds. Several other roadways are also in the process of conversion. Finally,

an underlying precept in all these plans is the commitment to “making better use

of the existing system,” which demonstrates the decision to utilize existing

resources to their fullest capacity.

ENGLAND

The Highways Agency is the responsible authority for maintaining, operating, and

improving the 6,500 miles of trunk roads and motorways in England. The

government has charged the Highways Agency to maintain, operate, and improve the

motorway and trunk road network in support of the government’s transport and

land-use planning policies.(7) Several objectives will help meet this goal, including

reducing congestion, minimizing the roadway impact to the natural and built

environment, improving safety for all road users, promoting choice and information

for travelers, and shifting the focus to maintenance of roadways instead of new

construction. This shift in focus necessitates a more efficient use of existing

roadways and development of a prioritized list of improvements. Projects are

categorized based on their impact on safety, environment, economy, accessibility, and

integration within the existing system.

As in the other countries, a road safety strategy targets a 40 percent reduction in

fatalities and serious injuries by 2010 accompanied by a 10 percent reduction in

slight injuries for all non-motorways and trunk roads in Great Britain.(8) Target

Projects are categorized based on

their impact on safety, environment,

economy, accessibility, and integration

within the existing system.
8

groups including vehicle occupants, bicyclists, high-risk age groups, heavy vehicles,

and roadway workers have been identified as potential means for reaching these

figures. Several initiatives are under way for each of these target groups. For

example, road layouts that encourage safer driver behavior have been introduced

to address car occupant issues; more initiatives have been taken to reduce drinking

and driving; higher emphasis has been placed on developing the National Cycle

Network and supporting implementation of safer bicycle routes; and research is

under way to identify problems of teenage and elderly drivers.

The Agency also has taken a new role in operating the network to make better use of

existing roadways through the use of technological developments and innovative ideas.

Promoting use of public transport and making bicycle lanes more attractive are two of

the schemes that the Agency employs in improving service without building new roads.

To further promote these schemes, the Agency developed a tool kit that provides

techniques and innovative ideas for managing, maintaining, and developing roadways.

Furthermore, the Agency has recently developed a new Environmental Strategic Plan

that ensures controlled and reduced impact of roadways on the environment.(9)

GERMANY

The agency responsible for roadway planning, design, and construction is the

Division for Roads and Road Transport, which is part of the Federal Ministry of

Transport, Building, and Housing. This Division has several subdivisions with

varied responsibilities, including environmental protection, research, road traffic

engineering, acquisition of right of way, and development of federal transport

networks for the various states, known as “laender.” Three road categories,

including federal state roads and municipal roads, are classified as federal

highways and thus are under the supervision of the Division. Each state is

responsible for constructing, maintaining, and operating the federal roads on

behalf of the Federal Ministry and is invited to use relevant guidelines for

planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining the state roads.

The design guidelines used in the past have been recently evaluated and modified

to address design consistency. The new guidelines are simply recommended

practices for all roads, except federal highways, which require a more strict

approach to the guidelines. Due, in part, to financial constraints, these new

guidelines were developed under the notion that only necessary roads are to be

built, not ideal or wider roads. This approach was based on the idea that roads

should be built to a more human scale and minimize environmental impact issues.

SUMMARY

All countries visited share some common characteristics with respect to their highway

agencies. One national agency is responsible for developing and maintaining the national

motorway system, which typically is a small fraction of the entire roadway network. Each

government has given these agencies a safety mandate, with target levels ranging from no

fatalities to a 40 percent reduction in fatalities and serious injuries. This focus on safety

sets the stage for most actions regarding roadway geometric design and project

development that address targeted groups of roadway users.
9

Chapter 3

SCAN RESULTS

The U.S. delegation met with numerous representatives from transportation and

highway ministries, research organizations, and consultants who shared many

interesting ideas and insights on the scan tour topics. This chapter presents

practices the delegation found most significant and those that may be beneficial for

the U.S. environment. Additionally, it identifies and discusses practices that may be

transferable to the U.S. context.

PROJECT PLANNING

The countries visited all have an underlying philosophy of a project planning

process aiming to improve safety while remaining sensitive to the needs of the

community. As noted in the previous section, all agencies are responding to a safety

mandate, which affects their project development process through a focus on

improving the existing system by making better use of it. The following three steps

are typically followed in the project development process. First, a project need is

identified either on the basis of long-term plans or through a political request.

Second, a feasibility study is performed to determine and examine alternatives and

seek public input. Third, a final design is developed for the project construction

and completion. This process typically covers a 10-year period with periodic

updates.

Although this general approach is followed in all countries visited, some

differences exist with regard to how this general plan is applied. For example,

SNRA has a set of guiding maxims to follow during the project development. These

maxims include quality assurance, community planning, transparency (open

mindedness and decisions involving the public), environmental concerns, safety,

clearly explained decisions, and assurance of public understanding of these

decisions. In Denmark, after the completion of certain stages of the process,

parliamentary support is required to continue with the project. At the end of the

initial project concept, an Act of Design is required in which the need for the

project is demonstrated and authorization to continue is granted. After completion

of the preliminary design, an Act of Construction is sought to support development

of the final design. After a final design has been selected, a funding request is

submitted to the Parliament and the project is included in the national budget. In

the Netherlands, one of the initial steps includes definition of the relationship of

the proposed project to existing government policies and a request for political

support by all levels of government. Moreover, after the completion of the

preliminary design a statement by the Minister of Transport is required that

identifies proposed alternatives and documents the project’s importance and

significance. This project planning process is described in one of the Dutch laws

(Tracè Law), and the final design of the project becomes a Tracè law. The Highways

Agency in England also has recently developed a process by which all proposed

projects on a route are evaluated in light of a Route Management Strategy that has

been prepared for that route. The route and project evaluations are based on the

following five criteria: safety, economy, environment, system integration, and

network accessibility. Moreover, studies are completed that consider other modes

of transport in conjunction with roadway projects to determine whether other
CHAPTER 3

10

travel modes can accommodate the travel needs more efficiently. So far, this new

approach has been applied to three routes, and the Agency is satisfied with the

results of the process. Germany has somewhat different stages for urban and interurban projects. For urban areas, decisions are made on the basis of four themes that

consider traffic volumes, environmental concerns, town planning and road space

issues, and economics. For federal inter-urban projects, the requirements are

defined by law, which is preceded by a formal procedure where the choice is

evaluated on the basis of a microeconomic analysis.

Generally, the project development process in the countries visited is similar to

that of the United States; however, differences were noted. A major difference is

that in Europe a longer period of time is devoted to the planning process and

longer sections, typically entire corridors, are considered. Such an approach

provides the opportunity for long-range planning by allowing for a more systematic

overview and for defining needs and deficiencies over the entire system. Another

difference in the process is greater

European emphasis in urban areas on

integrating projects in communities by

addressing the public’s concerns for speed

management and aesthetics. Integrating

both human and natural environmental

concerns is an integral part of their

project development process. An example

is shown in Figures 1 and 2, where a park

was placed over a freeway section to

address noise and visual pollution in

Germany.

The delegation was also impressed by the

level and impact of public involvement. All

five countries involve the public in their

project development process, although

degrees and levels of involvement varied

by project type and country. Sweden has

legislative requirements for public

involvement and SNRA solicits public

input even in projects for which it is not

legally required because Swedish officials

believe it is good public policy and can

provide them with additional support in

later stages of the project. Local

communities have the final decision on

projects that pass through their

communities, but they have less say in

projects in rural areas. In Denmark,

stakeholders of a project are involved in

various stages of the project development, and the public is involved either

passively through information dissemination or actively through consultation or

participation in the design process. The Netherlands has recently implemented a

Figure 1. Freeway lid with park, Germany.

Figure 2. Park view of the freeway lid,

Germany.
CHAPTER 3

11

new approach for public involvement. This approach is based on design workshops

in which all alternatives for a project are worked out simultaneously by a group of

experts and stakeholders. All of these alternatives are then presented at a public

meeting, where the public’s assistance is sought to define the best alternative. This

approach has been applied in some projects, and the Dutch believe that the process

was successful. In England, the public is informed through press announcements,

and specific stakeholders are involved at various stages. Route seminars are held

for invited stakeholders to discuss project objectives and to identify potential

problem areas and possible solutions. Value management workshops are presented

to a smaller group of stakeholders to identify specific actions to be taken to

determine the final design choice. Finally, the public can comment on the final

choice; however, the Agency has the final say. Germany permits a higher public

involvement for urban projects, since such projects have a more direct impact on

individuals. Public meetings and work groups are an integral part of project

development: consensus is sought and the old concept of simply announcing the

project to the public has been abandoned. For inter-urban projects, the public can

appeal the final design and alignment of the project, but there are time limits on

comments and appeals.

Some of these concepts and

methods to involve the public

in project development are

potentially transferable to the

United States and could prove

beneficial in streamlining

existing practices. The use of

the Dutch design workshops,

in which alternatives

developed by experts and

stakeholders are presented to

the public to select the best

alternative, is a method that

deserves additional

exploration. Moreover,

involvement of the public at

the earliest stage possible was

stressed by all governments to

avoid potential conflicts and

problems after the project has

been fully developed. The use of artistic renderings as visual aids to graphically

show the finished project is very important in gaining public acceptance and

understanding (Figure 3). Distribution at public meetings of detailed pamphlets

that identify the affected area and the rationale for selecting the proposed options

can enhance and improve the public’s understanding of the project (Figure 4). Some

additional observations include the use of safety audits as an evaluation tool for

overall project design, the development of project budgets at the end of the process,

and the greater role of state and local politics in the project development process.

The scan team concluded that no single approach can solve all potential problems

in project development, and a reasonable mix of practices is essential.

Figure 3. Artistic rendering of bridge overpass with

plants, Sweden.
CHAPTER 3

12

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

All the countries visited include environmental issues as an integral part of the

project. It was interesting to find that several countries have copied or adapted the

U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process but they have integrated it

more efficiently within the project development process. The Dutch believe that

recognition of environmental concerns is an everyday practice and that these

concerns are addressed sufficiently through their normal design process.

Currently, Dutch officials are considering means by which the regulations and

process can be streamlined to reduce project completion time. The English use a

design manual to guide environmental impact analysis (EIA) and environmental

Figure 4. Pamphlet inviting public involvement, England.
CHAPTER 3

13

design in which a proper and full examination of all environmental considerations

relevant to the project are presented. They have also recently initiated a new

approach to appraisal (NATA) in which all impacts of a project are defined within

five overall objectives (environment, safety, economy, accessibility, and integration)

either quantitatively or qualitatively. It is expected that application of the NATA as

a high-level tool for appraising projects will help to address environmental factors

in making initial investment decisions.

One general observation was that the highway agencies of these countries are very

committed to addressing environmental issues. Most of the issues presented

appeared to be human related, including noise and historical preservation concerns.

The reliance on local governmental agencies

to develop environmental impact studies

(EIS) was also presented as an alternative to

identifying problems and possible solutions

more easily and at the local level. For ease of

project development and faster completion,

projects are often restricted to within the

existing right of way. The concept of land

redistribution was also presented as a

method of mitigation. A simple example of

this approach is shown in Figure 5, where the

new road will bisect both land parcels. To avoid access problems and maintain

continuous property for each land owner, the land parcels 1 and 2 cut by the road are

swapped between the two owners. This practice seems to address some accessibility

issues and merits further review for application in the United States. Finally,

European Union (EU) laws and directives regarding environmental issues play an

important role and are addressed in the project development process.

SPEEDS

Even though each country used a different term to describe their design speed, all use

a guiding speed for designing roadways that ties the various roadway elements. In

Sweden, the term “reference speed” is used to denote the existing or planned speed

limit of the road. For new rural roads, a speed of 70, 90, or 110 km/h is selected based

on the road type. Under this scheme, motorways and semi-motorways (two-lane, twoway roads with full access control) use a speed of 110 km/h, while the choice between

90 or 70 km/h is made based on the geometrics of the road. A new concept that has been

applied only in urban areas so far is the “environmental reference speed,” which is a

speed used in designing roadways in such a way that it is difficult to drive above this

speed. In Denmark, a desired speed is defined, which represents the upper limit of the

driver’s comfort level. To address safety, a design speed is used that is equal to the

desired speed plus 20 km/h and also reflects actual operating speed for inter-urban

roads. The relation between desired speeds and roadway categories for urban roads is

shown in Table 3.(10) Until recently, design speeds in the Netherlands were 120 km/h for

roads with right shoulders and heavy vehicles, 100 km/h for motorways, 80-90 km/h for

roads with either no right shoulder or heavy vehicles (or rural, un-divided roads), 50-

70 km/h for roads with no right shoulder (urban arterials), 50 km/h for arterials, and 30

km/h for residential access roads. In the future, only three road categories will exist,

and then the design speeds will be 120 km/h for urban and rural freeways, 50-80 km/h

for urban and rural distributors, and 30-60 km/h for urban and rural access roads.

Figure 5. Land redistribution concept.
CHAPTER 3

14

Table 3. Speeds and categories of urban roadways in Denmark.(10)

The design speed in Germany is determined on the basis of the roadway to be

designed.(11) A matrix is used that identifies possible combinations between traffic

intensity and roadway function (Table 4). Categories A, B, and C provide connection

between urban centers, while category D provides higher access to local areas, and

category E is mainly for direct access (and thus, no design speeds are used). There is a

hierarchy among urban centers that defines what type of connection is to be provided.

The entire German roadway network is based on the concept that certain minimum

travel times need to be achieved: 60, 30, and 15 minutes of travel time between urban

centers and villages. These rules also shape the roadway category and, thus, the choice of

the design speed. The design speed choice is made by the road planning group, which

could be the local or regional planning agencies. The design speed of the roadway is a

design aspect that is determined by the planning team, and the public cannot influence

its selection. The design team typically selects the design speed on the basis of issues

that need to be addressed and the goals to be achieved. The choice is usually based on a

combination of cost considerations, safety concerns, and environmental issues.

Table 4. Roadway categories and design speed in Germany.

 Traffic intensity/ speed (km/h)

Very low Low Medium High

Roadway type 10-20 30-40 50 60-70

Traffic roads (through traffic and

traffic between urban centers) 

Local roads   ()

1

Note: 1 possible but not desirable

Notes: NA, not applicable; 1

 problematic combination; 2 extra

problematic combination; 3 not currently recommended

Roadway function

Traffic

intensity A B C D E

I 120-90 -1 -2 NA NA

II 100-80 80-70 -1 -2 NA

III 80-60 70-60 30-50 -1 -2

IV 70-60 60-50 40-50 20-30 -1

V -3 -3 none none

VI -3 -3 -3 none
CHAPTER 3

15

Finally, in England a range of speeds for each roadway category exists that is more

narrow than the ranges suggested in the Green Book. The parameters that control

this choice are alignment constraint, which describes frequency of curves; layout

constraint, which describes access frequency and roadway cross section; and

mandatory speed limits. The design speed

for rural roads is defined using the

diagram in Figure 6, where for urban roads

the design speed is approximately 5 km/h

higher than the speed limit.(12)

A roadway design philosophy common to all

countries was the reliance on the physical

roadway design to “enforce” operating

speeds. This philosophy could be considered

as a speed management approach in which

the objective is not simply to reduce speeds

but to provide a roadway planned and

designed in such a way that an appropriate

speed is obtained, thus, a “consistent” or

“self-explaining” look for each road category

can be achieved. This is the concept of the

self-explaining, self-enforcing road, in which

roads are designed for a specific purpose or

function (Figure 7). The Europeans address

safety in an efficient way for all users by

implementing an aesthetic approach to

explain the road function and enforce

speeds. This approach also allows them to

establish speed limits close to the expected

operating speeds and thus avoid higher

travel speeds. An interesting observation

was the lack of speed enforcement by the

police and the greater emphasis placed on

other enforcement means, such as roadway

geometry or automatic cameras. It should

be noted, however, that reliance on roadway geometry to enforce speeds was more

prominent in urban settings. Moreover, all countries have set national speed limits

for each road category and area type (urban or rural).

Another observation was the acceptance of lower operating speeds by the road

users in these countries compared with the levels of acceptance in the United

States. This attitude may reflect the design approach of a self-enforcing roadway

design and higher public acceptance of such roads.

DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

All countries visited utilize design guidelines for roadway design that are

considered central to their design philosophy. These guidelines are typically more

strict for motorways and are applied more as standards and with greater

Figure 6. Design speed nomograph,

England.(12)

Figure 7. Self-enforcing, self-explaining

road, The Netherlands.
CHAPTER 3

16

conformity to these roads. All countries visited have a design exception process

through which to address departures from design guidelines. This process is more

frequently applied to non-motorways. It was also noted that, in general, the public

more easily accepts the lack of flexibility in motorway design because of the

purpose of these roads — mobility is gained at the expense of aesthetic treatment.

Greater design flexibility was observed for urban and rural non-motorways that

typically are responsive to site-specific limitations. Thus, the wider acceptability of

such design departures may be due to the fact that each problem area is addressed

within its context and constraints.

Commitment to creating a roadway environment that addresses safety, capacity,

economic, and environmental concerns has also shaped the wider acceptance of

design flexibility. The British Design Manual has a section for such deviations in

each roadway component that discusses possible reasons for deviating (relaxing)

the suggested guidelines.(12) This approach reinforces the concept of adjusting the

roadway design to the specific local requirements. It should be noted that although

the Manual emphasizes the use of appropriate design and implementation of

desirable values, at the same time it arms the designer with possible flexibility.

All these countries have or are currently revising their design guidelines. This

process may have made them more aware of the need to view their design

guidelines as a flexible tool for those designs where human and environmental

needs may play a stronger role in shaping the final roadway design. In addition,

realizing the possible limitations of the previous guidelines may have significantly

impacted current acceptance of such flexibility, since the new guidelines are now

geared to address road purpose and to create a uniform look for each road category.

The experience of developing new guidelines has allowed these agencies to

understand the value of design flexibility and exceptions.

Set documentation, which was very extensive in England, is required to justify

departures from the design guidelines. Morever, the Highways Agency in

England has a manual that describes how and when design departures are to be

requested and identifies the types of documentation needed to support such a

request.(13) In a typical project, the designer has to visualize the project and

determine how to approach it. Then, each departure needs to be justified and

explained to the Safety Office of the Agency, which has ultimate decision

authority. Several components of the project are set, similar to the AASHTO

minimum criteria, and these components require official documentation.

Designers have the latitude to alter other, more minor components at their

discretion to address the specific needs of the project. In general, the countries

are shielded from legal liability regarding design defects. The exception is

England where litigation is expanding regarding departure from design

guidelines; most of the litigation is settled out of court.

In the countries visited, the guidelines issued by the national highway authorities

are usually considered as recommendations for any projects under the authority of

local governmental agencies. This provides great flexibility in designing to meet

the local needs and conditions.
CHAPTER 3

17

RURAL ROADS

High speeds on rural roads are also a safety issue for these countries, which

experience a high number of runoff crashes. In Sweden for example, runoff crashes

on two-lane roads comprise a third of all crashes on these roads (115 of a total of

339). Moreover, almost all of the runoff crashes occur on two-lane roads (100 of a total

115). Similar percentages were also noted for other countries as well. Head on

crashes were the second most common type of crash in most of these countries. A

typical cross section of rural roads in some countries is 13 m, with 5.5-m travel lanes

and 1.0-m shoulders (Sweden and Denmark) while in England a 9.3-m cross section

is used, with 3.65-m travel lanes and 1.0-m shoulders (i.e., 7.3-m carriageway plus 2 x

1.0-m hardstrips). In Germany a 10.5-m cross section is used, with 3.75-m travel lanes

and 1.5-m shoulders. To address capacity issues, wider cross sections are used in

England, with 5-m travel lanes, which also allows better overtaking for improved

flow and is also safer than the standard width. However, the Swedes have indicated

that these wider roads have not had a good safety record.

The major contributing factor to the high number of runoff crashes is high speeds,

so those countries are focusing on attempts to control and reduce speeds. To

achieve this objective, higher speeds are eliminated to preserve safety. This is

manifested in the lower design speeds

and speed limits for rural roads as well

as in efforts to implement the selfexplaining, self-enforcing concept on

these roadways.

With the exception of the Netherlands,

all countries visited use a common

treatment on high-volume rural

roadways, namely the conversion of a

two-lane roadway to a 2+1 facility in lieu

of four-lane facilities (Figure 8). On such

roads the third (middle) lane serves as a

passing lane in which the right of way

alternates periodically. Each country has

customized this design to conform to its

design guidelines and safety goals,

including use of varied roadway widths,

lengths of passing lanes, median cable

guardrail, and end treatment of passing

lanes. For example, in England and

Sweden these roads have been retrofitted

(within the same right of way) to wider

cross sections of 12 m and 13 m,

respectively. The passing lane has a width

of 3.5 m and the remaining travel width

is evenly split between the other two lanes. In Germany a slightly wider right of

way is used and a 15.5-m cross section is utilized (Figure 9). In Sweden a cable

barrier is used to separate the two directions of travel, and the safety experience

Figure 8. Example of 2+1 road, Germany.

Figure 9. Cross section for German 2+1 roads.
CHAPTER 3

18

with these roadways has been good (Figures

10 and 11). The Germans, on the other hand,

do not favor the use of cable barriers

because of safety concerns. The German

experience indicates that these roadways

can have similar capacities as four-lane

divided roads without shoulders, and when

four-lane roads present safety problems

they are converted to 2+1 facilities. Finally,

all countries that use this design indicated

that to facilitate conversion and reduce

costs, they utilize the existing right of way.

Overall, all agencies indicated capacity

gains and safety improvements from the use

of this design, which may be transferable to

the United States. This practice is similar to

the U.S. passing lanes on two-lane roads, but

it would be done for longer roadway

sections. It should be pointed out that

additional research may be required to

evaluate the use of these roadways in the

United States, particularly since some

countries indicated that they are

experiencing higher speeds and more

crashes around the merging area

(Germany).

Another approach for improving safety on

these roads is the use of narrower lane

widths, which requires drivers to slow

down. This approach is implemented either

by physically creating narrower travelways

(Figure 12) or by visually decreasing the

available width. The more widely used

techniques in optically narrowing the road

are painting wider edge lines or

eliminating centerline striping (Figure 13).

It should be noted that this optical

narrowing is a concept more often used for

low-volume, rural roads. To further enforce

the narrower roadway concept, clear zones

are typically not provided in some countries

(Sweden and Denmark), and some roadway

objects are shielded by guardrails. These

measures are applied to non-motorways

where flexibility exists in design guidelines,

rather than to motorways for which the

guidelines are more rigid.

Figure 10. Use of cable barrier in 2+1

road, Sweden.

Figure 11. 2+1 road without median

separator, Denmark.

Figure 13. Optical narrowing by eliminating

centerline, Sweden.

Figure 12. Narrow lane widths, The

Netherlands.
CHAPTER 3

19

TRAFFIC CALMING

A strong commitment to reducing speeds

through urban areas was a common concept

among all countries visited. The Danish

Road Directorate has developed a guide

that describes possible means for reducing

speeds through urban areas with specific

design elements.(14) A European Community

project is also under way, called Developing

Urban Management and Safety (DUMAS),

which is examining speed management in

urban areas in Denmark, the Netherlands,

and England. The practices of each of these

countries are summarized in a report by the

Danish Road Directorate,(15) and additional

guidelines for evaluating speed

management techniques in urban areas

were recently published.(16) Finally, the

Department of the Environment in the

United Kingdom has developed a series of

leaflets that summarize concepts, principles,

and examples of traffic calming devices.(17)

Numerous practices have been implemented

in urban areas to reduce speeds:

· Prewarnings: typically lines on the

pavement with (rumble strips) or

without punishment (lines and

traffic signs);

· Gates: typically different pavement

color or structures that indicate

transition between traffic

environments, often augmented with

signs and landscaping (Figures 14

and 15);

· Narrowings: typically the available

travelway width is reduced to

narrower lane widths with the

addition of islands, by eliminating one

lane in two-lane roads or by using

wider edge markings (Figures 16-19);

· Humps and tables: with varied

profiles including circular,

sinusoidal, dome-shaped, or

trapezoidal cross-sections and

Figure 16. Landscaping to narrow lane

width, Germany.

Figure 15. Example of gate with a platform,

Sweden.

Figure 14. Example of gate, Germany.

Figure 17. Narrowing with humps,

Denmark.
CHAPTER 3

20

varied lengths depending upon the

desired speed reduction (Figure 20);

· Raised areas: typically a trapezoidal

hump with extended length to allow for

longer vehicles to have all wheels on them;

· Staggering: typically a lane is shifted over;

· Roundabouts: typically used as gates for

speed reduction (Figures 21 and 22);

· Chicanes: typically extensions of the curb at

intersections to reduce approach lane widths;

· Islands: typically raised elements along

the centerline of the roadway to shelter

pedestrians and ease street crossing

(Figure 23);

· Cushions: typically square humps in each

travel lane (Figure 24);

· Landscaping and plantings: typically use of

vegetation as gates, as a means to visually

reduce lane widths or as methods to

enforce other traffic calming components; and

· Pavement textures and colors: typically

use of stones or pavers to visually

separate roadway elements, and use of

colors to enforce concepts or mark

transitions between roadway

environments (Figures 25-27), (26 and 27

displayed on page 22).

The goal of these devices is primarily to

reduce speeds, and they achieve their

objective by forcing drivers to drive through

them at lower speeds.(18) In all countries

visited the use of these devices produced

the desired speed reductions, which ranged

from a few km/h to 20 km/h.(15) Safety gains

also materialized from the use of traffic

calming schemes, and crash numbers were

reduced — in some cases by more than 60

percent (Denmark and England). It should

be mentioned here that the most effective

traffic calming means are humps, but they

require precision in design and

construction to achieve a comfortable ride

when traversed at the desired speeds.(19)

Figure 18. Narrowing with signs,

Denmark.

Figure 19. Narrowing by eliminating one

lane, The Netherlands.

Figure 20. Speed hump, England.

Figure 21. Combination of several traffic

calming elements: islands, roundabout,

and narrow lanes, Denmark.
CHAPTER 3

21

For successful implementation, an area-wide

strategy is required with a systemic rather

than a localized solution. This reinforces the

concept of traffic calming for the entire area

by giving the driver a clear and continuous

message. Because of the likelihood that not

all components of the plan will be

constructed at the same time, an area-wide

strategy ensures that all individual

components will be part of the total solution.

An additional element for successful

implementation is use of consistent or

similar treatment elements throughout the

area. Such consistency avoids continually

surprising drivers with new designs, which

results in inappropriate behavior.

An additional goal of the highway agencies

in the countries visited is integration of all

modes and users in the same space in urban

centers. Several of the traffic calming

elements presented here are utilized to

achieve this objective. For example, raised

areas are used to indicate pedestrian

crossings and alert motorists of the

presence of other users; different pavement

colors are used to indicate bikeways sharing

the same travelway with vehicles; and

narrowings are used to provide parking

spaces and pedestrian access.

Another important aspect is the

requirement that each traffic calming

element be properly designed for the

intended travel speed. This will result in a

roadway uncomfortable to drivers exceeding

the speed but not to those who travel at the

desired speed. This design aspect is

especially important for humps, bumps,

cushions, and raised areas, since all create

vertical rises and may cause discomfort.

Finally, community acceptance is also very

important for successful implementation.

Several communities throughout the United

States have utilized various traffic calming

elements. Most of the elements presented in

this report are transferable to the U.S. urban

Figure 22. Small roundabout flush with

pavement, Sweden.

Figure 23. Combination of several traffic

calming elements: islands, narrow

lanes, and pavement textures, Denmark.

Figure 24. Cushions, England.

Figure 25. Lane markings as part of

pavement texture, Denmark.
CHAPTER 3

22

environment. However, differences in land

use, development, and transportation users

between Europe and the United States must

be recognized. For example, the automobiledominated society and urban structure in

the United States is in stark contrast to the

extensive use of public and other modes of

transportation in European cities. Moreover,

the goal of improving safety is considered

more important than mobility by European

highway agencies and, thus, the use of these

traffic calming schemes is accepted more

easily by the European public.

ROUNDABOUTS

Roundabouts are used extensively in all

countries visited and are considered an

effective form of traffic control at

intersections. Four of the five countries

each have more than 1,000 roundabouts

(Sweden has approximately 900), with the

Netherlands having approximately 2,000 in

existence. Each country has developed

design guidelines to address the specific

geometric design aspects.(20-24) Two general

philosophies guide the design components

of roundabouts. The first concept is that the

flared, tangential approach provides for a

smoother path for vehicles, where the

aesthetic component of the roundabout is

overlooked in favor of creating a path

around the circle that allows comfortable

travel without significant loss of speed. This

approach is used to enhance capacity and allow higher entry speeds. The second

concept is the radial approach, where lower entry speeds force drivers to slow

down when entering the intersection. The latter roundabouts are used more as

speed reduction and traffic calming devices. The first design concept is used in

England and Sweden, while the second design concept is used in the other three

countries.

Irrespective of the design philosophy, roundabouts are considered a very safe form

of intersection in all five countries. Various levels of safety gains have been

achieved with the installation of roundabouts, but the overall trends are positive.

For example, a Danish study of 201 roundabouts showed a 71 percent reduction in

injury crashes after the installation of roundabouts, while a Swedish study of 21

urban intersections showed a 35 percent reduction in injury crashes after the

installation.(15) A similar study of 200 sites in the Netherlands indicated a 51

percent reduction in all crashes and a 72 percent reduction in casualty crashes. As

these safety studies indicate, significant reductions in fatality and injury crashes

Figure 26. Chicane and pavement

texture, Germany.

Figure 27. Table with different pavement

texture, Denmark.
CHAPTER 3

23

materialized after the installation of

roundabouts. A few issues, however, should

be pointed out here. First, despite

significant reductions in the severity of

crashes, the reduction in the overall number

of crashes is sometimes not as large. Second,

most of these sites were not signalized

intersections and, thus, the safety gains at

signalized intersections may be lower, since

there is the likelihood of higher safety

concerns at such intersections. Third, there

may be significant differences in the level of

safety gains between urban and rural areas

because of the differences in travel speeds.

Finally, significant differences in safety

gains are realized by various types of road

users, with passenger car users having the

highest gains and pedestrians and bicyclists

having the lowest. Overall, however, these

empirical data that demonstrate the safety

improvement from roundabouts can be used

in the United States to supplement and

support the early U.S. experience with

roundabouts and to support their further

usage and implementation.

Roundabouts can also improve intersection

capacity over signalization; those with

single-lane approaches seem to perform

very well, with volumes of up to 2,500

vehicles per hour (Figures 28 and 29). Even

though this estimate was provided by all the

agencies as a general upper limit rule of

thumb for one-lane approaches, roundabouts

are also used on roads with significantly

higher daily traffic volumes. For example, in

the Netherlands they are used on roads with

5,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day. The radial

approach entry, i.e., the centerlines of the

approaches pass through the center of the

inscribed circle, is encouraged to facilitate

both sight distance issues and to provide a

smooth entry in and exit from the

roundabout. However, the safety gains

experienced are typically due to reductions in speeds through the roundabout that

may reduce mobility and create delays to through traffic. To increase capacity

within the roundabout, some countries are implementing multi-lane approaches

and signalization (Figure 30), which may affect safety levels. Another means for

increasing capacity is the provision of exclusive right-turn lanes or bays at the

Figure 28. One-lane rural roundabout

with bike lane, The Netherlands.

Figure 29. One-lane urban roundabout,

England.

Figure 30. Roundabout with three lanes

and traffic signal control, England.
CHAPTER 3

24

appropriate roundabout approaches.

Roundabouts are particularly successful

where the traffic flows are in balance on all

approach legs. Roundabouts are a less

effective form of intersection when the

number of entry legs exceeds four, mainly

because of the size of the junction and the

higher circulating speeds that can be

achieved.

An additional significant observation is that

four of the five countries visited (all but

England) have, to date, only used singlelane roundabouts and are now starting to

consider and introduce double-lane

roundabouts. The four countries (Sweden,

Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany)

have used roundabouts primarily as a safety

tool and a speed reduction measure,

whereas England, which has used

roundabouts longer, uses them more for

operational benefits.

Roundabouts provide the designer with the

flexibility to adjust the design to sitespecific conditions. An example of this

flexibility is the use of tear-drop-shaped

roundabouts at interchanges in Sweden.

This design eliminates the need for traffic

signals or other traffic controls at the

interchange, creates a safer environment

for left-turning traffic, and improves

capacity because of lower levels of delays.

The size of the roundabout is also

important. It is a flexible design element

and each country has adopted different

minimum radii for the central island

(Figures 31 and 32). For example, in Sweden

the minimum radius for the central island

to accommodate trucks and buses is 10 m,

while in England the minimum is 4 m. The

size of the roundabout will also be affected

by the design philosophy to either address

capacity or reduce speed, which in turn will

have an impact on the right-of-way

requirements.

One issue of concern is the interaction

among vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles

and the best integration of these users

Figure 32. Medium-size roundabout,

Denmark.

Figure 34. Separated and colored

bikeway on roundabout, Denmark.

Figure 31. Small roundabout, England.

Figure 33. Exclusive bike path on

roundabout, Denmark.
CHAPTER 3

25

within the roundabout. Some countries are separating the travel lanes of vehicles

and other users by creating separate paths (Figures 33 and 34). In these designs,

vehicles have the right of way and islands are provided for the other users when

they are needed for crossing the roadway. In other countries, bicyclists have their

own lanes and thus, have the right of way in the roundabout.

BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS

All countries visited address and consider seriously the needs of bicyclists and

pedestrians. Depending on the country’s national policy, two different philosophies

apply to the level of consideration for these users. Sweden, Denmark, and the

Netherlands place a high importance on addressing the needs of these users and

often provide separate facilities as part of their network. Moreover, there is a

systematic effort in these countries to promote alternative use of transport modes,

and thus cycling and walking are heavily

promoted. A recently completed project,

sponsored by the European Community,

identified the best practices to promote

cycling and walking.(26) This project

identified ways to promote and encourage

cycling and provides a list of means to

improve existing cycling and pedestrian

facilities. The national cycling policy in

Denmark, for example, is advocating that

there is no need to abandon the automobile,

but to strengthen the use of bike and other

transport modes (Figure 35). On the other

hand, Germany and England consider these

users in their planning process but they give

them lower priority when compared with the other countries. One reason for this

difference may be that levels of demand are lower in Germany and England than in

the other countries. For example, in Denmark each household has on average two

bikes, in contrast to 0.7 automobiles per household; data from the Netherlands

indicate that more than 50 percent of trips are non-motorized.

A national network bicycle plan (in various states of completion) exists for all

countries visited. Additional sections are obviously added where needed, but

Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands consider their networks complete. In most

countries the highway agencies are charged with development of the network but

the local authorities are mostly responsible for providing the specific plans and

final designs. Furthermore, community organizations and non-governmental

agencies are cooperating with the highway agencies in several countries to develop

guides for such facilities from their perspective. An example of such an effort is a

guide developed by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities that presents

ideas and concepts regarding use of town streets by both motorized and nonmotorized users.(25)

All five countries place an equal importance on the mobility needs of bicyclists and

pedestrians in urban areas and frequently give them higher priority than the

mobility needs of vehicles. This philosophy is manifested in their efforts to promote

Figure 35. Bike parking facility, Denmark.
CHAPTER 3

26

use of bicycling and walking either by

national campaigns (Netherlands and

Denmark) or by constructing dedicated

facilities for these users as part of

improvement projects (England). Additional

efforts include using traffic calming devices

as part of urban areas, reducing parking

spaces in urban centers, and reducing speed

limits (to increase travel times while

attempting to improve safety). In Denmark,

for example, there has been a systematic

effort to reduce car parking spaces by 2 to 3

percent to promote cycling and walking.

In most countries separate facilities are

provided (Figures 36-42, this page and

opposite) and whenever possible

pedestrians and bicyclists are also

separated to improve safety. Even though

significant efforts are made to address

pedestrian and bicyclist needs, some

cases still exist where their needs are

overlooked or not addressed properly. An

example of such a problem is the conversion

of exclusive facilities to shared use where

one of the two groups loses the exclusive

use of the pathway. In another case, use of

facilities that alternate at intervals from

side to side of the vehicle roadway creates

additional crossings that require careful

design and may be detrimental to safety.

All countries are struggling with

integrating pedestrians and cyclists into

roundabouts. Denmark and the

Netherlands provide completely separate

paths for these users (Figures 43 and 44,

opposite page) while the other countries

provide paths within the same travelway.

In most countries, pedestrian safety is

good at roundabouts, since the design

affords the opportunity to provide crossing

facilities on the approaches. However, for

bicyclists there are more concerns, since

crashes are likely under-reported. To

improve these estimates, the Swedish

agency has currently started an effort to

collect crash data from hospitals in

addition to police records.

Figure 36. Bike path elevated and

separated from roadway, Denmark.

Figure 37. Bike path separated by road

markings, Denmark.

Figure 38. Bike lane separated with

color coding, Denmark.

Figure 39. Rural bike facility parallel to

roadway, The Netherlands.
CHAPTER 3

27

Figure 40. Urban bike facility parallel to roadway, The Netherlands.

Figure 41. Bike and pedestrian paths

separated by color, Germany.

Figure 43. Bike path and roundabout crossing

on separate paths, The Netherlands.

Figure 42. Shared pedestrian path

and bicycle facility, Germany.

Figure 44. Bike path sharing the roadway, but color coded, Denmark.
28
29

Chapter Four

RECOMMENDATIONS AND

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

In the European countries visited, the general philosophy for roadway design and

project development is to develop a transportation program and system that

enhances community values and integrates roadways into communities and the

environment. This philosophy permeates their project development process, safety

improvements, roadway design concepts, geometric design guidelines, public

involvement, and environmental commitments. This same philosophy is the essence of

the recent push to promote the CSD approach in the United States, a shift that is

supported by FHWA and many State DOTs. The design philosophy of the Europeans

is to develop a roadway that is designed for a specific purpose, implements an

aesthetic approach to visually explain this concept, and addresses safety in a way that

considers all users. Finally, all countries have very high safety goals (ranging from

zero fatalities to reductions of more than 40 percent in all crashes), which guide their

design approach and philosophy. To achieve these goals the Europeans are willing to

provide roadways that self-enforce speed limits, potentially increase levels of

congestion, and promote alternative modes of transportation. This approach contrasts

with the U.S. design philosophy, in which wider roads are deemed safer, there is a

heavier reliance on signs to communicate the intended message, and there is a lower

tolerance of congestion and speed reduction.

The visits to these five countries exposed the panel to a variety of practices and

programs that may be transferable to specific locations and situations in the United

States. A wide variety of practices was found among the agencies of these countries

that stem from differences such as size, population, safety goals, and general design

philosophy. Although all practices are not entirely new to all States in the United

States, we may be able to learn from their form and the extent of their application in

Europe. Therefore, each U.S. agency should evaluate the application and use of the

ideas presented in both the previous and this section. To this end, the U.S. scan team

has developed the following list of implementation strategies for enhancing existing

project development and roadway geometric design practices in the United States.

PROJECT PLANNING

A practice common in all five countries visited was the longer period of time

devoted to the planning process and the consideration of longer sections,

typically entire corridors. This is an approach some agencies may want to

consider, since it provides the opportunity for long-range planning by allowing

for a more systematic overview and for defining needs and deficiencies over the

entire system. The greater emphasis in urban areas on integrating projects in

communities by addressing the public’s concerns for speed management and

aesthetics is an additional area that State and local agencies may consider while

developing projects.

All five countries involve the public in most projects and involve a variety of other

stakeholders depending on the project type and stage. Early public involvement is

considered a significant means for decreasing project times and resolving potential

conflicts in early stages of the project. The participation of local agencies in this
30

CHAPTER 4

process and their ability to control decisions in certain projects is an aspect that

merits further consideration. Such local agencies may be capable of addressing

specific needs and local concerns more appropriately than State agencies and, thus,

their participation is often beneficial in developing a project that is responsive to

local needs. Involvement of the public and appropriate stakeholders at the earliest

possible stage of the project enables a successful project that addresses their

concerns. This concept could be applied in the United States not only to reduce the

project times by minimizing conflicts but also to improve relationships between State

agencies and the public by developing a constructive dialogue.

The Dutch are using a process of design workshops in which all project

alternatives are developed with public involvement. This process seems to

alleviate conflicts between highway agencies and the public and reduces project

planning time by resolving issues in the early stages of the project. This system

merits additional examination and could be transferable to the United States.

RURAL ROADS

The concept of 2+1 roads has been shown to simultaneously address safety and

capacity issues on two-lane roadways. This design is more economical than

conversion to four-lane roadways and, thus, is considered an applicable concept.

This design is similar to the U.S. practice of providing passing lanes on two-lane

roads. However, specific design elements for successful implementation need to be

specified and design guidelines for their implementation need to be developed.

Morever, some safety concerns still exist among the Europeans, and these issues

need to be examined prior to adopting this design.

Another concept that could benefit the United States is the concept of selfexplaining, self-enforcing roads. Such roads are designed for a specific purpose or

function and they address safety in an efficient way for all users by implementing

an aesthetic approach to explain the road function and enforce speeds. This is the

ultimate goal of a roadway design, since roadways designed this way meet drivers’

expectations rather than surprise them. Reliance on the roadway design to

transmit its operating speed is integral to this concept and conflicting messages

should be avoided. The higher reliance in the United States on traffic signs to

convey the desired operating speeds may create additional problems, since often

there are conflicting messages between the traffic signs and the roadway image. It

is reasonable to examine these possible conflicts and evaluate whether the wider

roadway widths that have been utilized in the United States are more conducive to

crashes by encouraging the driver to drive at inappropriate speeds.

TRAFFIC CALMING

Traffic calming is an effective means for controlling speeds through urban areas

and deserves wider implementation in the United States. A variety of components

are available with different uses, applications, and effectiveness. All studies

completed indicate that, indeed, these devices do reduce speeds at a variety of

levels. Traffic calming is most effective if done on a neighborhood or area-wide

basis and not just at spot locations. While some of the measures have been tried to
31

CHAPTER 4

a limited degree in the United States, more testing of various European traffic

calming strategies is needed in U.S. cities. Reliance on speed limit and STOP signs

and police enforcement does not fully achieve the desired speed reductions, since

the roadways are not conveying the intended message and are not forcing the

driver to slow down. Use of these designs also reduces the need for police

enforcement efforts.

ROUNDABOUTS

Roundabouts are a very safe and efficient means for intersection control.

Roundabouts with a single-lane approach are used widely and successfully in

Europe and they can easily accommodate peak flows of 2,500 vehicles per hour

without significant delays. Roundabouts with two approach lanes are widely used

in England but are being introduced more cautiously in continental Europe

because of concerns about driver confusion and safety. Safety studies completed in

most of these countries indicate that significant safety gains were achieved by

implementing roundabouts in place of conventional intersections. (It should be

noted that the studies conducted in continental Europe predominantly relate to

single-lane roundabouts, not necessarily to roundabouts in general.) Although

roundabouts have been introduced in a few areas in the United States, this modern

tool is still underutilized. State and local agencies should consider the

implementation and use of roundabouts as an alternative to conventional

intersection designs as well as a means for improving traffic safety. When

roundabouts are introduced for the first time in a community, they should be

placed in areas where single-lane approaches would accommodate the existing

traffic. This approach will ensure the successful and smooth operation of the site

and, thus, promote the use of this alternative design.

BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS

All countries visited place significant emphasis on addressing the needs of

pedestrians and bicyclists. Bicycle networks exist in all countries; in some they are

complete and rival the vehicle networks. For some countries addressing the needs

of these users is as important as improving vehicle mobility, and promoting use of

bicycles as an alternative mode of transport is a strong commitment of the highway

agencies. A change in philosophy is needed in the United States to focus directly on

promoting use of bicycles and other transport modes in conjunction with

automobile travel. Addressing mobility needs has been viewed traditionally in the

United States as providing a roadway network in which drivers can move as

quickly and freely as they desire. This notion needs to be altered in order to

address the safety needs of vulnerable road users. State and local agencies should

focus on providing bicycle and pedestrian networks, since they are essential in

promoting use of these modes of transport. A lesson learned from the scan tour was

that a high level of commitment is essential in promoting bicycle usage, and a

systematic accommodation is required to increase use of alternative modes of

transport. Completion of existing networks is also central to a successful campaign.

Morever, zoning and development practices may need to be revisited to create an

environment to promote biking and walking in urban centers.
32

CHAPTER 4

CONTEXT-SENSITIVE DESIGN

All countries visited follow the practice of developing transportation projects and

systems that enhance community values while integrating roadways into the

environment. Several agencies employ the use of multi-disciplinary teams to develop

design solutions, which allows them to approach problems from several possible

angles. Such an approach considers and addresses all phases of the project when

appropriate and thus reduces project time and possible costs. Moreover,

consideration is given to the desires and needs of the community by inviting the

appropriate stakeholders to participate in the development of the project and thus

shape some of the solutions that are acceptable to the community. This approach is

currently promoted by FHWA and AASHTO and it should be continued in the future

until it becomes an integral part of the design process in the United States Although

not unheard of in the United States, design solutions that reduce motor vehicle

speeds or reduce the space available to vehicles may increase trip times and are not

often viewed as appropriate. But wider, high-speed roads that address only the

mobility needs of automobile users may not meet the needs of other users of the

transportation system. Most often design solutions seek to reduce delays to

motorists at all costs. Such road designs encourage higher travel speeds that

contribute to greater severity of crashes. These are important aspects of applying the

concepts of CSD, since community desires may conflict with high-speed designs.

CSD implies a flexible application of the established geometric criteria in

designing roadways. The use of innovative design to address local problems and

provide solutions within the context of the area is essential in applying the CSD

concept. The self-enforcing, self-explaining road is an example of such innovative

design, since it encourages lower operating speeds for automobiles while

incorporating safety and mobility for all transport modes. To facilitate this

flexibility, some countries explicitly indicate that deviations from their design

manuals are accepted and provide reasons and situations in which such changes

are appropriate. In addition, documentation exists that describes the appropriate

supportive documents to justify these deviations. Consequently, the Europeans use

design exceptions to address CSD concepts and they use aesthetics both for safety

enforcement and visual appeal.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

A summary of proposed activities and implementation strategies for each of the

findings discussed here is presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Summary of findings and implementation strategies.

Subject

Project Planning

Recommendations and implementation strategies

• Investigate the Dutch use of design workshops to determine

whether this practice can enhance the CSD approach and

improve and expedite the existing NEPA process. Consider

piloting studies, if appropriate.

• Encourage States to consider including public involvement in the

earliest possible stage of the project planning process.
33

CHAPTER 4

Recommendations and implementation strategies

• Survey existing practices in the EU and the United States and

develop a Synthesis Report sponsored by TRB. The Task Force on

Geometric design of AASHTO will develop a proposal for TRB.

• Increase awareness among practitioners and roadway

designers, possibly through an educational effort sponsored

by AASHTO, TRB, and APWA.

• Encourage States to consider initial implementation of

roundabouts at areas where success is guaranteed.

• Initiate an educational campaign to promote use of

roundabouts in the United States by developing a workshop

and inviting European experts. Several agencies and

professional organizations could sponsor this, including FHWA,

AASHTO, APWA, ASCE, and ITE.

• Form a steering committee to determine an educational

strategy.

• Increase dissemination of the report Roundabouts: An

Information Guide, FHWA-RD-00-067.

• Identify and document available literature regarding traffic

calming practices, possibly through a Synthesis Report

sponsored by APWA, TRB, or ITE.

• Initiate a professional awareness campaign to promote proper

use of traffic calming devices through an APWA information

campaign.

• Support development of an APWA informational document on

the use of traffic calming devices.

• Develop a course or workshop proposal on use of traffic

calming devices. This is a possible followup action item for

FHWA and AASHTO.

• Promote the development of a workshop or course that

addresses CSD concepts to be delivered nationwide.

• Make short presentations on the CSD philosophy, including

aesthetics, traffic calming, self-explaining self-enforcing roads,

and roundabouts at various meetings: AASHTO, FHWA, ASCE,

and ITE.

• Identify courses offered by the National Highway Institute (NHI)

that need to be updated to include CSD concepts.

• Promote CSD concepts to impact high-level personnel of

highway agencies and academia.

Subject

2+1 Roads

Geometric Design

Philosophy

Roundabouts

Traffic Calming

Context Sensitive

Design
34
35

References

1. Federal Highway Administration, 1997. Flexibility in Highway Design, FHWAPD-97-062, Washington, D.C.

2. Swedish National Road Administration, 2000. Facts About the Swedish National

Road Administration, Roads and Traffic. Publication 2000:23E, Borlange, Sweden.

3. Swedish National Road Administration, 1998. 1997 Road Traffic Safety Report,

Publication 1998:20, Borlange, Sweden.

4. Road Directorate, 1998. Research and Development: Road Safety and

Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.

5. Nielsen, M.A., Lund, B., and Nielsen, E.D. 1998. Accidents on Rural Roads in

Denmark, Note No. 50, Road Directorate, Copenhagen, Denmark.

6. Schermers, G. 1999. Sustainable Safety: A Preventive Road Safety Strategy for

the Future, Transport Research Center, Ministry of Transport and Public Works,

Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

7. Highways Agency, 1999. Highways Agency Business Plan 1999/2000, London,

England.

8. Highways Agency, 2000. Making the Network Safer, London, England.

9. Highways Agency, 2000. Towards a Balance with Nature, London, England.

10. Kjemtrup, K. 1999. Guidelines for Geometric Design of Roads and Paths in

Urban Areas, Danish Road Directorate, Copenhagen, Denmark.

11. Forschungsgesellgesahftfur Strassen und Verkehrswesen (FGSV),

1988. Guidelines for the Construction of Roads, Part: Manual for the Functional

Structuring of the Road System, RAS-N, Kirschbaum Verlag, Bonn, Germany.

12. Department of Transport, 1993. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Road

Geometry, Links, Part 1, TD 9/93, Highway Link Design, England.

13. Highways Agency, 1999. Procedures Manual, Vol. 2, Procedures for Departures

from Standards, London, England.

14. Herrstedt, L., Kjemtrup, K., Borges, P., and Andersen, P. 1993. An Improved

Traffic Environment, A Catalogue of Ideas, Road Standards Division Report 106,

Road Directorate, Copenhagen, Denmark.

15. Greibe, P. and Nilsson, P. 1999. Speed Management, National Practice and

Experience in Denmark, the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom, Report No.

167, Road Directorate, Copenhagen, Denmark.

16. Greibe, P., Nilsson, P., and Herrstedt, L. 1999. Speed Management in Urban

Areas, A Framework for the Planning and Evaluation Process, Report No. 168,

Road Directorate, Copenhagen, Denmark.

17. Department of the Environment, 1999. Traffic Calming Bibliography, Traffic

Advisory Leaflet 4/99, London, England.
36

REFERENCES

18. Wheeler, A. and Taylor, M., 2000. Changes in Accident Frequency Following the

Introduction of Traffic Calming in Villages, TRL Report 452, Transport Research

Laboratory, London, England.

19. Kjemtrup, K. 1988. Speed Reducing Measures. Australian Road Research Board

Proceedings, Vol. 14, Part 2, Canberra, Australia.

20. Department of Transport, 1993. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Road

Geometry, Junctions, Part 3, TD16/93; TD 78/97; TD 50/99, England.

21. Forschungsgesellgesahftfur Strassen und Verkehrswesen (FGSV), 1988.

Guidelines for the Construction of Roads, Part: Nodal Points, Section 1: Flat

Nodal Points, RAS-K-1, Kirschbaum Verlag, Bonn, Germany.

22. Road Directorate, 1993. Urban Traffic Areas, Part 4 Intersections, Copenhagen,

Denmark.

23. Centrum fur Regelgeving en Onderzoek in de Grond-, Water-, en Wegenbouw en

de Verkeerstechniek (CROW), Eenheid in Rotondes (Uniformity in

Roundabouts), CROW Publications 126, EDE, The Netherlands, 1998.

24. Centrum for Regelgeving en Onderzoek in de Grond-, Water-, en Wegenbouw en

de Verkeerstechniek (CROW), ASVV – Aanbevelingen voor Verkeersvoorzieningen

binnen debebouwde kom (Recommendations for Traffic Facilities in Urban Areas),

CROW Publications 110, EDE, The Netherlands, 1996.

25. Swedish Association of Local Authorities, 1999. Calm Streets, Stockholm, Sweden.

26. Road Directorate, 1998. Best Practice to Promote Cycling and Walking–ADONIS ,

Copenhagen, Denmark.
37

Addresses at the time of scan tour

Dr. Kam Movassaghi (Co-Chair)

Secretary

Louisiana Department of

Transportation

P.O. Box 94245

1201 Capitol Access Road

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9245

Tel: (225) 379-1200

Fax: (225) 379-1851

E-mail:

kkm@dotdmail.dotd.state.la.us

Sandra Otto (Co-Chair)

Assistant Division Administrator

FHWA Arkansas Division

700 West Capitol Avenue (Room 3130)

Little Rock, AR 72201-3298

Tel: (501) 324-6436/5625

Fax: (501) 324-6423

E-mail: sandra.otto@fhwa.dot.gov

Jim Brewer

Engineering Manager - State Road

Office

Kansas DOT

9th Floor Docking State Office Bldg.

Topeka, KS 66612

Tel: (785) 296 3901

Fax: (785) 296-6946

E-mail: jbrewer@ksdot.org

John German

Public Works Director

City of San Antonio

P.O. Box 839966

San Antonio, TX 78283-3966

Tel: (210) 207-8023

Fax: (210) 207-4406

E-mail: jgerman@ci.sat.tx.us

Appendix A

Team Members

Ray Krammes

Senior Highway Research Engineer

FHWA, Turner-Fairbank Highway

Research Center

(HRDS-05)

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101

Tel: (202) 493-3312

Fax: (202) 493-3417

E-mail: ray.krammes@fhwa.dot.gov

John Okamoto

Regional Administrator

Northwest Region

Washington Department of

Transportation

P.O. Box 330310

Seattle, WA 98133-9710

Tel: (206) 440-4691/4690

Fax: (206) 440-4808

E-mail: okamoto@wsdot.wa.gov

Wendell Ruff

Assistant Chief Engineer

Mississippi Department of

Transportation

Administrative Office Building

P.O. Box 1850

401 North West Street

Jackson, MS 39215-1850

Tel: (601) 359-7007

Fax: (601) 359-7050

E-mail: wruff@mdot.state.ms.us
APPENDIX A

38

Seppo Sillan

Senior Engineer-Design

FHWA Office of Program

Administration

Infrastructure Core Business Unit

(HIPA-20) (Room 3134)

400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: (202) 366-1327

Fax: (202) 366-3988

E-mail: seppo.sillan@fhwa.dot.gov

Nick Stamatiadis (Report Facilitator)

Associate Professor of Civil

Engineering

Transportation

265 Raymond Building

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY 40506-0281

Tel: (606) 257-8012

Fax: (606) 257-4404

E-mail: nstamat@pop.engr.uky.edu

Bob Walters

Chief Engineer

Arkansas Highway & Transportation

Department

P.O. Box 2261

Little Rock, AR 72203

Tel: (501) 569-2214

Fax: (501) 569-2688

E-mail: rlwe158@ahtd.state.ar.us

BIOGRAPHIC SKETCHES

Dr. Kam Movassaghi, Panel Co-Chair, is Secretary of the Department of

Transportation and Development in the State of Louisiana (LADOTD) with

headquarters in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Dr. Movassaghi currently directs a staff of

5,600 employees and an annual budget of more than $1 billion. LADOTD’s scope of

operation includes all modes of transportation in addition to ports, flood control,

water resources, and an offshore oil terminal. The Department’s research activities

are housed at the Louisiana Transportation Research Center, located on the

Louisiana State University campus and supported by LADOTD. Prior to joining

LADOTD in 1998, he served as professor and head of the Department of Civil

Engineering at the University of Louisiana in Lafayette. His research areas of

interest included transportation planning and operations, GIS-T, and network

analysis and logistics. Dr. Movassaghi is a graduate of the University of Louisiana

in Lafayette and holds a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from

Louisiana State University. He is a licensed professional engineer in Louisiana and

has served on several technical and professional committees of the American

Society of Civil Engineers. Currently, he is president of the Southeastern

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and a member of the

Executive Committee of the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials.

Sandra Otto, Panel Co-Chair, is the Assistant Division Administrator (ADA) for

the Arkansas Division of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). As

ADA, Ms. Otto shares responsibility with the Division Administrator for

administering the Federal-aid highway program in Arkansas. This includes
APPENDIX A

39

ensuring that FHWA emphasis areas, including context-sensitive highway design,

are advanced within the State of Arkansas. This past year, as Chair of the American

Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) Environmental Quality Committee, she was

responsible for presenting a nationwide workshop on Context Sensitive Highway

Design in the Washington, D.C., area. Prior to her promotion to ADA, Ms. Otto was

Program Development Engineer in the Colorado Division and a Special Assistant

to the Environmental Operations Division Chief in Washington, D.C. Ms. Otto holds

a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Montana State University

and a Master’s in Environmental Management and Public Policy (MPA) from The

George Washington University. She is a licensed professional engineer in

Washington and current Chair of the ASCE Highway Division’s Environmental

Quality Committee.

James O. (Jim) Brewer is the Engineering Manager of the State Road Office for

the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) in Topeka, Kansas. He manages

the pre-construction portion of KDOT’s $12.9 billion, 10-year Comprehensive

Transportation Program, which includes all location studies and geometric design.

He has been with KDOT for 33 years with more than 30 years of that time involved

in road design. He graduated from the University of Arkansas with a Bachelor of

Science degree in Civil Engineering. He is a registered professional engineer in

Kansas. He serves on the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Task Forces on Geometric Design and

Aesthetic Design. He also has served on several technical committees of the

Transportation Research Board. In addition, Mr. Brewer currently is a member of

the AASHTO Subcommittee on Design.

John L. German is the Director of Public Works for the City of San Antonio, Texas,

and is currently responsible for more than 1,600 employees, an operating budget of

$106 million, and a $300 million capital improvement program of which $85 million

is expended in the current budget. Functions under his direction include streets

and drainage maintenance and operations, solid waste and environmental services,

building construction and maintenance, capital projects management, engineering,

traffic operations, and parking for a city with a population greater than 1 million.

Prior to his current position, Mr. German was President and Chief Executive

Officer of the Texas Research and Development Foundation and was also a Senior

Traffic Engineering Consultant (1988-92). In this position he was project manager

for the Long-term Pavement Performance research project under the Strategic

Highway Program. He also has served as Executive Vice President for Land

Development with Franklin Savings in Austin (1983-88), and Director of Public

Works and as Assistant City Manager for the City of Austin, Texas, between 1977-

1983. He held other positions in traffic engineering, transportation planning, and

geometric design prior to these assignments. Mr. German is a graduate of Texas

A&M University with a Bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering and the Yale

University Bureau of Highway Traffic with the Master’s equivalent in Traffic

Engineering and Transportation Planning. He also holds a Master’s of Public

Administration degree from the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs at

the University of Texas. He is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Texas,

is a Fellow of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and an active

member of the American Public Works Association, the American Society of Civil
APPENDIX A

40

Engineers, and the American Society of Testing and Materials. He also serves as

the Chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee and as a member of the

Engineering and Technology Committee of the American Public Works Association.

He previously served on various ITE committees dealing with geometric design

issues. Mr. German is well qualified to represent cities on this scanning tour,

having served as an officer of many professional organizations, written numerous

articles, and spoken on a wide variety of technical and management issues during

his 33 years of professional service.

Dr. Ray Krammes is a senior highway research engineer for the U.S. Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA). Dr. Krammes is Roadway Team Leader in

FHWA’s Office of Safety Research and Development at the Turner-Fairbank

Highway Research Center in McLean, Virginia. The Roadway Team develops

geometric-design, speed-management, and visibility-enhancement techniques and

safety evaluation tools to keep vehicles on the roadway, decrease speed-related

causes of crashes, improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and make highway work

zones safer. Dr. Krammes manages development of the Interactive Highway Safety

Design Model, a suite of software analysis tools for quantitative evaluation of the

safety impacts of highway geometric design decisions. Prior to joining FHWA in

1997, Dr. Krammes was on the Civil Engineering faculty at Texas A&M University

and conducted traffic engineering research through the Texas Transportation

Institute. He received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from The

Pennsylvania State University. He serves on geometric-design related technical

committees of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Institute of Transportation

Engineers, and the Transportation Research Board.

John Okamoto is Regional Administrator for the Washington State Department of

Transportation. As Regional Administrator, Mr. Okamoto is responsible for planning,

designing, construction, and operation of interstate and State highways in the most

populated region in the State with more than 2.5 million residents. He is responsible

for coordinating transportation services with local governments, marine and air port

authorities, public transit agencies, rail operators, and the nation’s largest public

ferry system. Mr. Okamoto’s region employs 1,600 employees with a biennial budget

of $1.1 billion. Prior to being appointed as Regional Administrator, Mr. Okamoto

spent nearly 20 years with the City of Seattle serving in several department-head

positions, including Director of Engineering. He has a Bachelor’s degree and a

Master’s degree in public administration from the University of Washington, and has

attended Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Mr. Okamoto

has served on many national and State transportation committees, and is current

transportation chair of the American Public Works Association.

Wendell T. Ruff is the Assistant Chief Engineer for the Mississippi Department of

Transportation (MDOT) at State headquarters in Jackson, Mississippi. He

currently directs the Department’s Pre-construction Engineering Activities. His

duties include oversight of roadway and bridge design, environmental/location

activities, right-of-way acquisition, and research. Prior to being appointed Assistant

Chief Engineer in 1998, he served as the Roadway Design Division Engineer and

the State Geotechnical Engineer for MDOT. Mr. Ruff is a graduate of Mississippi

State University and holds a Bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering. He is a

licensed professional engineer in Mississippi and serves on several technical
APPENDIX A

41

committees of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials and the Transportation Research Board.

Seppo I. Sillan is the Senior Engineer, Office of Program Administration of the

U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in Washington, D.C. His current

responsibilities include directing the development, implementation, and

monitoring of national highway geometric design standards, policies and

guidelines, value engineering program, and pre-construction procedures such as

use of consultants. His past positions include division, region and headquarters

office assignments in design, construction, maintenance, research, and technology

transfer areas. Prior to joining the FHWA he worked with the California Highway

Department. He obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering from the

University of Florida. Mr. Sillan is active in various committees and task forces of

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the

American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Transportation Research Board. He is

also an active member of the World Road Association Committee on Roads,

Transport and Regional Development.

Dr. Nikiforos Stamatiadis, the Report Facilitator, is an Associate Professor of Civil

Engineering at the University of Kentucky (UK) in Lexington, Kentucky. At UK he

teaches transportation and traffic-related courses and he supervises and conducts

transportation engineering research with an emphasis on human factors, traffic

safety, and geometric design. His current research emphasis includes the impact of

context-sensitive designs on safety, development of relationships between crashes on

rural roads and geometric features, evaluation of driver licensing renewal

procedures, and safety concerns for elderly drivers. Prior to joining the faculty at UK

in 1990, he worked as a full-time researcher at Michigan State University, East

Lansing, Michigan, and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr.

Stamatiadis holds a Bachelor’s degree in Surveying Engineering from Aristotle

University of Thessaloniki, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Civil Engineering from

Michigan State University. He is a licensed professional engineer in Michigan,

Kentucky, Indiana, and Europe, and serves on several technical committees of the

American Society of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and

the Transportation Research Board. Dr. Stamatiadis is also the president of the

Kentucky Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Robert (Bob) Walters is the Chief Engineer for the Arkansas Highway and

Transportation Department in Little Rock, Arkansas. He has worked for the

Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department for 28 years, with 26 years in

the highway design area. As Chief Engineer, he now oversees planning, design,

construction, and maintenance of the State’s highway system. Mr. Walters is a

graduate of the University of Arkansas with a Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree in

Civil Engineering. He is a licensed professional engineer in Arkansas. He is a past

Vice-Chair of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials’ (AASHTO’s) Joint Task Force on Pavements, and currently serves as the

Chair of the AASHTO Task Force on Geometric Design. This Task Force is charged

with updating the AASHTO “Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.”

In addition, Mr. Walters is currently serving as a member of the National

Cooperative Highway Research Program Panel researching design speed and

operating speed issues.
42

Appendix B

AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS

The following is a list of questions on six areas that the U.S. panel would like to

discuss with you. These questions are intended to clarify and expand on the Panel

Topics of Interest described in the Panel Overview paper. The questions are

arranged by topic and the questions are grouped based on major concepts within

each of the six areas. At the end of each theme, a general category attempts to

further define some of the concepts asked in the previous groups and elaborate on

some very specific topics of these questions.

The panel is very interested in being able to visit sites where some of the concepts

discussed have been applied. If possible, the panel would like to be able to devote 50

percent or more of its time with you for site visits. Examples of successful and not-sosuccessful applications are of interest to the panel to allow for a broader understanding of

these topics.

I. Context-Sensitive Design (CSD) and Project Development Procedures and Practices

*Context-sensitive design is a term being used in the United States for the project

development process, including geometric design, which is responsive to or

consistent with the road’s natural and human environment.

Project Development

1. What are the typical steps in your project development process? Describe your

procedures for initiating, defining, and fully developing projects from

conception through the design stage.

2. What role does public involvement play in project development? Collaborative

decision making (road type and character, design aspects, etc.) or in an advisory

capacity only? How are outside stakeholders identified?

Design Issues

3. What document establishes your prevailing national design criteria?

4. What are the safety results of road designs that use geometric features to

control speed or designs that reduce space for vehicles in order to

accommodate other modes of transport, especially pedestrians and bicyclists?

Context-Sensitive Design

5. When it becomes necessary to deviate from the accepted design criteria in

order to accommodate environmental, historic, or other cultural values and/or

other modes of transportation, what is the most common geometric design

element involved in context-sensitive considerations (lane width, speed,

horizontal curvature, etc.)?

6. What are the liability issues associated with such deviations from the accepted criteria?

Other

7. How are tradeoffs made throughout the project development process among

environmental impacts, community values, construction cost, and safety?
43

APPENDIX B

8. How does your planning staff, environmental staff, and design staff coordinate

to ensure that decisions made at one stage are passed on to the next?

9. How are environmental considerations and community values factored into

your project development procedures and practices?

10. What special rules, if any, are applied to road projects that are in

environmentally or aesthetically sensitive, or historically and/or culturally

important areas?

11. Does your agency have additional guidelines to address flexibility for

accommodating scenic, historic, cultural, or otherwise important or critical

aspects impacted by the road project?

12. How are policy decisions made about flexing design criteria to fit the context of

the current project?

II. Design and Operating Speed in Geometric Design

Design Speed

13. How does your agency define design speed?

14. How is the design speed selected for a project, i.e., what factors are considered

in selecting the design speed?

Operating Speed

15. How, if at all, is anticipated operating speed used in geometric design?

16. Do your design procedures include evaluating the uniformity, or consistency, of

the expected operating speeds along rural highway projects?

Speed Limit

17. Does the posted speed ever exceed the design speed? If so, has this created any

safety or other problems and how do you address them?

Design Issues

18. Are specific design measures employed to keep speeds at certain levels (for

instance, introducing horizontal curvature to eliminate long tangent sections or

use of alignment and/or cross-section design to control actual operating

speeds)?

19. Do you use speed or a non-speed-related method, such as functional

classification or “design class,” to determine geometric elements?

III. Design Solutions for High-Volume Rural Highways

Planning Issues

20. How do you balance the need for mobility on high-volume rural highways with

safety for bicyclists and pedestrians?

21. Is access control a factor? If so, how?
44

APPENDIX B

Alternatives

22. What design alternatives are considered for improving high-volume two-lane

rural highways without going to a four-lane section? What has been your safety

and operational experience with these alternatives?

IV. Roundabouts

23. What is your experience with safety and operations (for motorists, pedestrians,

and bicyclists) at modern roundabouts in urban and rural areas of your country?

Design Issues

24. Does your agency have specific design guidelines for roundabouts?

Operation Issues

25. Where do roundabouts work well and where not?

26. At what traffic levels do you consider roundabouts ineffective or inappropriate?

V. Speed-Moderating Techniques on Rural Roads (Especially Through Towns)

Design Philosophy

27. What design strategies are used to reduce speeds on primary rural roads

approaching and through towns?

Other

28. What kinds of transition techniques are employed between the higher-speed

rural and lower-speed urban areas?

29. What is your experience with signing, enforcement, speed bumps, and use of

alternate roadway sections as means for moderating speeds through towns?

VI. Accommodations for Vulnerable Users Such as Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Design Philosophy

30. How are tradeoffs among pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist safety and mobility

considered in project development and design?

Other

31. What have been your most successful accommodations to improve pedestrian

and bicyclist safety on rural highways? At roundabouts? At other intersection

types? On main urban streets? On urban residential streets? On highway

interchanges?

32. What is the typical modal split (passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles,

pedestrians, bicyclists) on your rural highways, main urban streets, and urban

residential streets?

33. How do these splits affect your choice for providing bike/pedestrian facilities?

34. Do you provide bike/pedestrian accommodation on all public roadways? If not,

on what types of roads?
45

Sweden

Torsten Bergh, M.Sc., C.E.

Road Design & Traffic Engineer

Specialist

Road & Traffic Management Division

Swedish National Road Administration

S-781 87 Borlange, Sweden

E-mail: torsten.bergh@vv.se

Denmark

Lene Herrstedt, M.Sc., Ph.D.

Head of Research Division

Traffic Safety and Environment

Road Directorate

Niels Juels Gade 13

Postboks 1569

DK-1059 Copenhagen K, Denmark

E-mail: leh@vd.dk

The Netherlands

Govert Schermers

Senior Consultant Traffic Safety

Department for Transport and Society

Transport Research Centre (AVV)

Ministry of Transport, Public Works

and Water Management

Boompes 200

P.O. Box 1031

3000 BA Rotterdam, The Netherlands

E-mail:

g.schermers@avv.rws.minvenw.nl

Appendix C

EUROPEAN CONTACTS

England

John Smart, B.Sc. Ceng MICE

Principal Technical Advisor (Safety)

Room 4/36, St. Christopher House

Southwark Street

London SE1 0TE, United Kingdom

E-mail:

john.smart@highways.gsi.gov.uk

Germany

Dr.-Ing. Karl F. Ribbeck

Roads Directorate-General

Division International Cooperation

Research and Development

Robert Schuman Platz 1

D-53175, Bonn

E-mail:

Karl.Ribbeck@bmvbw.bund.de
FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE REPORTS

Infrastructure

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe

Geotechnology— Soil Nailing

International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality Enhancement-CATQEST

Pavements

European Asphalt Technology

European Concrete Technology

South African Pavement Technology

Highway Information Management

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction

Bridges

European Bridge Structures

Asian Bridge Structures

Bridge Maintenance Coatings

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan

Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe and Japan

Performance of Concrete Segmental and Cable-Stayed Bridges in Europe

Planning and Environment

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy and Technology

National Travel Surveys

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments

Safety

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany and the Netherlands

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: Europe & Australia

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand

Road Safety Audits— Final Report

Road Safety Audits— Case Studies

Innovative Traffic Control Technology & Practice in Europe

Commercial Vehicle Safety Technology & Practice in Europe

Operations

Advanced Transportation Technology

European Traffic Monitoring

Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems

European Winter Service Technology

Snowbreak Forest Book – Highway Snowstorm Countermeasure Manual (Translated from Japanese)

Policy & Information

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs and Services

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad— Handbook

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad— Final Report

International Guide to Highway Transportation Information

Also available on the internet

Only on the internet at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov
Notes

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________
Notes

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________
Office of International Programs

FHWA/US DOT (HPIP)

400 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: 202-366-9636

Fax: 202-366-9626

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Publication No. FHWA-PL-01-026

HPIP/6-00(5M)EW