Practical Solution Concepts for Planning and Designing Roadways
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 136, Issue 4
Abstract
Developing a procedure that yields up to the maximum margin of return for the investment requires an approach that takes into account specific safety issues and the commensurate design elements for each roadway. Kentucky’s highway agency has embarked upon an initiative tagged “practical solutions” which sets its goal toward reducing costs throughout the project development process extended into operations and maintenance of all highway facilities. This operationally defines a design procedure within the context of practical solutions and sets up the guiding principles of the approach. The most critical component of practical solutions in planning and design is the definition and clarification of the initial project concept (its specific goals and objectives) since it is the corner stone of the project and used to significantly contain the cost and impact of a project. Traditional design tends to seek as high a design speed as reasonable with the aim to reduce travel time. Practical design requires that levels of service should not be taken as absolutes but rather be viewed as starting points. Each project should be viewed as an investment and as such requires an understanding of the marginal returns to be realized. As in any financial situation, there is always a point of diminishing returns, i.e., greater investment will have no or little effect on increasing the return. The system-based evaluation of practical design in this study examined the safety and operational performance of various cross-section alternatives, based on highway capacity and highway safety manual procedures. The various alternative cross sections ranged from an improved two-lane section representing a practical solution approach to a four-lane-divided highway. A case study of a Kentucky intersection improvement project is presented that exemplifies a practical solution in practice.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
AASHTO. (2004a). A guide for achieving flexibility in highway design, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. (2004b). A policy on geometric design of highways and streets, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
Elvik, R. (2003). “Effects of roadway safety of converting intersections to roundabouts: Review of evidence from non-U.S. studies.” Transportation Research Record. 1847, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Federal Highway Administration. (2000). “Roundabouts: An informational guide.” FHWA-RD-00-67, Washington, D.C.
Hauer, E. (2000). “Safety in geometric design standards I and II.” Conf. Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Highway Geometric Design, Transportation Research Board and Road and Transportation Research Association, Mainz, Germany.
Hughes, W., Eccles, K., Harwood, D., Potts, I., and Hauer, E. (2004). “Highway safety manual.” Transportation Research Record. 62, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. (2004). “Traffic forecasting report 2004.” Rep., Div. of Multimodal Programs, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort, Ky.
Lord, D., et al. (2008). “Methodology for estimating the safety performance of multilane rural highways.” Rep. No. NCHRP 17-29, National Cooperation Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C.
Missouri Department of Transportation. (2007). Practical design, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City, Mo.
Transportation Research Board. (2000). Highway capacity manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2010 ASCE.
History
Received: Sep 4, 2008
Accepted: Jul 29, 2009
Published online: Jul 31, 2009
Published in print: Apr 2010
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.