Safety and Aesthetics in Urban Roadway Design

Interdisciplinary Group Meeting Notes

August 29, 2001 9:30 am – 3:30 pm

Lacey Community Center

Attendees: Mike Johnson, Lynn Price, Ken Brown, Roger Horton, John Wynands, Chris Mudgett, Ashley Probart, Don Petersen, Mark Maurer, Ben Bakkenta, Rocky Piro, Elizabeth Robbins, Al King, Dick Albin, Dave McCormick, Nancy Boyd, Paul Harker, Rich Meredith, Susan Kempf, Jim Ellison, Mike Dornfeld, Cliff Mansfield, Jennifer Brown

Welcome/Introductions

Nancy Boyd welcomed the group and observed that while the people in the room represent many different viewpoints, we already have common ground: our interest in Safety and Aesthetics in Urban Roadway Design. Nancy introduced herself, noting that she is from WSDOT’s HQ Design Office’s Safety Research Unit, which is charged with developing and researching design policy and standards, and articulating that guidance via the WSDOT Design Manual and Standard Plans.

Nancy reviewed the agenda and then introduced Cliff Mansfield, who, in his capacity as State Design Engineer, was instrumental in initiating this effort. Cliff welcomed everyone and thanked them for their time and willingness to move forward to address the many issues related to safety and aesthetics in urban roadway design. He related his experiences trying to resolve conflicting expectations arising for the same state highway, and said that Nancy is looking for the group’s assistance in developing and implementing a plan of action to address the many inter-related issues.

Nancy provided a short summary of her background leading up to her current position as Project Manager for Safety and Aesthetics in Urban Roadway Design. She provided some insight into her ‘MO’ for managing this project, which can be lumped into the following components:

1) Understand the issues and who they’re important to

2) Identify near and long-term opportunities to find solutions

3) Determine the best ‘who’ and ‘how’ to implement solutions

4) Start doing it

Above all, Nancy said she would do her best to improve internal and external communications about urban roadway design issues.

History

For those who may have had less involvement in this issue up to this point, Nancy laid out the fundamental issue at hand: conflicting, multiple expectations and demands of urban state highways. She said the problem is not insurmountable, but is important. She posed the question, “What is at stake if we fail?” and suggested the following undesirable effects of not addressing the issues now:

§ Erosion of public service

§ Less than optimal roadway design (including aesthetics)

§ Less than optimal safety conditions

Nancy set the stage for today’s discussions by outlining societal conditions and milestones in highway design in the past fifty years:

Nancy said that today, the bottom line is the condition of “state highway vs. main street”.

Next, she reported the recommendations of a Value Engineering Study on Urban Roadside Treatments from March 2001. Per the recommendations, crash testing has been performed on three types of median designs, and the development of median landscaping option brochures is currently underway. A process for the in-service evaluation of new design concepts proposed by local agencies has also been developed.

Nancy noted that this group, and the effort it supports, was initiated based on the VE team recommendation to develop comprehensive policy guidance for aesthetic urban roadway design.

About the Project

The mission of the project was reviewed:

The Safety and Aesthetics in Urban Roadway Design effort will:

· Perform a comprehensive evaluation of urban roadway design issues (considering the values we have for safety, operations, community and aesthetics, and natural and built environment, jurisdiction, etc.)

· Support the evaluation and development of design policies and standards related to urban roadway design.

This will be accomplished by working with local agencies to determine guidelines and policies that provide functional, safe, and aesthetic transportation facilities that meet local

and state needs.

Nancy described the project’s organizational structure:

· Project Manager

o Nancy Boyd

· Management/Leadership Team

o Membership: Nancy Boyd, Elizabeth Robbins, Al King, Dave McCormick, and Dick Albin

o Purpose of group: Provide a variety of perspectives in order to maximize the effectiveness of project management.

· Interdisciplinary Team

o Membership: OTED, AWC, WSDOT Planning, Traffic, Design, Roadside and Site Development, H&LP, CRAB, County Engineer, FHWA

o Purpose of group: facilitate communication, help articulate priorities, identify potential work elements, identify potential task team members

· Task Teams

o Membership: Determined based on specific task needs

o Purpose of groups: Production teams: task-focused, work-product driven work groups.

Nancy reported on progress to date, which has primarily been in response to urgent needs. This includes starting the work planning and schedule development, and follow-up to the VE team recommendations. Dick Albin showed slides of the median crash tests, which unfortunately did not result in any successful new median designs. Mark Maurer shared a mock-up of the median landscape brochure his group is working on. They hope to have a brochure ready for distribution by mid-October.

Other work accomplished includes a literature search on the topic of curb redirectional capabilities, the development and submittal of two NCHRP research proposals, and a side-by-side spreadsheet comparison of clear zone guidance for various types of facilities in the AASHTO green book and Roadside Design Guide, the WSDOT Design Manual, LAG manual, and others, to demonstrate where opportunities to clarify guidance might be.

Nancy shared her expectations/assumptions going into this meeting:

§ This group is ready to put their thinking caps on, to improve things for real.

§ If the members of this group can’t solve a problem, we can identify someone who can.

§ The actual, underlying problems will be articulated.

§ We can’t solve everything all at once, but things will improve, incrementally, when we work together.

§ We’re here to start generating solutions and preventing problems.

§ That if I, or we (WSDOT) don’t seem to “get it”, you will call us on it.

§ We don’t have to reinvent the wheel, or clone it. If there’s an “old” solution that will work, let’s use it. If there’s another effort separate from this effort that can address an issue, we’ll let them do it.

§ The end result, the vision we’re aiming toward, is better design guidance. Perhaps a chapter, division, or portions thereof in the Design Manual dedicated to urban roadway design, with supporting information in the LAG manual, etc., and non-engineer focused supporting materials.

Task Area/Issue Identification

Nancy introduced Jennifer Brown, from the HQ Design Office’s Design Training group, and mentioned that at the end of the day, at a minimum we need to have at least one or two action items to move forward with.

Jennifer explained that she’s here to help us figure out three things:

1) What do we need to do?

2) What should we do first?

3) How and who should do it?

The group reviewed the draft work plan that Nancy had developed based on the input she’d received up until the meeting. The group then did an open brainstorm to identify issues, tasks, and potential solutions that need attention. Following are the unedited, unprioritized items:

§ Foster better understanding of operational vs. safety tradeoffs

§ Look at jurisdictions in terms of $$ and aesthetics

§ Improve relationships with local communities

§ Develop process for incorporating community in design

§ Facilitate development of training courses

§ Facilitate mutual understanding of issues at all levels

§ Publicize – let people know what is going on

§ Look at today and future right-of-way

§ Effect of design manuals on local (non-state) roadways

§ Coordinate ongoing projects

§ Look at different trees – when ok, when not ok

§ Identify new research areas

§ Propose new research projects

§ Clarify AASHTO changes and meaning

§ Look at speed limits

§ Changing guidance from “35 and under” to “under 35” is a big deal

§ Ask how we meet mission of local jurisdictions

§ Clarify existing design standards

§ Identify gaps and resolve conflicts

§ Implement design policy and standards changes

§ Move forward on existing work efforts

§ Consider operations and maintenance issues

§ Move forward on design/construction already underway (we don’t want to stop work until new policy is developed)

§ Consider ongoing maintenance costs

§ Create a better understanding of jurisdictional roles/responsibilities/overlaps (clarify) (include speed limit reduction)

§ Identify WACs requiring clarification

§ Develop guidance to clarify WACs

§ Pursue WAC changes as appropriate

§ Tort liability

§ Look at urban design standards on streets as a whole (context)

§ Good cost-benefit evaluation – evaluate costs and benefits of safety and aesthetics

§ Speed limits (understand)

§ Functional differences of local roads and highways

§ Identify who makes decisions re: speed limits and what are the impacts on capacity and flow

§ Consider operational and context-environmental characteristics

§ Get info to community/politicians early on. I.e., proactively, put together a handbook for communities (using non-engineering terms) and city council members

§ Explore conflict between operational and leg(?) speed

§ Let’s not reinvent the wheel

§ Explore lane width and shy distance standards in urban areas

§ Acknowledge changed conditions/environment (rural to urban)

§ Discuss managing risk (especially w/ respect to crash test failures)

§ New thinking vs. risk (risk avoidance vs. risk management)

§ Cost to achieve ‘0’ fatal accidents is large – where do we draw the line?

§ Provide guidance to communities to help them shape vision that meets state and local needs – so they don’t feel “trapped”

§ Think about helping community get their voice early on

§ Explore parking standards

§ Think about different median treatments

§ Traffic calming treatments

§ Think about doing a design charette re: medians

§ Look at other benefits of vegetation (besides aesthetics)

§ Look at true differences between left and right side of road

§ Keep area usage in mind

§ Where is the bar (too high?) – where does it belong?

§ Think about utility accommodation

§ Communicate to funding sources about funding aesthetics

§ Urban roadway design considers multiple modes (ped, bike, transit)

§ How to mesh new ways of thinking w/ what we think is coming up (cohesive communities)

§ Design guidance must support flexible concepts

§ Keep in mind relational and functional usage

§ Clarify definition of auxiliary lanes

§ Material usage (pavements, etc.)

§ Look at crosswalks and bulb outs – safety

§ Address/improve transit stop and lane locations

§ Look at BAT lanes on state highways

§ Keep sight of safe sight distance

§ Consider roundabouts and other alternatives and safety implications

§ Keep balance of local jurisdiction and WSDOT

§ Livable communities

§ Limited access vs. non-limited

§ Right side of road/left side of road: cities deal w/ right-of-way to right-of-way, DOT is curb-to-curb

§ Look at in-service examples and past performance

§ Think about other (than trees) fixed objects

§ What happens when DOT and local agencies still disagree – what then? Need to understand effects of going one way or the other

§ Be wary about making decisions without data to back them

§ Look at access management

§ Truck turning movement on state routes

§ Make sure there is a clear distinction between urban and rural design standards issues

§ Look at level of service

§ Gain better understanding of accident data/statistics (i.e. tree) to base decisions on

Task Prioritization

Following the brainstorming session, the brainstorming items were grouped into seven areas (in order of priority:

1) Look at urban design standards as a whole (39 points)

2) Communities (22 points)

3) The effect of design manual on everyone else (14 points)

4) WACS/jurisdictional roles and responsibilities (9 points)

5) Data to make decisions (8)

6) Risk management (8)

7) Operations and maintenance (6)

Nancy will use this information to develop the work plan more fully. She will synthesize the material and send it out to the group in advance of the next meeting.

Tasking Working Groups

The group then prioritized tasks based on their most urgent concerns. The following items were identified to be addressed in the next few months:

1) Urban Clear Zone: Clarify existing guidance/language from WSDOT and AASHTO and address resultant issues. Dick will hold off sending the urban clear zone instructional letter out for review pending a meeting of the task group. It is hoped that task group members might suggest language that would mitigate the effects of the letter for local facilities. Task group members include:

§ Dick Albin (lead)

§ Ken Brown

§ Lynn Price

§ Mike Johnson

§ Al King

§ Jim from AWC

§ Jim Ellison

§ Paul Harker

§ Venky Shankar

§ Nancy Boyd

The task group will try to meet within the next month and will report back to the Interdisciplinary Group in October or before. It was also suggested to obtain data on fixed object injury accidents for 35 mph and below on curbed roadways. The group would also like information on how common the 2-foot clear zone interpretation is.

2) Jurisdictional Roles and Responsibilities: Develop a summary of applicable WACs for review by the AG. Include limited access. Task group members include:

§ Nancy Boyd (lead)

§ Al King

§ Local Programs Engineer (to be named)

§ Ashley Probart

§ Chris Mudgett

§ Mike Dornfeld

The task group will report back to the Interdisciplinary Group at the next meeting.

3) Speed limit reduction: Identify process local agencies and state use to set and/or reduce speed limits. How are impacts determined w/ respect to capacity, etc. Who makes the decision. Mike Dornfeld, Nancy and Rich Meredith will do some staff work and bring it back to the next Interdisciplinary Group meeting.

4) Landscape Design: Mark Maurer will follow up with Shane DeWald to work on the landscape brochure development.

Wrap Up

Nancy reviewed the progress of the meeting and mentioned that we accomplished the meeting objectives. The group agreed that they are willing to continue working on this effort, and that the next meeting should be in the mid-October to mid-November time frame. Nancy will send out meeting notes and other information as it becomes available.