Safety issues affecting modern highway geometric design of roads in non-built-up areas are discussed. The status of knowledge of Safety Criteria I and II (achieving operating speed consistency and design consistency) for two-lane rural roads is briefly reviewed. Considerations for design consistency are also extended to multiple-lane rural and suburban road design to evaluate good, fair, and poor design levels for these road categories. Utilization ratios (n) for maximum permissible side friction factors are developed for different road categories, topography levels, and maximum and minimum superelevation rates. Relevant minimum radii for curve design are established and compared with present AASHTO values insofar as possible. Safety Criterion III (achieving driving dynamic consistency) is further developed, through which reliable and quantitative ranges between the side friction assumed and the actual friction demand at curved sites could be established. AASHTO's design policy is evaluated on the basis of Criteria II and III. The evaluation showed, for lower design speeds (30, 40, and 50 mph), an unbalanced degree of curve and superelevation rate ranges, which lead to poor design practices from a safety viewpoint. By heeding the three safety criteria and the recommended side-friction utilization ratios, sound alignments can be established for the various design cases in future highway geometric design and redesign and for resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KrammesR. A., BrackettR. Q., ShaferM. A.Horizontal Alignment Design Consistency for Rural Two-Lane Highways. FHWA-RD-94-034, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995.
2.
LammR., ChoueiriE. M., HaywardJ. C., and PaluriA. J.A Possible Design Procedure To Promote Design Consistency in Highway Geometric Design on Two-Lane Rural Roads. In Transportation Research Record 1195, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1988, pp. 111–122.
3.
LammR., ChoueiriE. M., MailaenderT., and PaluriA.A Logical Approach to Geometric Design Consistency of Two-Lane Rural Roads in the U.S.A. Proc., 11th International Road Federation World Meeting, Seoul, Korea, Proceedings Summary, and Vol. II, Seoul, Korea, 1989, pp. 51, 52, 8–11.
4.
LammR., MailaenderT., and ChoueiriE. M.New Ideas for the Design of Two-Lane Rural Roads in the U.S.A. Strassen und Tiefbau [Roads and Construction], Vols. 5 and 6, 1989, pp. 18–25 and pp. 13–18.
5.
SteffenH., LammR., and GuentherA. K.Safety-Examination in Highway Geometric Design by Applying Complex Data-Processing-Systems. Roads and Construction, Vol. 10, 1992, pp. 12, 13.
6.
Guidelines for the Design of Roads. Part: Alignment, Section 1: Elements of the Alignment (RAS-L-1).German Road and Transportation Research Association, Editions 1973, 1984, Proposal 1993.
7.
Swiss Association of Road Specialists (VSS).Highway Design, Fundamentals, Speed as a Design Element, Swiss Norm SN, 640080a/b 1981, 1991.
8.
LammR., PsarianosB., GuentherA. K.Three New Safety Criteria for Modern Highway Design Integrated in a Geographical Information System. Technica Chronika, Scientific Journal of the Technical Chamber of Greece—Section A. Athens, 1994.
9.
LammR., PsarianosB., KontaratosM., and SoilemezoglouG.Recommendations for the Design of Highways. Interim Report. Greek Ministry of Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works, Athens, April 1994.
10.
LammR., ChoueiriE. M., and MailaenderT.Accident Rates on Curves as Influenced by Highway Design Elements—An International Review and an In-Depth Study.Proc., Road Safety in Europe, Gothenburg, Sweden. VTIrapport 344A, Swedish Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoeping, Sweden, 1989, pp. 33–54.
11.
LammR., MailaenderT., SteffenH., and ChoueiriE. M.Safety Evaluation Process for Modern Highway Geometric Design on Two-Lane Rural Roads. Research Report for CTI Engineering and the Ministry of Construction, Tokyo, Japan. Germany 1993.
12.
LammR.Safety Evaluation for Existing and Planned Road Networks and/or Roadway Sections.Technical University of Budapest, Hungary, 1993.
13.
LammR., PsarianosB., GuentherA. K., and SoilemezoglouG.Interrelationships Between Three Safety Criteria, Modern Highway Geometric Design, As Well As High Risk Target Locations and Groups. Presented at Third International Conference on Road Safety and the Environment in the 21st Century, Nov. 1994 Tel Aviv, Israel.
14.
LammR., HaywardJ. C., and CarginG.Comparison of Different Procedures for Evaluating Speed Consistency. In Transportation Research Record 1100, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1986, pp. 10–20.
15.
LammR., ChoueiriE. M., and HaywardJ. C.Tangent as an Independent Design Element. In Transportation Research Record 1195, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1988, pp. 123–131.
16.
LammR., and SmithB. L.Curvilinear Alignment: An Important Issue for More Consistent and Safer Road Characteristic. In Transportation Research Record 1445, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 12–21.
17.
SteierwaldG., and BuckM.Speed Behavior on Two-Lane Rural Roads with Regard to Design, Operational, and Traffic Related Marginal Conditions. Road Construction and Road Traffic Technique, Vol. 621, Germany, 1992.
18.
KanellaidisG., and PsarianosB., Establishment of the Greek Operating Speed Background.Department of Civil Engineering, University of Athens, Greece, 1994.
19.
KakavoutisJ.Relationship between Driving Behaviour and Curvature Change Rate on Multilane Roads.Institute for Highway and Railroad Engineering, University of Karlsruhe, Germany, 1975.
20.
DurthW., and LippoldC.Adjustment of the German Design Guidelines for the Alignment (RAS-L-1, 1984) to Newer Design Guidelines. Research Contract FE- No 6.2.2 191 of the Federal Ministry of Transportation. Department of Road Design and Road Operation, Technical University of Darmstadt, Federal Republic of Germany, 1993.
21.
Institution of Highways and Transportation and Department of Transport. Roads and Traffic in Urban Areas.Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, United Kingdom, 1987.
22.
MasonJ. M., and PetersonJ. C.Survey of States’ RRR Practices and Safety Considerations. In Transportation Research Record 960.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1984.
23.
BrinkmanC. P.Safety Studies Related to RRR Projects. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 108, July 1983.
24.
GlennonJ. C., NeumanT. R., and LeischJ. E.Safety and Operational Considerations for Design of Rural Highway Curves. Report FHWA/RD-86/035. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1985.
25.
LammR.Driving Dynamic Considerations: A Comparison of German and American Friction Coefficients for Highway Design. In Transportation Research Record 960.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1984, pp. 13–20.
26.
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1990.
27.
LammR., ChoueiriE. M., GoyalP. B., and MailaenderT.Design Friction Factors of Different Countries Versus Actual Pavement Friction Inventories. In Transportation Research Record 1260.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 135–146.
28.
National Swedish Road Administration.Standard Specifications for Geometric Design of Rural Roads. Sweden, 1986.
29.
LammR., and HerringH. E.The Side-Friction Factor in Relation to Speed, Strasse und Autobahn [Road and Interstate], Vol. 11, 1970, pp. 435–443.
30.
LammR., ChoueiriE. M., and MailaenderT.Side Friction Demand Versus Side Friction Assumed for Curve Design on Two-Lane Rural Highways. In Transportation Research Record 1303, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp. 11–21.
31.
Commentary to the Guidelines for the Design of Rural Roads, Part: Alignment; Section: Parameters of the Alignment (RAL-L-1, 1973).German Road and Transportation Research Association, 1979.
32.
Beys-KamnarokosG., and DurthW.Comparison of the Guidelines for Highway Design of the Countries of the European Community. Project Road Safety Year, Grant VII-B-336, Commission of the European Community. Directorate General for Transport, Darmstadt, Germany, 1987.
33.
LeischJ. E., and LeischJ. P.New Concepts in Design Speed Application. In Transportation Research Record 631, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1977, pp. 4–14.
34.
LammR.Examination of the Existing Operating Speed Background of the German Guidelines for the Design of Roads. Institute for Highway and Railroad Engineering, University of Karlsruhe.Germany, 1993.
35.
OttesenJ. L., and KrammesR. A.Speed Profile Model for a U.S. Operating Speed-Based Design Consistency Evaluation Procedure. Presented at 73rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1994.
36.
SchochM.Analysis, Development and Evaluation of Theoretical and Practical Side Friction Factors for Highway Geometric Design.Institute for Highway and Railroad Engineering, University of Karlsruhe, Germany, 1994.
