1. Rich Crossler-Laird ODOT Roadway Section 2010 ODOT Roadway Conference Urban Design – Break Out Session

2. The Free For All Style of Urban Design

3. 2010 ODOT Roadway Conference Urban Design – Break Out Session Topics Urban Clear Zone vs. Lateral Offset Status of the Roadside Design Guide Update in terms of Urban Clear Zone Summary and Recommendations of Recent Iowa State and OSU Research on Urban Clear Zone/Lateral Offset ADA – PROWAAC Special Report (2007) Roundabouts Klamath Falls Pooled Fund Research Project with Kansas State University, 8 state DOTs, TranSoft Corp.

4. Lateral Offset to Obstruction The lateral offset to obstruction is defined as the distance from the edge of traveled way, shoulder, or other designated point to a vertical roadside element. Examples of these elements are curbs, walls, barriers, bridge piers, sign and signal supports, trees, and utility poles. Lateral offset can be thought of as an operational offset where vertical roadside elements are offset to the extent that they do not affect a driver’s speed or lane position. Adequate clearance from these elements should be provided for mirrors on trucks and buses and for opening curbside doors where on-street parking is provided. The adopted criteria specify a minimum operational offset for all roadway conditions and classifications of 1.5 feet.

5. Lateral Offset to Obstruction Clarification Lateral offset should not be confused with the clear zone Clear Zone - a clear recovery area, free of rigid obstacles and steep slopes, which allows vehicles that have run off the road to safely recover or come to a stop. Lateral Offset - can be thought of as an operational offset, while the clear zone serves primarily as a substantive safety function.

6. Lateral Offset ?

7. If Nothing Else Can Be Done … …Delineate. Minimum Mitigation

8. Status of the Roadside Design Guide Update AASHTO Subcommittee on Design July 19-23 2009 Indianapolis, Indiana AASHTO Subcommittee on Design July 19-23 2009 Indianapolis, Indiana

9. Minimum Lateral Offset vs. Clear Zone Minimum Lateral Offset vs. Clear Zone 9 Update Objectives

10.  Updated RDG chapter for Urban Areas, including guidance on:  clear zone – based on speed & volume – min. 10 ft (?)  lateral offset (4-6 ft)  landscaping (including median applications)  sidewalk placement  slope and ditch cross-sections  sign supports  utility pole placement  traffic signals  mailbox locations, business signs, etc. Update Objectives

11. Urban rights-of-way are often extremely restricted, limiting the applicability of clear-zone practice – even in suburban-to-urban transitions. Urban Chapter Objectives

12. Urban Chapter Landscape Buffer (Planting Strip) Configuration

13. NCHRP Project 22-17 – “Recommended Guidelines for Curbs and Curb-Barrier Combinations” NCHRP 22-19 “Aesthetic Concrete Barrier and Bridge Rail Designs” NCHRP 16-04 “Design Guidelines for Safe and Aesthetic Roadside Treatments in Urban Areas” NCHRP 22-18 “Crashworthy Work Zone Traffic Control Devices” NCHRP 20-7 (196) “Development of a Guide to Crashworthy Bridge Rail Systems” NCHRP 16-04 “Median Intersection Design for Rural High-Speed Divided Highways” Research Studies

14. NCHRP Project 22-17 – “Recommended Guidelines for Curbs and Curb-Barrier Combinations” (Report 537) NCHRP Report 537 http://144.171.11.107/Main/Public/Blurbs/156147.aspxhttp://144.171.11.107/Main/Public/Blurbs/156147.aspx NCHRP 22-19 “Aesthetic Concrete Barrier and Bridge Rail Designs” (Report 554) NCHRP Report 554 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_554.pdfhttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_554.pdf NCHRP 16-04 “Design Guidelines for Safe and Aesthetic Roadside Treatments in Urban Areas” (Report 612, K. Dixon) http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/safe_and_aesthetic_design_of_ur_/resources/safe_design_urban_roadside/ NCHRP 20-7 (196) “Development of a Guide to Crashworthy Bridge Rail Systems” (Railings for Bicyclists) http://cms.transportation.org/sites/design/docs/Bike%20Rail%20Height,%20NCHRP%2020-7(168)%20Final%20Report.pdf Iowa State University “Clear Zone – a Synthesis of Practice and an Evaluation of the Benefits of Meeting the 10 ft. Clear Zone Goal on Urban Streets” http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/reports/clear_zone_report.pdf Research Studies & Related Reports

15. Schedule for Adoption –Final chapter reviews and Technical Committee balloting at September 2009 meeting in Delaware –Ballot to SCOD in Fall 2009 –TCRS to address SCOD ballot comments, Sept 2010 (or sooner) –Ballot to SCOH in Fall 2010 (or sooner) Schedule

16. Current Research Clear Zone – Lateral Offset Iowa State University, Tom Maze: “Clear Zone – a Synthesis of Practice and an Evaluation of the Benefits of Meeting the 10 ft. Clear Zone Goal on Urban Streets” Oregon State University, Karen Dixon: “Design Guidelines for Safe and Aesthetic Roadside Treatments in Urban Areas”

17. Iowa Study – Tom Maze Minimum Setback – Distance to closest object to face of curb in study segment Average Setback – Average distance between face of curb and all fixed objects in study segment 15 th Percentile Setback – Offset distance that 85% of fixed objects are behind Ex. - If 15 th percentile setback is 6’ for a segment with 100 fixed objects, 85 of the 100 are offset greater than 6’ and 15 are less than 6’ from face of curb. Segment Lengths of 15m were used for study purposes

18. Findings from Iowa Study – Tom Maze For a segment, minimum, average, and 15th percentile setback distances do not have a statistically significant relation to fixed object crashes at the 90% confidence interval. Within 45 m of an intersection, roadways were found to have a statistically significant increase in the number of fixed object crashes at the 90% confidence interval. A consistent fixed object offset helps reduce the number of fixed object crashes. A weak relationship was found between the number of fixed object crashes and the posted speed limit on the roadway.

19. Findings from Iowa Study – Tom Maze There is no significant relationship between the density of fixed objects and the number of fixed object crashes. When minimizing the number of fixed object crashes is a primary goal, a 5 ft clear zone is the most effective setback distance. (High linear relationship between setback distance and the number of fixed object crashes within 5 ft of the pavement edge.) When minimizing the cost of mitigating fixed object crashes is a primary goal, a 3 ft clear zone is the most effective setback distance. In the incremental cost analysis, the greatest benefits accrued when the setback distance was increased to 3 ft and to 5 ft from the curb.

20. “Safe and Aesthetic Roadside Treatments in Urban Areas” Dr. Karen Dixon – Oregon State University Michael Liebler Hong Zhu Dr. Michael P. Hunter - Georgia Institute of Technology Berry Mattox OBJECTIVES (1) design guidelines for safe and aesthetic roadside treatments in urban areas and ( 2) a toolbox of effective roadside treatments that (a) balance pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist safety and mobility and (b) accommodate community values. The guidelines will be based on an evaluation of the effects of treatments such as trees, landscaping, and other roadside features on vehicle speed and overall safety. The guidelines will generally focus on arterial and collector-type facilities in urban areas with speed limits between 25-50 mph. NCHRP Report 612

21. Evaluation of Pole, Light Standard & Post Crashes Urban Corridors - Weather Weather Speed Limit Total 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Dry 0 72 152 29 104 19 13 389 Wet 1 18 26 7 22 2 2 78 Ice 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 4 Fog 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 Snow 1 2 1 0 4 1 0 9 Other or Not Stated 1 8 6 2 2 0 0 19 Total 3 102 188 38 135 22 15 503 Karen Dixon – “Safe and Aesthetic Design of Urban Roadside Treatments”

22. Lateral Distance to Objects Hit - All Study Corridors Lateral Dist. (ft.) Speed Limit (mph) TotalPercent Cumulative Percent 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0-1 0 35 71 2 19 1 1 129 25.6 1-2 2 29 44 16 50 13 3 157 31.2 56.8 2-4 0 26 32 2 2 3 97 19.3 76.1 4-6 1 6 23 8 18 1 0 57 11.3 87.4 6-8 0 3 11 1 0 0 26 5.2 92.6 8-10 0 3 4 3 2 4 2 18 3.6 96.2 10-15 0 0 0 3 2 0 6 11 2.2 98.4 15-20 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 8 1.6 100 Total 3102188 38135 22 15 503 100 Karen Dixon – “Safe and Aesthetic Design of Urban Roadside Treatments”

23. Lateral Distance to Objects Hit – Curb Only Corridor Lateral Dist. (ft.) Speed Limit (mph) TotalPercent Cumulative Percent 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0-1 0 35 71 2 19 1 1 129 28.3 1-2 2 29 44 16 50 13 3 157 34.4 62.7 2-4 0 26 27 2 30 2 3 90 19.7 82.5 4-6 1 6 23 2 18 0 0 50 11.0 93.4 6-8 0 3 10 1 9 0 0 23 5.0 98.5 8-10 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 6 1.3 99.8 10-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.2 100 15-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 100 Total 3102176 25126 16 8 456 100 Karen Dixon – “Safe and Aesthetic Design of Urban Roadside Treatments”

24. Merge/Acceleration/Drop/Bus Lane Tapers Objects at End of Merge Lanes or Downstream of Accesses More Frequently Hit

25. Merge/Acceleration/Drop/Bus Lane Tapers Findings: Frequent crashes when object located within 6’ of roadway edge at taper points Crashes more common at taper point even when objects located > 6’ from roadway edge, but in line with lane that is ending Objects hit most often when within 20’ longitudinally of taper point Recommendation: Establish buffer zone around taper that should remain object free

29. Americans With Disabilities Act - aka: ADA US Access Board Access to the Public Way Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee or PROWAAC

30. Americans With Disabilities Act - aka: ADA Curb Ramps Under the ADA, an alteration to a sidewalk or street will give rise to an additional obligation to include curb ramps in the scope of the project. From the Title II regulation: 35.151(e)(2) Curb Ramps. ( 1) Newly constructed or altered streets, roads, and highways must contain curb ramps or other sloped areas at any intersection having curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway. Newly constructed or altered street level pedestrian walkways must contain curb ramps or other sloped areas at intersections to streets, roads, or highways. ADA Title II implementing regulations require that each part of a facility altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public entity after January 26, 1992, be designed and constructed so that the altered parts are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the maximum extent feasible. Maximum Extent Feasible…

31. (c) To the maximum extent feasible. The phrase “to the maximum extent feasible,’’ as used in this section, applies to the occasional case where the nature of an existing facility makes it virtually impossible to comply fully with applicable accessibility standards through a planned alteration. In these circumstances, the alteration shall provide the maximum physical accessibility feasible. Any altered features of the facility that can be made accessible shall be made accessible. If providing accessibility in conformance with this section to individuals with certain disabilities (e.g., those who use wheelchairs) would not be feasible, the facility shall be made accessible to persons with other types of disabilities (e.g., those who use crutches, those who have impaired vision or hearing, or those who have other impairments). Maximum Extent Feasible

32. PROWAAC Special Report Accessible Public Rights-of-Way Planning and Design for Alterations Provides Guidance for Projects in the Public Right-of-Way ITE Website http://www.ite.org/accessible/PROWAAC/ PROWAAC_SpecialReport.pdf US Access Board Website http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/alterations/guide.pdf Downloadable pdf Full Version Downloadable pdf Full Version (With Chapter Links)

33. Common Problems in Alterations That Cause Poor Installation Drainage Level Landing Grade

34. Some Installations are Not Easy, But We Need to Find Reasonable Solutions Before After Ramp Extends Parallel to Make Elevation and Grade

35. Roundabouts What has ODOT Been doing? Tech. Services Compiled Analysis and Report on the Astoria Roundabout Ed Fischer formed a “Roundabout Taskforce” to look at ODOT Roundabout Policy for Revision and Update Re-writing the Roundabout sections of the Highway Design Manual and Traffic Manual to Contain the Same Language and Encourage Equal Analysis When Considering What Intersection Control to Construct Investigating Roundabout Design Elements in Relation to Truck Operation Through Roundabouts Participating in an FHWA, AASHTO, TRB “Pooled-fund Research” project with 7 other state DOTs, Kansas State U. and TranSoft to look at Overweight/Oversize Trucks and Roundabouts Technical Services and Region 4 are Analyzing a Roundabout as the Preferred Option for Intersection Control southeast of Klamath Falls at the Junction of the Klamath-Lakeview Hwy and the Klamath-Malin Hwy

36. Evaluating Design Criteria for Improved Access by Large Vehicles

38. Proposed Roundabout for Klamath Falls

39. Oversize Vehicle Movements

40. Oversize Vehicle Entry Apron Apron Black – Oversize Vehicle Red – WB-67

41. Pooled Fund Research Project with Kansas State U. Oversize/Overweight Trucks in R oundabouts Kansas: 1999 – 433 OS/OW Loads 2007 – 6,402 OS/OW Loads Participants: Kansas State U. – Lead, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, TranSoft Corp. Length – 249 ft. Weight – 681,600 lbs. Kansas Rt. 47 – Feb. 2010

42. Questions?