nchrp research report 876

The objective of this research is to develop a draft 8 th Edition Green Book (GB8) suitable for balloting through AASHTO processes .

STATUS Research in progress. TASKS

Task 1. Hold a kickoff meeting between the research team, NCHRP, and the NCHRP 7-29 project panel to review and discuss the project objectives, tasks, and schedule. The call will also provide a forum for the research team to ask the panel questions and to seek guidance at the beginning of the project

Task 2. Review materials from past and ongoing projects that could provide content or considerations for the GB8. These resources will provide important background to the white paper prepared in Task 3 and to activities throughout the project.  

Task 3. Develop a white paper on the purpose of the GB8 and how it is intended to be used by planners, designers, other transportation professionals, and agency policy makers. Unlike previous editions of the Green Book , which focused on the dimensional criteria for geometric design, the GB8 will focus on a flexible geometric design process that fits within an agency’s project development process and incorporates, to the maximum extent possible within the current state of knowledge, explicit consideration of quantitative performance measures.  

Task 4. Draft the GB8 Author’s Guide that promotes consistency among authors by providing a clear, concise, and prescriptive description of the intent, formatting, organization, and the “look and feel” of individual GB8 elements.

Task 5. Develop an Annotated Outline for the GB8 . The annotated outline will be consistent with the objectives presented in the Task 3 white paper. Specifically, the annotated outline should address how GB8 should be applied to:

·          Identification of challenges posed by the project (e.g., state of good repair, safety, mobility, resilience, equity, and public health), as defined in the project purpose and need statement.

·          Selection of appropriate performance measures given the facility’s context and role within the transportation network.

·          Approaches to trading off among these performance measures and other considerations (including their use in design-build projects).

·          Documentation of design decisions.  

Task 6. Develop Work Plans for Phase II, namely:

·          A document management plan for development, review, and revision of GB8 content.

·          A review plan that provides for organized review of the GB8 content by the project panel and the AASHTO TCGD.

·          A communication and outreach plan for interacting with and seeking input from other AASHTO committees and outside groups concerning GB8 content and the relationship of GB8 to the publications and policies of those groups.

Task 7. Prepare and submit the Interim Report p resenting the results of Tasks 2 through 6. Meet with the NCHRP and the NCHRP 07-29 panel to review the report.

Task 8. Develop and submit the First Draft of the GB8 by drafting individual parts and chapters. These portions of the GB8 will be submitted on a staggered schedule and reviewed as separate pieces.

Task 9. Develop and submit the Second Draft of GB8 . The second draft will be comprehensive and reviewed as such.

Task 10. Prepare and submit the other final deliverables, namely:

• Final report that documents the entire research effort and includes an executive summary outlining the research results. The report will document the basis of all Green Book design criteria and identify those criteria that are based solely on past practices and professional judgment. Draft research needs statements, to confirm or update those criteria and their effects on the performance of the facility, will be included. The report will also recommend approaches for establishing and maintaining coherence among AASHTO documents related to the Green Book and potential ramifications of the GB8 content on common approaches to performance measurement and analysis, including data implementation, for all travel modes.
• Implementation Plan
• Presentation Materials
• NCHRP Report 785: Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
• NCHRP Report 839: A Performance-Based Highway Geometric Design Process
• NCHRP Report 855: An Expanded Functional Classification System for Highways and Streets
• NCHRP Report 876: Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects
• NCHRP Report 880: Design Guide for Low-Speed Multimodal Roadways
• Direction on Flexibility in Design Standards [AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways Resolution, May 25, 2016]
• A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7 th Edition [AASHTO, 2018]
• Guidelines for Geometric Design of Low-Volume Roads [AASHTO, 2019]
• Planning for a Comprehensive Update and Restructuring of AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets [NCHRP Project 20-07/Task 423]
• Fully address the issues raised in th e AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways (SCOH) resolution of 2016 “ Direction on Flexibility in Design Standards,”
• More fully develop the consideration of all transportation modes and the importance of project context to decisions,
• Change in emphasis from green field construction to projects on existing alignment, and
• Incorporate performance-based design using modern analysis tools to find effective solutions to actual problems.
• Addresses the issues cited in the SCOH resolution of 2016, namely the increase in non-motorized traffic and severe crashes nationwide.
• Presents an approach and thought process of designing in and for a multi-modal transportation system.
• Recognizes that public works profoundly affect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens and accepts the charge to improve the public’s quality of life as an overarching objective.
• Fully integrates the thought process of performance-based design into all aspects of project development and design decision-making.
• Takes to heart the inherent fiscal limitations of the industry and advocates for a financially sustainable design process at both the program and project levels.
• Utilizes context as the primary organizing basis of road and street design—and thereby of this design guidance.
• Champions a flexible design approach as the only way to harmonize user needs and functional performance with environmental, contextual, and community considerations.
• Appreciates the merit of predictability and uniformity across the roadway system—and, with that, the need to balance flexibility with consistency.
• Acknowledges the changed nature of our industry, specifically the movement from new construction to the reconstruction and preservation of the existing system.
• Makes progress toward realizing a primary recommendation of NCHRP Report 839, that dimensional design criteria have known and proven research, empirical, or experiential bases.
• Maintains the prominence of the fundamentals of facility design, especially the traditions of engineering care and craftsmanship.

• View Record

TRID the TRIS and ITRD database

Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation Projects

NCHRP Report 876, Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects, presents a rational approach for estimating the cost-effectiveness of including safety and operational improvements in a resurfacing, restoration, or rehabilitation (3R) project. The approach uses the performance of the existing road in estimating the benefits and cost-effectiveness of proposed design improvements. These guidelines are intended to replace TRB Special Report 214, Designing Safer Roads: Practices for Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation. The guidelines are accompanied by two spreadsheet tools, one for analyzing a single design alternative and one for comparing several alternatives or combinations of alternatives (available at the link above). Prior to 1976, federal highway funds could only be used for the construction of new highways or the reconstruction of existing highways. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 allowed the use of federal aid for resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (3R) projects on federal-aid highways. However, in 1976 there were no standards for 3R improvements. Transportation agencies relied on standards for new or reconstructed roadways in the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (the “Green Book”), and where the proposed geometric elements did not meet the AASHTO guidelines on a 3R project, design exceptions or exemptions had to be sought. In response to a provision in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, the Secretary of Transportation requested the National Academy of Sciences (now the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) to study the cost-effectiveness of geometric design standards and recommend minimum standards for 3R projects on existing federal-aid highways, except freeways. The purpose of 3R standards was two-fold: (1) to identify minimum standards for selective geometric elements for which 3R funding could be used to maintain existing highways in an effort to extend their service life and (2) to provide transportation agencies with the ability to make cost-effective improvements to existing highways for selective geometric elements to enhance safety and reduce crashes. The result of this study was TRB Special Report 214: Designing Safer Roads: Practices for Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation published in 1987. Since 1987, values for many of the design elements within the AASHTO Green Book have been revised, including FHWA’s designated 13 controlling criteria, and the cost of construction has changed. Incremental geometric design improvements in 3R projects can be cost effective and have significant payoffs in safety and operational benefits. Furthermore, with the publication of the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual and other recent publications, additional knowledge is available regarding the relationship of geometric elements to the frequency and severity of crashes. In NCHRP Project 15-50, MRIGlobal reviewed the literature and state of the practice for designing 3R projects. They also reviewed the latest research on the safety impacts of design improvements and developed cost-benefit analysis equations for the most common design improvements applied to 3R projects. This was supported by the development of spreadsheet tools for evaluating alternative designs. The final research results reflect the experience of 6 state departments of transportation in applying the draft design guidelines and supporting materials. This occurred under NCHRP Project 15-50(01), “Implementation Assessment of 3R Design Guidelines.”

• Record URL: http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3418
• Published as NCHRP Report 876.
• Status: Completed
• Funding: $680000

Project 15-50

National Cooperative Highway Research Program

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Federal Highway Administration

Harwood, Douglas

• Start Date: 20130703
• Expected Completion Date: 20170309
• Actual Completion Date: 20170309

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Alternatives analysis ; Cost effectiveness ; Guidelines ; Highway design ; Rehabilitation ; Resurfacing
• Subject Areas: Design; Highways; Maintenance and Preservation;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 01776729
• Record Type: Research project
• Source Agency: Transportation Research Board
• Contract Numbers: Project 15-50
• Files: TRB, RIP
• Created Date: Jul 19 2021 10:28PM

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government.

• Legal Status

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Proposed Rule

Design standards for highways.

A Proposed Rule by the Federal Highway Administration on 11/24/2020

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register .

Document Statistics

Enhanced content.

Relevant information about this document from Regulations.gov provides additional context. This information is not part of the official Federal Register document.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, electronic access and filing, background and legal authority, discussion under 1 cfr part 51, section-by-section discussion of the proposed changes to 23 cfr part 625, rulemaking analyses and notices, executive order 12866 (regulatory planning and review), executive order 13563 (improving regulation and regulatory review), and dot regulatory policies and procedures, executive order 13771 (reducing regulation and controlling regulatory costs), regulatory flexibility act, unfunded mandates reform act of 1995, executive order 13132 (federalism assessment), executive order 12372 (intergovernmental review), paperwork reduction act, national environmental policy act, executive order 13175 (tribal consultation), regulation identifier number, list of subjects in 23 cfr part 625, part 625—design standards for highways, enhanced content - submit public comment.

• This feature is not available for this document.

Enhanced Content - Read Public Comments

18 comments have been received at regulations.gov, across 1 docket.

Agencies review all submissions and may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof). Submitted comments may not be available to be read until the agency has approved them.

Enhanced Content - Sharing

• Email this document to a friend

Enhanced Content - Document Print View

• Print this document

Enhanced Content - Document Tools

These tools are designed to help you understand the official document better and aid in comparing the online edition to the print edition.

These markup elements allow the user to see how the document follows the Document Drafting Handbook that agencies use to create their documents. These can be useful for better understanding how a document is structured but are not part of the published document itself.

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:.

• JSON: Normalized attributes and metadata
• XML: Original full text XML
• MODS: Government Publishing Office metadata

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

Official Content

• View printed version (PDF)

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 11/23/2020 at 8:45 am. It was viewed 44 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

FHWA requests comments on a proposed revision to the design standards and standard specifications applicable to new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the National Highway System (NHS). The proposed rule would allow States to undertake resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (RRR) projects on freeways, including Interstate highways. The proposed rule would incorporate by reference the latest versions of design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference, and would remove the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications.

Comments must be received on or before December 24, 2020. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

• Fax : 1-202-493-2251;
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or
• Electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket name, and docket number (FHWA-2017-001) or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking (2125-AF88). Note that all comments received will be posted without change to: http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided.

Ms. Elizabeth Hilton, Office of Preconstruction, Construction and Pavements (HICP-10), (202) 924-8618, or via email at [email protected] , or Mr. Lev Gabrilovich, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-3813, or via email at [email protected] . Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

This document may be viewed online under the docket number noted above through the Federal eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov . Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. Please follow the online instructions.

An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at: http://www.archives.gov/​federal-register and the Government Publishing Office's website at: http://www.gpo.gov/​fdsys . In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c) , FHWA solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. FHWA posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov , as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be viewed at: www.dot.gov/​privacy .

Physical access to the docket is available at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20950, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 315 and under the authority delegated to FHWA in 49 CFR 1.85 , FHWA proposes to modify its regulations governing design standards for new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the NHS (including the Interstate System). This rulemaking is not expressly required by statute. However, this rulemaking is necessary to implement provisions of 23 U.S.C. 109 regarding design standards and criteria.

State departments of transportation (State DOTs) are tasked with preserving the safety and usability of a vast network of existing highways. FHWA's existing design standards require State DOTs to meet new construction standards on freeway RRR projects, unless a design exception is approved. Recent national research has provided a better understanding of the relationship between geometric design features and crash frequency and severity. Therefore, to improve the efficiency of developing RRR projects on existing freeways, FHWA proposes to allow State DOTs to adopt procedures or design criteria, as approved by FHWA, that would enable the State to undertake RRR projects on freeways, including Interstate highways, without utilizing design exceptions. FHWA also proposes to incorporate by reference updated versions of design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625.4 , and to remove the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications.

Several of these design standards and standard specifications were established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the American Welding Society (AWS) and were previously adopted by FHWA through rulemaking. ( 83 FR 54876 ; November 1, 2018). AASHTO is an organization that represents 52 State highway and transportation agencies (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico). Its members consist of the duly constituted heads and other chief officials of those agencies. The Secretary of Transportation is an ex-officio member, and DOT staff participates in various AASHTO activities as nonvoting representatives. Among other functions, AASHTO develops and issues standards, specifications, policies, guides, and related materials for use by the States for highway projects. FHWA has historically incorporated many AASHTO standards, policies, and standard specifications in 23 CFR part 625 . AWS is a nonprofit organization known for its code and certification procedures, providing industry standards for welding, including in the transportation field. AWS reports about 66,000 members worldwide and develops updated materials for welding professionals and other interested parties, including those related to bridge welding and structural welding.

The new standards or specifications replace previous versions of these standards or specifications and represent the most recent refinements that professional organizations have formally accepted. After review of the various standards and specifications, FHWA proposes to adopt them for NHS projects.

The proposed revisions include adopting the 2018 edition of the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design Highways and Streets (Green Book); the 2016 second printing of the AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code—Steel; the 2018 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications; the 2019 and 2020 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals; and the 2019 and 2020 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. FHWA proposes to delete the incorporation by reference of the 2018 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2015-AMD1, Bridge Welding Code and the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. Each of these standards is discussed in more detail below.

These proposed standards and specifications apply to all projects on the NHS (including the Interstate System). FHWA also encourages the use of flexibility and a context-sensitive approach to consider a full range of project and user needs and the impacts to the community and natural and human environment. These proposed design standards provide a range of acceptable values for highway features, allowing for flexibility that best suits the desires of the community while satisfying the purpose for the project and needs of its users.

State DOTs and local agencies should select design values based on factors including the context of the facility, needs of all the various project users, safety, mobility ( i.e., traffic performance), human and natural environmental impacts, and project costs. For most situations, there is sufficient flexibility within the range of acceptable values to achieve a balanced design. However, when this is not possible, a design exception may be appropriate. Since 1985, FHWA has designated the criteria that have the most impact on roadway safety and operations as “controlling criteria.” ( 81 FR 27187 ; May 5, 2016). State and local agencies may consider designs that deviate from the design standards when warranted based on the conditions, context, and consequences of the proposed projects. FHWA encourages State DOTs and local agencies to document design decisionmaking, particularly when standards cannot be met. Additional information on FHWA's adopted design standards and design exceptions is available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/​design/​standards . Start Printed Page 74936

The documents that FHWA proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties, primarily State DOTs and local agencies carrying out Federal-aid highway projects. These documents represent the most recent refinements that professional organizations have formally accepted and are currently in use by the transportation industry. The documents are also available for review at FHWA Headquarters or may be obtained from AASHTO or AWS. The specific standards are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this preamble.

FHWA proposes to revise 23 CFR 625.2(b) , 625.3(a)(1) , and 625.4(a)(3) to allow States to adopt procedures or design criteria, as approved by FHWA, that would enable the State to undertake RRR work on all NHS roadways without utilizing design exceptions. Under 23 U.S.C. 109(a) , the Secretary must ensure proposed highway projects are designed and constructed in accordance with criteria best suited to serve adequately the existing and planned future traffic of the highway in a manner that is conducive to safety, durability, and economy of maintenance. More than 20 years ago, FHWA had opined that the application of standards other than those for new construction or reconstruction projects on freeway facilities might compromise safety and was not considered appropriate. ( 62 FR 15392 ; April 1, 1997). Since that time, national research has provided a better understanding of the relationship between geometric design features and crash frequency and severity. Much of this information is presented in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual ( www.highwaysafetymanual.org ), which incorporates the findings of extensive research on various roadway types and issues. As a result, the practice of roadway design is changing to a more performance-based, flexible approach, particularly for RRR projects. This performance-based approach has been advanced under several research projects conducted by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) as documented in NCHRP Report 839: A Performance-Based Highway Geometric Design Process ( http://www.trb.org/​Publications/​Blurbs/​175375.aspx ), NCHRP Report 785: Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets ( http://www.trb.org/​Publications/​Blurbs/​171431.aspx ), and NCHRP Report 876: Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects ( http://www.trb.org/​Main/​Blurbs/​177914.aspx ). Rather than focusing solely on meeting dimensional design criteria, RRR projects can be developed based on project-specific conditions and existing and expected future roadway performance. State DOTs operating under constrained budgets can make the best use of limited resources by developing RRR projects on all classes of roadways, including freeways, to maximize the safety and operational benefit of the overall transportation network.

In § 625.3(a)(1), FHWA proposes revisions necessary to update the regulation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 109(c)(1) , as amended by section 1404(a) of the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Revisions include changing these factors from optional to mandatory consideration, and the addition of a new factor to consider—the cost savings that can be achieved by utilizing flexibility that exists in current design guidance and regulations.

FHWA proposes new paragraph (a)(3) to add to the regulation a long-standing exception to the Interstate design standards for Alaska and Puerto Rico, found in 23 U.S.C. 103(c)(1)(B)(ii) .

FHWA proposes new paragraph (a)(4) to incorporate the provisions of FAST Act section 1404(b) that allow, if certain conditions are met, a local jurisdiction that is a direct recipient of Federal funds to design a project using a roadway design publication that is different from the roadway design publication used by the State in which the local jurisdiction resides. One of the statutory requirements is that the roadway design publication must be recognized by FHWA. For the purpose of implementing section 1404(b), the design publications that FHWA currently recognizes are those listed in either the FHWA Memorandum dated August 20, 2013, regarding Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility (available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/​environment/​bicycle_​pedestrian/​guidance/​design_​flexibility.cfm ) or the related Questions and Answers (Q&As) (available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/​environment/​bicycle_​pedestrian/​guidance/​design_​flexibility_​qa.cfm ).

In 23 CFR 625.3(f) , FHWA proposes to establish, in paragraph (f)(2), as redesignated, a programmatic exception for the limited purpose of allowing States to use a more recent edition of a standard or specification adopted in § 625.4(d). This change will remove an administrative barrier to utilization of most recent refinements that professional organizations have formally accepted. FHWA intends to retain approval for such a programmatic exception at the appropriate Headquarters program office to ensure that the agency is satisfied that interim implementation of a new edition is in the public interest. In addition, FHWA proposes to revise § 625.3(f)(1)(i), as redesignated, to clarify that the provisions governing project exceptions only apply to projects on the NHS because States may develop their own standards for projects not on the NHS under § 625.3(a)(2) and 23 U.S.C. 109(o) .

In § 625.4, FHWA proposes to incorporate by reference the updated versions of design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference, and to remove the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications. In addition, FHWA proposes to delete two previously adopted specifications and add one new specification.

In § 625.4(a)(1), FHWA proposes to remove the edition and date from the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design Highways and Streets because the edition and date are more properly included in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.

In § 625.4(a)(3), FHWA proposes to focus on statewide procedures and design criteria because under risk-based stewardship and oversight, design plans for individual RRR projects are typically delegated to the State. In addition, FHWA proposes to clarify that, if a State does not adopt design procedures or criteria for RRR projects as approved by FHWA, the standards listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) shall apply. This change is consistent with current practice.

In § 625.4(b)(7), FHWA proposes to insert “AASHTO” in front of the name of the two documents incorporated by reference for clarity.

In § 625.4(b)(9) and (d)(2)(ii), FHWA proposes to incorporate a new reference to the AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code—Steel because many projects require welding of miscellaneous metal components for items such as light poles, sign supports, and railings. FHWA adopts minimum design standards to ensure the safety of the transportation infrastructure by ensuring all fabrication and manufacturing processes are performed to an acceptable standard. For instance, the AASHTO/AWS D1.5/D1.5M Bridge Welding Code is a minimum standard to ensure all steel bridges are welded to a standard that covers welding Start Printed Page 74937 consumables, welding procedure requirements, qualification requirements, personal requirements, inspection and acceptance criteria. However, numerous transportation products are not covered by the Bridge Welding Code including light poles, high mast towers, sign structures, guard rail systems, and even pedestrian bridges. Because these other product types are not covered by the Bridge Welding Code, and because they are in or over the right-of-way, they should be fabricated or manufactured to a minimum design standard, and FHWA proposes the AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code-Steel. The Structural Welding Code-Steel provides many similar requirements in the Bridge Welding Code but is applicable to the other product types not covered specifically by the Bridge Welding Code.

In § 625.4(c)(2) and (d)(1)(x), FHWA proposes to delete the reference to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing (described as “Transportation Materials” in the existing text). This AASHTO publication covers a broad range of material specifications and testing procedures. While these standards represent effective, nationally recognized practices, adherence to these standards is not mandatory in all circumstances. Removal of these standards from the incorporation by reference is meant to clarify that use of these standards is not a mandatory requirement as a design standard for highways covered in this part. Some of these material specifications and testing procedures remain individually incorporated by reference in other parts of this title.

In § 625.4(d)(1)(i), FHWA proposes to adopt the 2018 edition of the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design Highways and Streets (Green Book), replacing the 2011 edition. The Green Book provides geometric design guidance based on established practices that are supplemented by recent research. The 2018 edition of the Green Book incorporates the latest research and current industry practices, and is primarily applicable to new construction and reconstruction projects. It emphasizes the need to utilize a flexible design approach to balance the needs of all users and modes of travel. It expands project context categories from two to five—adding rural town, suburban, and urban core to the previous contexts of urban and rural. It incorporates a performance-based approach for considering the effects of geometric design decisions. It better describes the various types of projects—new construction, reconstruction, and projects on existing roads where the basic road type is unchanged—and provides design flexibility for each project type. This third project type is similar to what has historically been referred to as RRR projects. FHWA continues to use the term RRR in this part to be consistent with language in title 23 of the U.S. Code. Although AASHTO does not define the phrase “change in basic road type,” FHWA generally interprets this phrase to include projects that change the general geometric character of a highway, such as widening to provide additional through motor vehicle lanes, widening to add a raised or depressed median where none currently exists, and projects that substantially modify horizontal or vertical alignments. Road changes that are accomplished with no, or only minimal, widening, such as lane reconfigurations (road diets), adding turn lanes, adding channelizing islands, or adding median curbs for access management are not considered a “change in the basic road type.” In addition, for the purposes of determining geometric design criteria when applying the 2018 Green Book, full-depth pavement replacement projects that retain existing geometrics are not considered a “change in the basic road type.” Under a performance-based design approach, the scope of geometric improvements for projects on existing roads that retain the existing basic road type should be driven by past safety and operational performance and predicted future performance. Consistent with 23 U.S.C. 109(n) , RRR projects must preserve and extend the service life of the existing road and enhance highway safety.

In § 625.4(d)(1)(vi), FHWA proposes to add the 2018 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Movable Highway Bridge Design Specifications. These standards are applicable to the design of bridge spans, mechanical systems (motors, hydraulics, etc.), electrical systems, and bridge protection systems for movable highway bridges. Changes in the 2018 Interim Revisions reflect the latest research, developments, and specifications promulgated by AASHTO and includes important updates to the provisions for the mechanical and structural design requirements for span lock devices.

In § 625.4(d)(1)(vii)(A), FHWA proposes to delete the 2018 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2015-AMD1, Bridge Welding Code. This interim revision was provided by AASHTO to owners and fabricators for informational purposes only to alert them to proposed revisions to the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5:2015 Bridge Welding Code. AASHTO will not officially revise the Bridge Welding Code until they have gone through the complete AWS consensus review and approval process and final changes are incorporated into the next published edition of the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5 Bridge Welding Code. FHWA proposes to allow the use of the interim revisions, but not to adopt them as a minimum design standard.

In § 625.4(d)(1)(viii), FHWA proposes to add the 2019 and 2020 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. In § 625.4(d)(1)(ix), FHWA proposes to add the 2019 and 2020 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. These standards are applicable to the structural design of supports for highway signs, luminaires, and traffic signals. They are intended to serve as a standard and guide for the design, fabrication, and erection of these types of supports. Changes in the 2019 and 2020 Interim Revisions to both publications reflect the latest research, developments, and specifications promulgated by AASHTO and address items such as providing updated dimensional and detailing requirements for certain support connections to control fatigue and providing updated requirements on the testing of welds in certain connections.

Use of the updated standards will be required for all NHS projects authorized to proceed with design activities on or after 1 year following the effective date of the final rule, unless an extension is granted for unique or extenuating circumstances.

All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FHWA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons may be interested in continuing to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period and after FHWA has Start Printed Page 74938 had the opportunity to review the comments submitted.

FHWA has determined preliminarily that this action does not constitute a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 or within the meaning of DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. This action complies with E.O.s 12866, 13563, and 13771 to improve regulation. The proposed amendments would allow the development of RRR procedures or design criteria for projects on freeways and update several industry design standards and standard specifications adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625 and would remove the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications.

After evaluating the costs and benefits of these proposed amendments, FHWA does not have the data to quantify anticipated cost savings but anticipates that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. Based on project data captured in FHWA's Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS) from October 2014 to September 2018, an average of 2,379 Interstate and freeway projects (totaling $86 billion) on the NHS were authorized for construction each year. Of those projects, an average of 261 projects per year were coded by the States as being reconstruction projects with no added capacity (FMIS Improvement Code 04) and 424 projects per year were coded as being restoration and rehabilitation projects (FMIS Improvement Code 06). Under this proposal, we estimate that all projects in both categories, an average of 685 projects (totaling $18.5 billion) per year, would be eligible to be designed to State-specific RRR standards, rather than to new construction standards as currently required. However, existing regulations allow for States to seek design exceptions when the standards cannot be met. FHWA recognizes that, on many existing freeways, it is often not possible to widen the roadway and flatten curves to meet new construction standards due to context-specific considerations. Absent existing or anticipated safety or operational problems, FHWA expects that State DOTs generally pursue design exceptions to make the best use of limited resources.

FHWA does not have data to determine how many of the 685 projects per year do not meet the new construction standard through the implementation of design exceptions, nor does FHWA have data to demonstrate how many hours State DOTs spend developing design exception requests on freeway projects undertaken to perform RRR-type work (FMIS Improvement Codes 04 and 06). FHWA requests that State DOTs provide comments to the docket if they have any data that would be relevant to this analysis. Specifically, FHWA seeks data on (1) the percentage of RRR-type freeway projects developed by State DOTs that utilized a design exception because the project could not meet a new construction standard, (2) the average number of employee hours spent developing, reviewing, and approving each design exception, (3) the average hourly compensation of employees involved with these design exception activities, (4) reasons for requesting exceptions (operational, safety, resource constraint, innovation, etc.), and (5) cost savings associated with the proposed design exception.

Most State DOTs already have staff dedicated to developing RRR standards for non-freeway projects, and any additional staff time needed to develop RRR standards for freeways is anticipated to be minimal. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program recently released a pre-publication version of Research Report 876 entitled “Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects,” which provides guidance and assistance to States for developing these standards. See http://www.trb.org/​NCHRP/​Blurbs/​177914.aspx . Under this proposal, the resulting design of the freeway project is anticipated to be the same, but FHWA expects that net cost savings will be realized by allowing the States to develop their own standards and eliminate the need for many design exceptions.

FHWA does not anticipate any cost or safety impacts due to removing the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing and the 2018 Interim Revisions to the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2015-AMD1, Bridge Welding Code from the list of standards incorporated by reference. Nor does FHWA anticipate any cost or safety impacts due to incorporating by reference the AWS D1.1/D1.1M: Structural Welding Code—Steel, as most States are already using this standard for the welding of miscellaneous structural steel items. FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of updating several industry design standards and standard specifications adopted and incorporated by reference would be minimal. These updated standards and specifications represent the most recent refinements that professional organizations have formally accepted and are widely used for projects off the NHS.

For these reasons, FHWA finds that the expected economic benefits of the proposed rule will outweigh the estimated costs of the proposed rule. The proposed changes are not anticipated to adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. FHWA anticipates that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not necessary.

This proposed rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because it is not significant under E.O. 12866 .

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354; 5 U.S.C. 601-612 ), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule on small entities, such as local governments and businesses. Based on the evaluation, FHWA anticipates that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed amendments would update several industry design standards and standard specifications adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625 . FHWA believes the projected impact upon small entities that utilize Federal-aid highway program funding for the development of highway improvement projects on the NHS would be negligible. Therefore, FHWA certifies that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

FHWA has determined that this NPRM would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( Pub. L. 104-4 , March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). The actions proposed in this NPRM would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million or more in any 1 year (when adjusted for inflation) in 2014 dollars for either State, local, and Tribal Start Printed Page 74939 governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. FHWA will publish a final analysis, including its response to public comments, when it publishes a final rule. In addition, the definition of “Federal Mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or Tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility.

FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 . FHWA has determined that this action would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. This E.O. applies because State and local governments would be directly affected by the proposed regulation, which is a condition on Federal highway funding. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, for further information.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) ( 44 U.S.C. 3501 , et seq. ), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. FHWA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ( 42 U.S.C. 4321 , et seq. ) and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the human and natural environment because it only would make technical changes and incorporate by reference the latest versions of design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625 and would remove the corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and specifications. The proposed rule qualifies as a categorical exclusion to NEPA under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20) .

FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13175 , and believes that it would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and would not preempt Tribal law. This proposed rule would not impose any direct compliance requirements on Indian Tribal governments nor would it have any economic or other impacts on the viability of Indian Tribes. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.

A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

• Design standards
• Grant programs—transportation
• Highways and roads
• Incorporation by reference

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.85 .

Nicole R. Nason,

Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR part 625 as follows:

1. Revise the authority citation for part 625 to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103 , 109 , 315 , and 402 ; Sec. 1073 of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2012; Sec. 1404 of Pub. L. 114-94 , 129 Stat. 1312; 49 CFR 1.85 .

2. Amend § 625.2 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) to read as follows:

(b) Resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (RRR) projects shall be constructed in accordance with standards that preserve and extend the service life of highways and enhance highway safety. * * *

3. Amend § 625.3 by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and (a)(1)(ii) and (iii);

b. Adding paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (a)(3) and (4); and

c. Revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (2).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

(1) Design and construction standards for new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, or rehabilitation of a highway on the NHS shall be those approved by the Secretary in cooperation with the State DOTs. These standards must consider, in addition to the criteria described in § 625.2(a), the following:

(ii) The environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and preservation impacts of the activity;

(iii) Cost savings by utilizing flexibility that exists in current design guidance and regulations; and

(iv) Access for other modes of transportation.

(3) Interstate highways located in Alaska and Puerto Rico shall be designed in accordance with such geometric and construction standards as are adequate for current and probable future traffic demands and the needs of the locality of the highway.

(4) A State may allow a local jurisdiction to design a project using a roadway design publication that is different from the roadway design publication used by the State in which the local jurisdiction resides if—

(i) The local jurisdiction is a direct recipient of Federal funds for the project;

(ii) The roadway design publication is adopted by the local jurisdiction and recognized by FHWA;

(iii) The design complies with all applicable Federal laws and regulations; and

(iv) The project is located on a roadway that is owned by the local jurisdiction and is not part of the Interstate system.

(1) Project exception. (i) Approval within the delegated authority provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A may be given on a project basis to designs on Start Printed Page 74940 the NHS which do not conform to the minimum criteria as set forth in the standards, policies, and standard specifications for:

(A) Experimental features on projects; and

(B) Projects where conditions warrant that exceptions be made.

(ii) The determination to approve a project design that does not conform to the minimum criteria is to be made only after due consideration is given to all project conditions such as maximum service and safety benefits for the dollar invested, compatibility with adjacent sections of roadway and the probable time before reconstruction of the section due to increased traffic demands or changed conditions.

(2) Programmatic exception. Approval within the delegated authority provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A may be given, on a programmatic basis, a more recent edition of any standard or specification incorporated by reference under § 625.4(d).

4. Amend § 625.4 by;

a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) and (b)(7);

b. Adding paragraph (b)(9);

c. Removing paragraph (c)(2) and redesignating paragraph (c)(3) as paragraph (c)(2);

d. Revising the last sentence in the paragraph (d) introductory text and paragraph (d)(1)(i);

e. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(vi)(E) and (F) and adding paragraph (d)(1)(vi)(G);

f. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(vii);

g. Revising paragraph (viii)(A) and adding paragraphs (d)(1)(viii)(B) and (C);

h. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ix)(A) and (B) and adding paragraphs (d)(1)(ix)(C) and (D);

i. Removing paragraph (d)(1)(x); and

j. Redesignating paragraph (d)(2)(i) as paragraph (d)(2)(ii), and adding new paragraph (d)(2)(i).

(1) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO (paragraph (d) of this section).

(3) The geometric design standards for resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (RRR) projects on NHS highways shall be the procedures or the design criteria established for individual projects, groups of projects, or all RRR projects in a State, and as approved by FHWA. The RRR design standards shall reflect the consideration of the traffic, safety, economic, physical, community, and environmental needs of the projects. If a State does not adopt design procedures or criteria for RRR projects as approved by FHWA, the standards listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section shall apply.

(7) AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, (paragraph (d) of this section); or AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals (paragraph (d) of this section).

(9) AWS D1.1/D1.1M Structural Welding Code—Steel (paragraph (d) of this section).

(d) * * * For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email [email protected] or go to www.archives.gov/​federal-register/​cfr/​ibr-locations.html .

(i) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, 2018.

(E) Interim Revisions, 2014,

(F) Interim Revisions, 2015, and

(G) Interim Revisions, 2018.

(vii) AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: 2015-AMD1, Bridge Welding Code, Amendment: Second Printing December 12, 2016.

(viii) * * *

(A) AASHTO LTS-6-I1, 2015 Interim Revisions to Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, copyright 2014,

(B) AASHTO LTS-6-I2-OL, 2019 Interim Revisions to Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, copyright 2018, and

(C) AASHTO LTS-6-I3-OL, 2020 Interim Revisions to Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, copyright 2019.

(A) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I1-OL, 2017 Interim Revisions to LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, copyright 2016,

(B) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I2-OL, 2018 Interim Revisions to LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, copyright 2017,

(C) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I3-OL, 2019 Interim Revisions to LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, copyright 2018, and

(D) AASHTO LRFDLTS-1-I4-OL, 2020 Interim Revisions to LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, copyright 2019.

(i) D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code—Steel, Second printing, copyright 2016, and

[ FR Doc. 2020-25679 Filed 11-23-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information

An official website of the United States government Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCHRP Research Report 783: Evaluation of the 13 Controlling Criteria for Geometric Design

Publication information.

This report describes the impact of the controlling roadway design criteria on safety and operations for urban and rural roads. In 1985, the FHWA designated 13 specific design elements as controlling criteria for roadway design. The 13 controlling criteria are (1) design speed, (2) lane width, (3) shoulder width, (4) bridge width, (5) structural capacity, (6) horizontal alignment, (7) vertical alignment, (8) grade, (9) stopping sight distance, (10) cross slope, (11) superelevation, (12) vertical clearance, and (13) horizontal clearance. Federally assisted highway construction and reconstruction projects must meet the established design criteria for these elements, or a formal design exception must be prepared and approved. Different procedures apply to rehabilitation projects, but these design elements are still key considerations in design. Since their designation, the 13 controlling criteria and their application have not been reconsidered as new knowledge has been gained about the relationships between geometric design elements and safety and operations.

In this research project, the research team investigated what is known about the safety and operational effects of the 13 controlling and other important geometric design criteria. Several small studies were done to augment the information found in the literature. This information was used to assess the sensitivity of safety and operations to design decisions for these criteria for different types of roads. The research also addressed how to reduce confusion related to the definitions of the controlling criteria. The use of the controlling criteria in design exception processes was also explored, including through interviews with state department of transportation (DOT) personnel. This report will be useful to geometric designers and those responsible for reviewing designs, particularly in agencies that are transitioning away from “standards-based design.”

Developing Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects (2021)

Chapter: chapter 8. spreadsheet tools to perform benefit cost analysis for 3r improvement alternatives.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

94 Chapter 8. Spreadsheet Tools to Perform Benefit–cost Analysis for 3R Improvement Alternatives Two spreadsheet tools for benefit–cost analysis in support of 3R project design decisions have been developed in the current research and are discussed in this chapter. These include a tool for analysis of a single design alternative (Spreadsheet Tool 1) and a tool for comparison of several design alternatives (Spreadsheet Tool 2). Each of these tools is discussed below. 8.1 Spreadsheet Tool 1—Benefit–cost Analysis for a Single Design Alternative Spreadsheet Tool 1 is a spreadsheet-based benefit–cost analysis tool that can be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of specific improvement alternatives for implementation in conjunction with a 3R project. The tool helps users in making the decision as to whether the 3R project should consist of pavement resurfacing only or should also include geometric design improvements. Tool 1 is used to assess one improvement alternative (or combination of alternatives) at a time. Tool 1 can be applied as part of the planning process for 3R projects. If a specific project site has no observed crash patterns or no traffic operational needs that would justify a design improvement, then geometric design improvements are suggested for implementation as part of a 3R project only if it is anticipated that such improvements would be cost-effective. Tool 1 provides a capability to assess any particular improvement alternative (or combination of alternatives) to determine if it is anticipated to be cost-effective. Tool 1 addresses candidate 3R projects on rural two-lane highways, rural four-lane undivided and divided highways (nonfreeways), and rural and urban freeways. The tool does not address 3R projects on urban and suburban arterials (nonfreeways). Examples of the application of Tool 1 and a detailed user’s guide for Tool 1 are presented in accompanying 3R design guidelines (9). The input data to Tool 1 include a description of the existing roadway conditions and selection by the user of the improvement(s) to be assessed. The tool considers a single set of AADT, terrain, and cross-section geometrics for the roadway between intersections within the candidate project being assessed. Variations in cross-section geometrics at intersections or on intersection approaches do not need to be considered in using the tool. Where there are minor variations in AADT on the project or in cross-section geometrics on the roadway between intersections within the project, the average AADT and the most common cross-section geometrics should be used as input to the tool. Thus, the tool can be applied even where the cross section throughout the project is not entirely homogeneous. Where there are major changes in cross-section geometrics on the roadway between intersections (e.g., half the project has 6-ft paved shoulders and half has 2-ft unpaved shoulders), the user can break the project into separate sections and analyze each

95 section separately. Breaking the project into separate sections for analysis is only appropriate where the differences in cross-section geometrics are substantial. Tool 1 includes logic to estimate the implementation cost of the improvement alternatives evaluated. The project costs are estimated from default values of unit construction costs that are built into the tool. The user has the option to change these default unit costs to match their agency’s experience or to replace the project cost estimated by the tool with the agency’s own site-specific estimate. The user also has the option, for any given analysis, to include the cost of right-of-way acquisition in the project implementation cost estimate. Right-of-way costs can also be based on default values built into the tool, user-specific unit costs for right-of-way, or site- specific cost estimates made by the agency. The safety performance of the roadway being analyzed and the safety benefits of improvement alternatives estimated in Tool 1 are based on the crash prediction procedures presented in Part C of the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM) including HSM Chapters 10, 11, and 18 (6,7). The tool analyzes roadway segment (i.e., nonintersection) crashes only. The HSM crash prediction procedures are applied first to predict the crash frequencies by severity level for the existing roadway based on safety performance functions (SPFs), crash modification factors (CMFs), and local calibration factors (if available). The crash reduction effectiveness of improvements is based on the CMFs presented in Chapter 5 of this report. The user has the option to replace the default SPFs from the HSM with their own agency-specific SPFs for all roadway types other than freeways. The local calibration factor is set equal to 1.0 by default, but may be replaced by the user with an agency-specific value. The user has the option to provide site-specific crash history data and apply the Empirical Bayes (EB) method for converting predicted crash frequencies to expected crash frequencies, using the procedures presented in the Appendix to HSM Part C. Crash costs by severity level are set by default to values built into the tool, but may be replaced by the user with agency-specific values. The user of Tool 1 has the option to select which improvement alternative (or combination of alternatives) will be considered in the benefit–cost analysis. The improvement alternatives that may be considered include:  Lane widening  Shoulder widening (outside shoulder only on two-lane and four-lane nonfreeways; both outside and inside shoulders on freeways)  Shoulder paving (nonfreeways only)  Roadside slope flattening (two-lane and four-lane nonfreeways only)  Centerline rumble strips (undivided highways only)  Shoulder rumble strips (outside shoulder only on undivided roads; both outside and inside shoulders on divided nonfreeways and freeways)  Enhanced striping/delineation (nonfreeways only)  Add or modify median barrier (freeways only)  Add or modify roadside barrier (freeways only)  Add passing lane(s) (rural two-lane highways only)  Improve/restore curve superelevation (nonfreeways only)

96 The results provided by Tool 1 for the analysis of any improvement alternative (or combination of alternatives) include:  Project implementation cost ($)  Annual safety benefit ($)  Present value of safety benefit ($)  Benefit–cost ratio (benefit divided by cost)  Net benefit (benefit minus cost) ($)  Fatal and injury (FI) crashes per year in before period  Property-damage-only (PDO) crashes per year in before period  FI crashes per year in after period  PDO crashes per year after period  FI crashes per year reduced by project  PDO crashes per year reduced by project Tool 1 has been developed entirely in Microsoft Excel worksheets without any supplementary Visual Basic programming. This should make Tool 1 easily implementable on computers with nearly any operating system and nearly any version of Microsoft Excel. By contrast, Tool 2, presented in Appendix B, has also been developed in Microsoft Excel but incorporates supplementary programming in Visual Basic; therefore, macros must be enabled on the user’s computer for Tool 2 to function. 8.2 Spreadsheet Tool 2—Benefit–cost Analysis for Comparison of Several Design Alternatives Spreadsheet Tool 2 is a spreadsheet-based benefit–cost analysis tool that can be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of specific improvement alternatives for implementation in conjunction with a 3R project. The tool helps users in making the decision as to whether the 3R project should consist of pavement resurfacing only or should also include geometric design improvements. Tool 2 has the capability to assess multiple improvement alternatives as a part of a single analysis and identify the most cost-effective alternative (or combination of alternatives). By contrast, Tool 1 considers only one alternative (or combination of alternatives) at a time. Tool 2 can be applied as part of the planning process for 3R projects. If a specific project site has no observed crash patterns or no traffic operational needs that would justify a design improvement, then geometric design improvements are suggested for implementation as part of a 3R project only if it is anticipated that such improvements would be cost-effective based on the anticipated crash reduction. Tool 2 provides a capability to assess all feasible improvement alternatives (or combinations of alternatives) for a given set of improvement types (see below). Like Tool 1, Tool 2 addresses candidate 3R projects on rural two-lane highways, rural four-lane undivided and divided highways (nonfreeways), and rural and urban freeways. The tool does not address 3R projects on urban and suburban arterials (nonfreeways). An example of the application of Tool 2 and a detailed user’s guide for Tool 2 are presented in the accompanying 3R design guidelines (9).

97 The input data for Tool 2 include a description of the existing roadway conditions and selection by the user of the improvement(s) to be assessed. The roadway characteristics input data for Tool 2 are essentially identical to the roadway characteristics input data for Tool 1. The tool considers a single set of AADT, terrain, and cross-section geometrics for the roadway between intersections within the candidate project being assessed. Variations in cross-section geometrics at intersections or on intersection approaches do not need to be considered in using the tool. Where there are minor variations in AADT on the project or in cross-section geometrics on the roadway between intersections within the project, the average AADT and the most common cross-section geometric features should be used as inputs to the tool. Thus, the tool can be applied even where the cross section throughout the project is not entirely homogeneous. Where there are major changes in cross-section geometrics on the roadway between intersections (e.g., half the project has 6-ft paved shoulders and half has 2-ft unpaved shoulders), the user can break the project into separate sections and analyze each section separately. Breaking the project into separate sections for analysis is only appropriate where the differences in cross-section geometrics are substantial. Tool 2 includes logic to estimate the implementation cost of the improvement alternatives evaluated; the cost estimation logic in Tool 2 is essentially equivalent to the cost estimation logic in Tool 1. The project costs are estimated from default values of unit construction costs that are built into the tool. The user has the option to change these default unit costs to match their agency’s experience. The user also has the option, for any given analysis, to include the cost of right-of-way acquisition in the project implementation cost estimate. Right-of-way costs can also be based on default values built into the tool or user-specific unit costs for right-of-way. The safety performance of the roadway being analyzed and the safety benefits of improvement alternatives estimated in Tool 2 are based on the crash prediction procedures presented in Part C of the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM) including HSM Chapters 10, 11, and 18 (6,7). The tool analyzes roadway segment (i.e., nonintersection) crashes only. The HSM crash prediction procedures are applied first to predict the crash frequencies by severity level for the existing roadway based on safety performance functions (SPFs), crash modification factors (CMFs), and local calibration factors (if available). The crash reduction effectiveness of improvements is based on the CMFs presented in Chapter 5 of this report. The user has the option to replace the default SPFs from the HSM with their own agency-specific SPFs for all roadway types except freeways. The local calibration factor is set equal to 1.0 by default, but may be replaced by the user with an agency-specific value. The user has the option to provide site-specific crash history data and apply the Empirical Bayes (EB) method for converted predicted crash frequencies to expected crash frequencies, using the procedures presented in the Appendix to HSM Part C (2). Crash costs by severity level are set by default to values built into the tool, but may be replaced by the user with agency-specific values.

98 The user of Tool 2 has the option to select which improvement alternatives (or combinations of alternatives) will be considered in the benefit–cost analysis. The improvement alternatives that may be considered include:  Lane widening  Shoulder widening (outside shoulder only on two-lane and four-lane nonfreeways; both outside and inside shoulders on freeways)  Shoulder paving  Roadside slope flattening (two-lane and four-lane nonfreeways only)  Centerline rumble strips (undivided highways only)  Shoulder rumble strips (outside shoulder only on undivided roads; both outside and inside shoulders on divided nonfreeways and freeways)  Enhanced striping/delineation (nonfreeways only)  Add or modify median barrier (freeways only)  Improve/restore curve superelevation (nonfreeways only) The results provided by Tool 2 for the analysis of any improvement alternative (or combination of alternatives) include:  Project implementation cost ($)  Present value of safety benefit ($)  Benefit–cost ratio (benefit divided by cost)  Net benefit (benefit minus cost) ($) The most cost-effective improvement alternative (or combination of alternatives) identified by Tool 2 is the alternative (or combination of alternatives) with the highest net benefit whose implementation cost is within the highway agency’s available budget. Because of its greater complexity, Tool 2 has most, but not all, of the capabilities of Tool 1 for allowing the user to change default values. For example, in Tool 2, the SPF coefficients from the HSM cannot be changed. Tool 2 has been developed in Microsoft Excel worksheets with supplementary Visual Basic programming. Therefore, macros must be enabled on the user’s computer for Tool 2 to function.

The aging U.S. highway system, coupled with fiscal constraints, is placing increased pressures on highway agencies to maintain the highway system in a cost-effective manner and is, thus, creating greater needs for 3R projects.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Web-Only Document 244: Developing Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects presents the results of research to develop improved design guidelines for 3R projects. The guidelines were developed to replace the older guidance presented in TRB Special Report 214: Designing Safer Roads: Practices for Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation .

Supplementary to the Document is NCHRP Research Report 876: Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects . Two spreadsheet tools for benefit–cost analysis in support of design decisions for 3R projects also accompany the report. Spreadsheet Tool 1 is a tool for analysis of a single design alternative or combination of alternatives. Spreadsheet Tool 2 is a tool for comparison of several design alternatives or combinations of alternatives.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• E-NEWSLETTER

NCHRP Project 20-05

Synthesis of information related to highway practices, announcements, nchrp announces new synthesis study topics - seeking panel member nominations.

22 May 2024

Nominations Due by June 30, 2024

NCHRP announces 22 new synthesis study topics selected for next year’s program. The new project numbers, titles, and preliminary scopes of work are available in the New NCHRP Synthesis Studies box below and online at this link .

NCHRP invites you to nominate yourself or other candidates to serve on the expert panels that oversee the technical content of these studies. Nominees should be knowledgeable about the subject matter and willing to serve on a panel that will meet twice in a 10-month period and review materials developed by the principal investigator.

Nominations should be submitted online at the MyTRB portal . You will be asked to log on to MyTRB. If you do not already have an account, you will be asked to quickly create one using your email and a password. Scroll down to synthesis projects beginning with 20-05/Topic 56-01 through 20-05/Topic 56-22.

Before nominating yourself to serve as a panel member, please review our Conflict of Interest Resource Page .

Please submit nominations by June 30, 2024. If you have any questions, please contact Jo Allen Gause at [email protected] .

Contacts to determine an individual’s interest in serving will be made from this office after we have matched available expertise with that required by the nature of the project.

We are grateful for your support of the NCHRP Synthesis Program by providing nominees each year. With the nominees continuing to outnumber the available positions, we have been able to establish panels outstanding in their ability to play a critical role in the accomplishment of successful research. Please know that if your nominee(s) is not selected, there are several factors to be considered when forming well balanced and objective panels. Although expertise is the primary factor, we try to achieve a balance of geographic distribution, gender, and ethnicity of panel members.

Nominate Panel Members

Seeking Principal Investigators for New Synthesis Topics

Due by august 27, 2024.

NCHRP is seeking principal investigators for 22 new synthesis topics. The new project numbers, titles, and preliminary scopes of work are available in the New NCHRP Synthesis Studies box below and online at this link .

To express interest in being a principal investigator for a topic, a two-page Letter of Interest and a resume or CV are required. The Letter of Interest and resume should convey a concise idea of the principal investigator's knowledge and related work experience in the subject area. Synthesis studies document current state department of transportation (DOT) current practice, so state DOT-related work experience should be emphasized. The deadline for submitting Letters of Interest is August 27, 2024 . Panel meetings for the new topics will be held in September and October. During these meetings, scopes of work will be finalized and principal investigators chosen.

Please note the following information for potential principal investigators:

• View a template of our synthesis subaward . There is a modified version of this for state entities . Please note that TRB does not negotiate the terms of these fixed-price contracts.
• TRB Notice to Proceed.
• Draft Work Plan, Report Outline, and Survey Questionnaire - Due 2 weeks after TRB Notice to Proceed.
• Disseminate survey to state departments of transportation – Due 10 weeks after TRB Notice to Proceed.
• First Draft Report- Due 7 months after TRB Notice to Proceed.
• Second Draft Report - Due 9 months after TRB Notice to Proceed.
• Final Report - Due 11 months after TRB Notice to Proceed.
• The principal investigator will participate in a one-hour conference call with panel members at the start of the project and a one-day meeting with the panel to review the first draft report. NCHRP will pay the principal investigator’s travel cost.
• Principal Investigators will be paid $55,000 on a fixed-price basis.
• To propose, please send a single pdf containing a one-to-two page Letter of Interest, a resume providing the principal investigator's qualifications, and a statement that you can comply with the terms of our contract. Note: the statement of compliance should be signed by the contracting entity (e.g., university, company, or an individual sole proprietor). This is the only requirement for expression of interest.

Please submit letters of interest to the Letters of Interest Submission Portal .

For further information on the NCHRP synthesis program and processes, see Information for Principal Investigators Preparing Syntheses .

Letters of Interest Submission Portal

Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers face problems for which information already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem is frequently not brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem.

There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers. Much of it comes from research and much from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information together and making it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, NCHRP Project 20-05, "Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems," searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics.

The NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems.

Learn more about the NCHRP Synthesis Program.

New nchrp synthesis studies, current nchrp synthesis studies, completed nchrp synthesis studies.

Jo Allen Gause

Senior Program Officer, NCHRP Email: [email protected] Phone: 202-334-3826