Road Work-Design Standards

8/8/2019 Road Work-Design Standards

1/16

Road construction and sprawlare related issues that havegenerated controversy inClallam County, Washington, andnationally. When constructing orreconstructing* roads, conventionalengineering practice requires the useof a set of automobile-centered designstandards. The focus of these stan-dards is to move the maximum num-ber of motorized vehicles through thesystem as rapidly as possible. They

ignore the effects of automobile trafficon surrounding environment andneighborhoods.

After decades of this approach with itsattendant costs and destructiveness toneighborhoods, communities aroundthe state and nation are changingtheir road design process. With theencouragement of new federal trans-portation policies, many communitiesare questioning the old speed-focused

design standards. People want projectsthat enhance their neighborhoods.They want safe multi-modal*transportation. Some states haveabandoned the conventional designstandards altogether in favor of moreflexible standards.

New thinking is necessary toprotect neighborhoods andcommunities from the dangersof t raffi c.

Design StandardsDecember 2000

Review and Recommendations for Rural RoaClallam County, Washington

INTRODUCTION

* Terms identified in the text by an asterisk are defined in the Glossary on page 14.


2/16

After a number of contentious pub-lic hearings about proposed roadreconstruction projects, the

Clallam County Board of Commis-sioners passed a resolution on August10, 1999 appointing citizen membersto the Clallam County Rural RoadsDesign Standards Advisory Commit-tee and charged it with two tasks:

Task 1. Formulate recommendationsfor appropriate levels of communityinvolvement during road project

development.Task 2. Formulate recommendationsfor design standards used in road con-struction and reconstruction in ruralareas.

After 15 months reviewing the rele-vant topics (see Appendix A ),thecommittee unanimously submitted itsfindings and recommendations (see back page) to the commissioners. Our

recommendations relate primarily tomajor and minor rural collectors in theSequim/Port Angeles area. The com-mittee is not concerned here withmajor arterials such as Route 101 orthe Old Olympic Highway.

We believe the controversy sur-rounding recent road reconstructionprojects reflects and i s directl ycaused by an unintentional but fun-damental inconsistency in theClal lam County CountywideComprehensive Plan. The designstandards and performance standardsadopted in the transportation sectionof the plan are incompatible with thepolicies of the land use section.

The results of this unintentionalinconsistency are road projects thatare out of character with the neigh-borhoods they pass through andwhich undermine our stated com-munity planning policies. For thisreason many proposed reconstruc-tion projects have been met with

opposition from local residents.

Rural character conservation andrural neighborhood preservationare the central policies of thecomprehensive plan. AlthoughSection 31.01.400 of the plan requiresinternal consistency and states thetransportation element must be consis-tent with the land use element, it hasleft in place the old, sprawl-promotingtransportation design and performance

standards. These are the same designand performance standards that haveserved the sprawling traffic dominateddevelopment in King, Snohomish,Pierce and Kitsap Counties. Whilethe comprehensive plan is essentiallyan anti-sprawl document, it neglects

to consider that sprawl is not justremote low-density development,but also the automobile-centeredtransportat ion system thatserves it .

Reflecting this automobile-centereddesign approach, the currently adopt-

ed road design (Washington statecity/county and AASHTO) and per-formance (level of service) standards,are concerned primarily with systemperformance issues such as safelymaintaining automobile traffic speedand accommodating future automobiletraffic volumes. The standards majorgoal is to: Provide operational effi- ciency, safety, comfort, and convenience for the motorist. 1

In pursuit of this goal the standardswiden, flatten, and straighten ruralroads to: Accommodate speeding

(85th percentile design speed o ). Accommodate impaired driving

(design driver o ).

ROAD 2

1 A Policy on G eometric D esign of H ighways and Streets,American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1994, p. xlivo See the box titled Design Controls on page 4 for definitions.

The vision statement and land usepolicies of the comprehensiveplan, reflecting local citizens con-cerns, state the following majorgoals: Preserve rural character. Enhance rural neighborhood

safety and quality of life. Reduce sprawl.

The results of current roadstandards include: More asphalt, increased traffic

speed and noise. Degraded rural character and

quality of life. Decreased rural neighborhood

safety for non-motorists. Increased development pres-

sure in rural areas (sprawl).

The Conflict Between Comprehensive Plan Policiesand Current Road Standards

OVERVIEW


3/16

Accommodate estimated trafficvolumes 20 years in the future(remote design year o ).

Eliminate roadway variations thatgive local character.

These design goals are more appropri-ate for a highway or freeway wheremobility is the overriding concern.They are not appropriate for neighbor-hoods where residents want to retainrural character and improve pedestriansafety. As rural roads are recon-

structed to bring them up to theWashington state city/county stan-dards, they change from narrow, wind-ing country lanes to wide, straight,flat, faster motorways that resemblehighways.

In seeking to provide the ultimate incomfort and convenience for the

motorist, these design standards com-pletely fail to consider or acknowledgetheir effect on the rural character,rural neighborhoods, and rural lifestylethat form the heart of the comprehen-sive plan. This automobile-centeredapproach is especially destructiveto rural neighborhoods where localtravel patterns are characterized pri-marily by non-motorized use of theroadways. Children on foot or bicycleare imperiled by the faster traffic onimproved roads. We believe that

while commuter bicyclists can useshoulders, especially when they aremarked as bicycle lanes, shoulders arenot comfortable or safe places to walk,especially for children. Shoulders aredesigned as an automobile breakdownspace. They are used by pedestriansonly because they have nowhere elseto walk. The proximity to high speed

traffic makes shoulders uncomfortableand unsafe places to be. The commit-tee prefers a separate path oraccess for these users.

The most important considerati onin designing a safe, multi-modalfacility is the speed of the automo-bile tr affic. All users, motorized and

non-motorized, have increased safetywhen motorized vehicle speeds arereduced. We believe the best way todecrease speeds and the detrimentaleffects of traffic is to retain the existingfeatures of rural roads that tend toslow traffic speeds. These features,including narrow traffic lanes andcurves, are the same features that giveour rural roads their charm and ruralcharacter.

The following sections provide a morein-depth review of the issues sur-rounding road reconstruction inClallam County and elsewhere. Thisreports audience is the average citi-zen, but we also hope it is thoughtprovoking for professional plannersand transportation officials. The com-mittee believes an informed public willprovide guidance to elected officialsregarding transportation planning.

The committee believes theunacknowledged price forrural character preservationand intact rural neighbor-hoods is slower traffic speed.Sacrificing driver comfort

and convenience may benecessary in some instancesto preserve the integrity andsafety of rural neighborhoodsas well as rural character.

ROAD 3

OVERVIEW

Washington State City/ County Standards

And Turn It Into This:

Which is Comparable to:

34 Feet of Asphalt

34 Feet of Asphalt

18 Feet of Asphalt

(Existing)

(Improved)

Take This:

(Highway 101)


4/16

In Clallam County, roads must bedesigned to the Washington statecity/county standards or the

AASHTO standards from which theyare derived. The bible of conventionalroad design is titled A Policy on Geometric Design of H ighways and Streets published by The AmericanAssociation of State Highway andTransportation Officials (AASHTO)and also known as the green book.The Green Book states that the speedselected for design should fit the travelhabits and desires of nearly allmotorists. 2 It tends to ignore entirelyor consider only secondarily otherimportant functions of the road corri-dor such as safe access for children,bicyclists, pedestrians and other poten-tial users such as equestrians.

Commonly, roads are programmed forreconstruction (widening and straight-ening) because of capacity concerns.

Even where no demonstrated safetyproblem exists the road may be said tobe deficient in its performance becauseof current or estimated future trafficvolumes. Roads are graded (see box to the left) on their ability to achieve agood level of service. However, lev-els of service, while defined broadly,are really just a proxy for speed. Theconcept of level of service is defined asa qualitative measure describing opera-tional conditions within a traffic

stream, and their perception bymotorists or passengers. A level-of-service definition generally describesthese conditions in terms of such fac-tors as speed and travel time, freedomto maneuver, traffic interruptions,comfort and convenience, and safety. 3

A road may be given a poor gradebased on this narrowly defined per-formance for a brief portion of the dayor may even be graded poorly based onprojections rather than reality.

After it has been declared deficient inthis manner, a reconstruction may beproposed. At this point the designstandards become pertinent.

Road design standards regulate thecharacteristics of the roadway such aswidth of driving lanes, width of shoul-ders, steepness of inclines and curva-ture of curves by using an importantset of variables called Design Controls.

ROAD 4

Design Controls

Design vehicle: The largest vehiclethat typically would be expected touse the road.

Design speed: Typically set at thespeed under which 85 out of 100drivers are travelling (85th percentilespeed) regardless of the postedspeed limit. Even where drivers arespeeding, the road will be designed(widened and straightened) toaccommodate them.

Design driver: The 95-99th percentileworst driver on the road.

Design year: Recommended to be atleast 20 years in the future.

Design volume: The peak trafficvolume estimated to occur in thedesignated design year. This may bestated as average daily traffic (ADT),or design hourly volume (DHV).

Design Standards and Other Engineering Considerations

2 A Policy on G eometr ic Design of H ighways and Streets,American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1994, p.643 H ighway Capacity M anual,Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, DC, 1994, p. 1-3

Clallam CountyPerformance Standards

Level of Service DefinitionsLevel of service A: Describes acondition of free flow with low volumesand high speeds. Freedom to selectdesired speeds and to maneuver withinthe traffic stream is extremely high.Stopped delay at intersections isminimal.

Level of service B: Representsreasonably unimpeded traffic flow

operations at average travel speeds.The ability to maneuver within thetraffic stream is only slightly restrictedand stopped delays are notbothersome. Drivers are not generallysubjected to appreciable tensions.

Level of service C: In the range ofstable flow, but speeds and maneuver-ability are more closely controlled bythe higher volumes. The selection ofspeed is now significantly affected byinteractions with others in the trafficstream, and maneuvering within thetraffic stream requires substantial vigi-lance on the part of the user. Thegeneral level of comfort and conven-ience declines noticeably at this level.

At this point the county transporation policy requires a reconstruction.

Level of service D: Represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed andfreedom to maneuver are severelyrestricted, and the driver or pedestrianexperiences a generally poor level ofcomfort and convenience. Smallincreases in traffic flow will generallycause operational problems at thislevel.(See Levels E and F in the Glossary on p. 14.)

Source: Transportation Research Board,Highway Capacity Manual

Special Report 209, Washington, DC


5/16

In thi s manner t odays roads aredesigned for the operat ional effi -ciency (speed), comfort, safety, andconvenience of t he worst driver,

speeding in the largest vehicle, inthe worst traffic 20 years from now.The result of this speed-centeredapproach is a roadway that is wider,straighter, flatter, and faster than theroad it replaced. The standards neverdiscuss nor acknowledge the trade-offsassociated with this approach: Decreased safety for children. Decreased comfort and safety for

people walking or bicycling. Loss of right-of-way space for a

separate trail or path. Loss of neighborhood integrity. Increased noise. Increased traffic. Increased air and water pollution. Increased development (sprawl). Loss of rural character. Decreased property values for

adjoining landowners.

Because conventional road design

standards focus primarily on the roadsthemselves, they treat the surroundinghomes, neighborhoods, and country-side as empty space through whichmotorized vehicles must be transport-ed as rapidly, comfortably, and conve-niently as possible. However, ruralneighborhoods are full of people whoare somewhere rather than goingsomewhere. Rural roads are importantpublic spaces where the residents takea walk, jog, meet their neighbors, and

let their children walk or bike. It isthe front porch values and goals ofrural citizens which the land usepolicies of the comprehensive planarticulates.

ROAD 5

Evaluating a Project in Your Neighborhood

To intelligently evaluate the effects of a proposed road project onyour neighborhood it is important t o know the following details:

What are the specific neighborhood needs or goals that the projectaddresses? Are they based on actual problems or theoreticaldeficiencies? How will the proposed design meet these needs?

Is there an identified safety issue? Is it based on accident data ortheoretical deficiencies? Accident reports are kept on file with thecounty, and should list the important factors (other than road char-acteristics) such as speeding, reckless driving, and intoxication thatfrequently cause or contribute to accidents.

Is speeding already an issue? How will the project affect this?Would lowering traffic speeds address the safety issue without theneed for a reconstruction?

Has a traffic study been done? This will give important informationabout traffic speed and volume.

What is the functional classification of the road? Will the proposedproject change this?

What is the design speed? Is the 85th percentile speed being used?Would decreasing the design speed to the posted limit decrease theimpact of the project?

What is the design volume? Will the project result in increasedtraffic through the neighborhood?

Who are the potential non-motorized users of the roadway? Howwill the project affect their future access and safety?

Are there childrens safety issues associated with the project? How

are they being addressed? What are the neighborhood issues associated with the project?

Should the design speed and width be decreased on this basis alone?

Are there other valuable local character issues (such as ruralcharacter) that are beyond the scope of conventional designapproaches?


6/16

Rural neighborhoods grew uparound the roads that servethem. These roads physicallydefine and are an integral part of theneighborhood itself. The road is asmuch a part of rural character andrural lifestyle as the land use activities.This is why their design is so impor-tant. Nationwide there is an increasing awareness that road design is neighborhood design.

Historically, rural road usage includedchildren on foot and bicycle, horse-back riders, farmers moving agricultur-al equipment from field to field, log-gers taking timber to market, as well asresidents traveling to town in the fam-ily truck or car. These activities definea rural lifestyle even today.

In the past all of these different modesof travel could be accommodatedbecause volumes and traffic speedswere low. However, over the past 30years land use patterns have changed.More people have moved into thecountryside but do not work there.

Motorized vehicle trips have increased

dramatically in numbers and speedand threaten to drive all other usersfrom the roadway. If the integrity ofrural neighborhoods is to be preserved,then the effects of automobile traffic(e.g., speed, noise) must be moderated.

The integrity of rural neighborhoodshas important ramifications for publichealth and safety, local land values,and local economies. High-speedauto traffic represents a neighborhood

public health hazard and creates abarrier to local non-motorized trans-portation activities on which residentsdepend. The committee wants torestore multi-modal function andsafety on county rural roads.

Government agencies make use oflimited public resources (e.g. trans-portation funds, rights-of-way) toserve the public good. In doing so,they must balance competing commu-nity values, within the limits of avail-able resources, to accomplish publiclystated goals and policies.

By increasing vehicle speed from30 MPH to 35 MPH, a driver saves18 seconds per mile. On a three-mile

trip this adds up to less than a minute.Are the trade-offs worth it?

There is more to life than

increasing its speed. M ahatma Ghan

ROAD 6

Compet ingCommunity Values Safety while walking Safety while cycling Safety while driving Childrens safety and

mobility Neighborhood access Noise reduction Water and air pollution

reduction Local character

preservation Historic values Scenic values Property values

Rural Neighborhoods


7/16

Pedestrian and bicyclist

injuries and deaths are a serious public health problem that has largely been ignored in the United States.

M aking Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe,p. 7

I n the U.S. six thousand pedestriansare killed every year; 90,000 areinjured. A pedestrian or bicyclist isinjured every three and one-half min-utes. Sixteen percent of all peoplekilled in motor vehicle accidents arepedestrians or bicyclists. These deathsand injuries are vastly out of propor-tion to the presence of pedestrians andbicyclists on the nations streets androads. Thirty-nine percent of allchildren aged 12 and younger who arekilled in motor vehicle accidents arekilled while walking or riding bicycles.In the United States in 1994, 806 chil-dren were killed and 30,000 injured as

pedestrians. The causes of thesedepressing statistics are rooted in theway we have been designing our roads.It is time for change.

In its report, Washington StatePedestrian Collision Data: 1990-1995, the WSDOT states that a dis-proportionate number of pedestrianfatalities occur on county roads. 4 Thisis because the design of county roadsdoes not take pedestrian safety into

consideration. If we want pedestriansafety we need to consider their needsequally when we design new roads.

Providing decent conditions for pedes-trians and bicyclists is not just a matterof public safety. It is also a matter offairness and civic responsibility. Manyof our citizens cannot drive, because ofage, physical disability, or other rea-sons. These people, and anyone else

who decides to go for a walk, shouldbe able to have reasonably safe condi-tions as they venture out onto theroads that link their homes to those oftheir neighbors and everything else in

ROAD 7

4 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/hlrd/

Public Health and Safety

Take Back Your Streets: H ow to Protect Communities from A sphalt and Traff ic produced by Transportation for Livable Communities, www.tlcnetwork.org


8/16

their community. Bicyclists andpedestrians are also users of the road-way and deserve equal consideration.After all, they are the most vulnerableusers of the facility. And of course inevery neighborhood the safety andmobility of children must be given thehighest priority.

Safety vs. Speed

The most important considerationin designing a safe, multi-modalfacility is the speed of the automo-bile traffic.

By increasing traffic speed, conven-tional road projects may actually fail tomeet the public goals that are said to

justify them. Studies have shown thatregardless of posted speed limits,motorists drive faster when given thecushion of a wider road and greatersight distances. When motorists drivefaster, pedestrian and bicyclistaccidents are more likely and moreserious.

The likelihood that a pedestrian orbicyclist will be hit increases at higherspeeds because a motorists ability to

take in the surrounding environmentbecomes more limited. At a speed of30 miles per hour, motorists have fieldsof vision spanning approximately 150degrees, and will fix their vision about1,000 feet ahead. At 60 miles perhour, motorists fields of vision arereduced by two-thirds to 50 degrees,and motorists will fix their vision at2000 feet. From the point of view ofpedestrian safety, widening a roadwayis counterproductive.

The probability of a pedestrian or bicy-clist being killed is 3.5 percent whenstruck by a vehicle travelling at 15miles per hour, but increases morethan tenfold to 37 percent at 31 milesper hour and increases to 83 percentat 44 miles per hour. Pedestrianinjuries also increase in severity withvehicle speed. As a 1994 study puts it,an injurys severity depends primarilyon the cars speed at impact with thepedestrian. The study ranks injuries

on a scale of one (no injury) to six(fatality), and states that, in general,injury severity is one and one half at20 miles per hour, four at 30 miles perhour, and six at speeds greater than35-40 miles per hour.

Motorists also suffer more seriousinjuries in higher speed accidents.The safety statistics related to roadwidth show that roads with nine foottravel lanes, like many of our oldercounty roads, are safer for drivers thanwider roads. Both fewer accidentsand, more importantly, fewer injuriesoccur on these roads. This is becausedrivers moderate their speeds on nar-rower roads.

When coupled with the pedestrian

safety data these statistics present acompelling argument in favor of ruralroad design that encourages slowerrather than faster automobile speeds.

All users have increased safetywhen motorized vehicle speeds arereduced. The committee believes thebest way to decrease speeds and thedetrimental effects of traffic on ruralroads is to retain their existing featuresthat tend to slow traffic speeds. These

features, including narrower trafficlanes and curves, are the same featuresthat give rural roads their charm andrural character.

ROAD 8

Accident rates for roads by lane width. Injury rates for roads by lane width.

The N ational Cooperative H ighway Research Program, Report # 362


9/16

Rural character conservation isone of the central policies of theClallam County Comprehensive

Plan. Yet nowhere in the plan hasrural character been defined. Basedon the intent of the comprehensiveplan to preserve rural quality of life forlocal residents, the committee believesthe following to be true with regardsto rural character:

The proper perspective for definingrural character is the front porch per-

spective, that is, the perspective ofeach of us from our home environ-ment and neighborhood as we work orsit and enjoy a summer afternoon orgo for a walk with our family. It is notthe perspective of the commuter ortourist. The comprehensive plan intends to preserve rural quality of life and the context of rural neighborhoods from the perspective of local residents.

5 San Juan County Scenic Roads M anual, A Guide for the Protection and Enhancement of O ur Rur al Roads Scenic Q ualities,April 1995,www.co.san-juan.wa.us/publicworks/sr-manual/scenic-road.html

The roads of San Juan County mean much more to our citizens than simply a way to get from one place to another. Our county roads are part of the scenic element and rural character that should be preserved.

San Juan C ounty C ommissioners, M arch 1995

One of San Juan Countys most valuable resources is the scenic quality ofits rural landscape. The attractiveness is derived from a variety of ele-ments which compose its land use pattern. Open fields, wooded uplands,shorelines, farms, villages, and other natural and man-made features pro-vide a visually rich environment for its residents.

An integral scenic element of the rural countryside is the County roadsystem. These by-ways are characterized by narrow roadways withdiverse and contrasting features in close proximity. The characteristicsprovide a unique visual experience when traveling through the rurallandscape. The details of color, texture, and forma are easily recognized.Combined with a sequence of apertures in the roadside canopy, thereexists an intimacy and awareness of the landscape not obtainable onhigher speed roads.

The value of our County roads is found in the unique visual experiencethey offer. The appeal to a large tourist population accounts for a sub-stantial portion of the Countys economy. It is from the County road sys-tem that the majority of visitors view the Islands. These roads furtherdefine the rural character of the islands, many of them beginning as farmto market or farm to dock roads.

Some of San Juan Countys roads have been widened, straightened,paved, or otherwise improved to accommodate increased traffic or safe-ty concerns. Often, these modifications have caused changes to environ-mental features and in turn have degraded the scenic and cultural values

associated with a rural road. Such occurrences usually resulted from aninability to balance safety issues with the scenic qualities inherent to ruralroads. Degradation also occurs because the standards and specificationswhich presently guide these modifications often do not consider the rela-tionship of the rural road to the surrounding features of the landscape.

From San Juan County Scenic Roads M anual

San Juan County has published a scenic roads manual to describe, protect, and enhance their rural roads scenic qualities.5 T he citizens of San Juan C ounty believe these roads are economically valuable, safe, and improve their overall quality of life.

ROAD 9

Rural Character

San Juan County approach to safety.


10/16

Rural character is a scenic land-scape of open spaces, and also is com-posed of the human activities uponthat landscape that define rural life.

Restoring the multi-modal function ofrural roads should be the first priorityof any contemplated improvementproject, giving non-motorized usersequal consideration in rural neighbor-hoods and where otherwise appropri-ate. Drivers passing through rural areas need to be alert and moving slowly enough to react safely to the occasional slowly moving tractor,horseback rider, or group of school children walking from the school bus

stop.

Because rural roads are an integral

part of the rural land-scape and rural neigh-borhoods, their designwill either improve or

degrade rural charac-ter.

Preservation ofrural characterrequires slower, notfaster traffic speeds.On faster roads thecity/county standardscall for clearing a wideswath through thelandscape, removing

trees and other vege-tation, lowering hills,and straightening

ROAD 10

RuralCharacter

NaturalElements

Man-MadeElements

HumanActivities

RiversOpen SpacesMountains

Trees

BarnsFarm Houses

FieldsIrrigation

AnimalsFencesRoads

FarmingLogging

Childrens ActivitiesHorseback Riding

Bike RidingWalking to Neighbors


11/16

ROAD 11

6 Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A recommended approach, a joint statement on integrating bicycling and walking intotransportation infrastructure, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 1999

curves to provide increased stoppingsight distances and clear zones. Wider expanses of asphalt, higher vehicle speeds, and removal of vegetation are the antithesis of rural character.

Rural character has economicvalue for the residents and propertyowners of rural Clallam County.

The NewOld-Fashioned

Country RoadThe highest priority safety problemon many of our county roads isnot the theoretical need for moreroad width and capacity for high-speed automobile traffic 20 years fromnow. It is the crowding of childrenand other vulnerable users (e.g.,pedestrians, bicyclists) into the motor-ized vehicle traffic stream today.Solving this problem while preservingour valuable rural character requiresnew thinking and approaches.

The new old-fashioned country roadis a concept that the committee putsforward as a solution to this problem.The concept seeks to restore safely themulti-modal function of historical

county roads, balancing competingcommunity interests, and preservingour valuable rural character. Weintentionally do not specify cross sec-

tional dimensions, leaving this tofuture project-specific planning teams.These projects could be done withinexisting rights-of-way as a recon-struction using the more flexibleState of Vermont Design Standards.Alternatively they could be done as3-R* projects, side-stepping thestandards issue.

We specify the following designgoals: Reduce automobile speeds to the

posted limit. Provide safe, comfortable access for

children and pedestrians. Provide safe, comfortable access for

bicyclists. Provide safe access for motorists. Preserve or enhance rural

character. Preserve or enhance rural neigh-

borhood quality of life.

New federal transportation policiesencourage a throw out the manualsapproach to project design whichfocuses on neighborhoods and com-munity rather than on commuting.They further recommend that design-ers use an outside-in approach todesigning roads, focusing first on theneeds of children, bicyclists, andpedestrians and then on people driv-ing motorized vehicles. 6

New Old-Fashioned Country Road Concept

R I G H T O F W A Y

Separate trailor path

Paved bike laneand shoulder

Essential FeaturesOf Roads

With Rural Character Safety for all users. Narrow travel lanes with

close roadside features. Curving roads conforming

to natural landscape. Slow traffic speeds.

Paved bike laneand shoulder

DitchExisting Road

New Old-Fashioned Country RoadR I GH T

OF

WA Y

Compare the new old-fashioned road to theconventional improved road in the figure on page


12/16

Road engineers sometimes becomeconcerned that deviation fromthe design standards will bring a

legal judgment of negligence* and lia-bility* against them. They may betempted to be very conservative intheir approach to road design andavoid innovative and creativeapproaches to design problems.

However, there is little reason for con-cern that a well-engineered projectwhich meets well-defined public goals

defined through a well-documentedpublic process would result in a judge-ment of negligence or other wrongdo-ing against a county road department.There is even less reason for countyemployees to fear a personal liability

judgement against them. The countyindemnifies its employees against per-sonal liability except in cases wherethey have acted outside the scope oftheir employment.

Moreover, it is not negligent for a pub-lic official or agent to use professional

judgement in accomplishing statedpublic goals defined by documentedpublic policy. It is proper and neces-sary for them to do so.

In any case, adherence to acceptedstandard practices such as the AASH-TO Green Book guidelines, does notautomatically establish that reasonablecare was exercised. Conversely, devia-tion from the guidelines, through theuse of a design exception, does notautomatically establish negligence.

The best protection (none is perfect)from liability exposure is to documentthe decision-making process(balancing competing community

values) and the design process whichguided project development. Fordesigns which deviate or appear todeviate from standards, the bestdefense is to present persuasive evi-dence that the guidelines were notapplicable to the circumstances of theproject or that the guidelines couldnot be reasonably met. (An economicdefense is not the most effective.) Ifthe justification documented by adesigner completely describes the

physical and environmental factorsthat make the exception for any designnecessary, it is likely that this will belegally persuasive, that the correct pro-cedures were followed, and ultimatelythat the appropriate decision wasmade. In addition, it is helpful tohave statements by other designexperts who concur with the decisionin the documentation. 7

Regarding standards, safe countyroads do not need to be upgradedto current standards that did notexist at the time that they werebuil t solely because standards havechanged. The Green Book statesThe fact that new design values arepresented herein does not imply thatexisting streets and highways areunsafe, nor does it mandate the initia-tion of improvement projects. 8

The Washington state Supreme Court

agrees: Municipalities includingquasi-municipalities such as countiesare not insurers against accidents, norguarantors of the safety of travelers,but they must exercise ordinary care tokeep their public ways in a reasonablysafe condition for persons using suchways in a proper manner and exercis-ing due care for their own safety. 9

ROAD 12

7 Flexibility in H ighway D esign,U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication Number: FHWA-PD-97-062;Ch. 2, p. 40

8 A Policy on G eometr ic D esign of H ighways and Streets,American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,ISBN 1-56051-001-3, p. xliii

9 Bergland v. Spokane Count y, 103 P.2d 355, 4 Wash. 2d 309

Legal Issues


13/16

ROAD 13

Appendix A

The following is a list of publica-tions we reviewed and used asreference or resource materials.

1. Clallam County Countywide Comprehensive Plan,Chapters 31.01,31.02, 31.04 and 31.07

2. A Policy on G eometric D esign of H ighways and Streets,AmericanAssociation of State Highway andTransportation Officials, 1997

3. City and County Design Standards for Construction of U rban and Rural A rterials and C ollectors,Washingtonstate, 1999

4. State of Vermont Design Standards,http://www.aot.state.vt.us/projdev/ standards/statabta.htm

5. M assachusetts H ighway D esign M anual,Chapter 8, Design

Exceptions, 19976. San Juan County Scenic Roads M anual, A Guide for the Protection and Enhancement of Our Rural Roads Scenic Qualities,April 1995,www.co.san-juan.wa.us/publicworks/ sr-manual/scenic-road.html

7. County Road Design Policy, Design Criteria for N ew and Reconstructed Roadways and Bridges with Less than

2500 A DT, Alabama Dept. of Transportation,revised 7/16/97

8. T he N ational Cooperative H ighway Research Program, Report # 362,Roadway Widths for Low-Traffic-Volume Roads, TransportationResearch Board, 1994

9. H ighway Capacity M anual,SpecialReport 209, Transportation ResearchBoard, 1994

10. Case study # 19, Traffic Calming A uto Restricted Zones and O ther Traffic Management Techniques T heir Effects on Bicycling and Pedestrians , U.S. Dept. ofTransportation, Federal HighwayAdministration, January 1994

11. Accommodating Bicycle andPedestrian Travel: A Recommendedapproach, a joint statement onintegrating bicycling and walking intotransportation infrastructure,U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 1999

12. Making Walking and CyclingSafer: Lessons from Europe. AuthorsJohn Pucher and Louis Dijkstra,Transportation Q uarterly,Vol. 54, # 3,Summer 2000

13. International Traffic EngineersTraffic Calming Definition, IT E Journal, July 1997

14. Safety: Accident Exposure,

Accident Analysis, Rural Accidents,Accident Counter-measures, UrbanIntersection Accidents, ResidentialPrecinct Traffic Management, TrafficSigns, Australian Road ResearchBoard, 8/25/86

15. Take Back Your Streets: H ow to Protect Communities from Asphalt anTraffic , Conservation Law Foundation,January 1998

16. Restoring the Rule of Law andRespect for Communities inTransportation, Stephen H.Burrington, New York University,Environmental Law Journal,Vol. 5,# 3, 1996

17. Transportation and Land Use Innovations,Reid Ewing, AmericanPlanning Association, 1997

18. Saving H istoric Roads: Design and policy guidelines,Paul DanielMarriott, Preservation Press, 1998

19. Flexibility in H ighway Design,U.S. Dept. of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration, Publication# FHWA-PD-97-062, 1998

20. Clallam County Pedestrian SafetyRoadshow, Summary Report, 6/22/00

Other Web Site ResourcesSprawl Resources and Datahttp://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/

Narrow Streets Data Basehttp://www.sonic.net/abcaia/narrow.htm

FHWA Pedestrian and Bicycle SafetyResearch Pagehttp://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ pedbike.htm

Smart Growth Networkhttp://www.smartgrowth.org/index2.html


14/16

ROAD 14

Appendix BGlossary

Multi-modalrefers to a roads ability to accommodate differing modes oftransportation such as pedestrian, bicycle, and motorized vehicle.

Road Construction Terms

2-R Resurfacing and restoration

3-R Resurfacing, restoration, andrehabilitation

4-R Resurfacing, restoration,rehabilitation, and reconstruction

New construction New construction is thebuilding of a new roadway or structure onsubstantially new alignment, or the upgrad-ing of an existing roadway or structure by

the addition of one or more continuous traf-fic lanes.

Reconstruction A reconstruction projectinvolves major construction activity inexcess of 3-R activity (see the DesignStandards for 3-R Projects section).Reconstruction includes significant changesin cross section and/or shifts in vertical orhorizontal alignment. If 50 percent or moreof the project length involves significant ver-tical or horizontal alignment changes, theproject will be considered reconstruction.Reconstruction may require acquisition ofadditional right-of-way, and may include allitems or work usually associated with newconstruction.

Resurfacing The addition of a layer or lay-ers of paving material to provide additionalstructural integrity, improved serviceability,and ridability.

Restoration Work performed on pavementor bridge decks to render them suitable forresurfacing. This may include supplement-ing the existing roadway by increasing sur-facing and paving courses to provide struc-tural capability, and widening up to a total of3 meters (10 feet). Restoration will general-ly be performed within the existing right-of-way.

Rehabilitation Similar to restorationexcept the work may include reworking orstrengthening the base subbase, recyclingor reworking existing materials to improvetheir structural integrity, adding underdrains,improving or widening shoulders.Rehabilitation may include acquisition ofadditional right-of-way.

Legal Terms

Liability The responsibility tomake restitution to the injured ordamaged party through anaction or payment determinedby the court. Entities (public orprivate) are held liable for dam-ages when they have beenfound to be negligent and tohave caused harm.

Liability for suit, or liabilityexposure This is based upon

an opinion as to the probabilitythat a tort claim will be made atsome future time. This is not tobe confused with actual liability,that is, an actual judgement ofobligation to pay damagesbecause of negligence.

Negligence A term used torefer to a classification of tort inwhich the injury is not intention-al, but where there was a failureto use due care in the treatmentof others compared to what areasonable man would havedone.

Tort A legal term that refers toa civil wrong that has been com-mitted and which causes injury.

Addit ional Levelsof Service

Level of service E: Representsoperating conditions at or nearthe maximum capacity level.Freedom to maneuver within thetraffic stream is extremely diffi-cult, and it is generally accom-plished by forcing a vehicle orpedestrian to give way toaccommodate such maneuvers.Comfort and convenience levelsare extremely poor, and driver orpedestrian frustration is general-ly high. Operations at this levelare usually unstable, becausesmall increases in flow or minordisturbances within the trafficstream will cause breakdowns.

Level of service F: Describesforced or breakdown flow, wherevolumes are above theoreticalcapacity. This condition existswherever the amount of trafficapproaching a point exceeds theamount which can traverse thepoint. Queues form behind such

locations, and operations withinthe queue are characterized bystop-and-go waves that areextremely unstable. Vehiclesmay progress at reasonablespeeds for several hundred feetor more, then be required tostop in a cyclic fashion.


15/16

ROAD

STUART J. BONNEY,AIA is theowner and principal architect ofOlympic Design Works Inc. P.S.He and his wife Catherine, a lifelong resident, take great interest inlocal preservation issues andmaintaining the rural character ofour unique environment.

KRIS HANSONis a third generationHanson who has lived in the WestEnd and traveled its rural roadsfor 38 years. He is currently raisingtwo boys, ages 4 and 3, with hiswife Lori. For the past 14 years, hehas been teaching at Clallam BaySchools in a variety of settings fromKindergarten to Senior HighSchool. His Interests are workingwith children and being involvedwith community organizations.

BILL HENNESSEYand his wifeKathie are raising three children,ages 5, 9, and 11 in rural ClallamCounty, Washington. Bill has

worked variously as a road crewlaborer, a commercial fisherman, aforest soils and hydrology techni-cian and has been a small businessowner and Family Doctor in PortAngeles for twelve years. He isinterested in public health and safe-ty as they relate to road design.

BOB LAKEhas traveled the worldfor the Air Force and CIA, butchose rural Clallam County for hishome. He lives on Freshwater Bay

with his kayak and family. Bob is afreelance software engineer.

DAVE LE ROUXhas been a residentof Sequim for 15 years. As acurrent and founding memberPeninsula Trails Coalition he has anactive interest in transportationcorridors that are safe for vehicles,pedestrians, and bicyclists.

DON MYERShas 40 yearsexperience in aerospace,electronics, and defense industries.He retired from Northrop GrumanCorporation, B-2 Division where hewas the Project Manager for threesimultaneous technology studies.Don and Dixie Myers reside inrural Clallam County west of PortAngeles.

RON SCHROMEN-WAWRINhastraveled Clallam County roadwaysfor more than two decades. Hepresently lives along a gravel roadin the countryside south of PortAngeles with his family. Ron is self-employed in the constructionindustry.

KATHE SMITHhas lived on theOlympic Peninsula for 18 years.As a bicycle commuter and amember of the Clallam TransitAdvisory Board she has a keeninterest in transportation issues.

RUSS WESTMARKhas 25 yearsexperience in timber saleadministration including timber salepurchasing and appraisal, roadconstruction appraisal andadministration, loggingadministration, and log sales. Russis currently working at Portac Inc.as a log buyer and administeringtimber sales.

PAT WILLITSis a member of the

Clallam County PlanningCommission. She has beenteaching biology for 35 years, at alllevels from elementary schoolthrough elderhostel. Currently sheis teaching classes for PeninsulaCollege in subjects ranging fromForest Ecology to marine birds andraptors to intertidal vertebrates.

JIM WINDERShas 43 yearsexperience in construction atvarious positions. He retired fromSully-Miller Construction Companywhere he was a Division Manager.Mr. and Mrs. Winders reside inrural Clallam County near Sequim.

The Committ ee thanks thefollowing people for their help:County Commissioners:

Carol Boardman, MikeDoherty, Martha Ireland, andSteve Tharinger for authorizingand supporting our work.

Ex-offi cio Commit tee members: Steve Hauff, Andy Meyers,

and Pat Willits for theirprofessional input and advice.

Clall am County staf f: Don McInnes for his

presentations to Committee,consulting, and contentsuggestions.

Jim Rumpeltes and Deb Kellyfor their presentations toCommittee.

Alanna Hollander and LynnFox for their support work, latenights, and technical assistance.

Clall am County cit izen: Kathy Reuter for editing,

design, and layout of thisdocument.

Rural Roads Design Standards Advisory Committee

15


16/16

ROAD 16

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSTask 1. Findings: Because of alack of effective public notificationand absence of a forum for effectivepublic involvement, public hearingsassociated with road reconstructionprojects in Clallam County havebeen unnecessarily contentious.The county has no written proce-dure for notifying and involving citi-zens in the development and designof road improvement projects.

Recommendations: To meetthe Growth Management Act(GMA) goal of effective publicinvolvement as stated in section31.04.155, the committee recom-mends the county adopt the citizeninvolvement process described inour publication Road Work:Citizen Involvement in Rural RoadDesign, Clallam County, Washing-ton. We believe this process,which encourages early and contin-

uous citizen involvement, will elimi-nate much of the discord currentlyexperienced during road projectdevelopment. It is modeled afterthe public process recommended bythe Federal Highway Administra-tion and meets the GMA require-ments for public involvement.

Task 2. Findings: The use of theWashington state city/countystandards on road reconstructionprojects in Clallam County sabo-tages county policies on rural lands,rural neighborhoods, and trans-portation. 10 In doing so these designstandards take the county out ofcompliance with the Growth

Management Act of 1990 (RCW36.70A) and the Planning EnablingAct (RCW 36.70).

The committee believes the bestway to decrease speeds and thedetrimental effect of traffic is toretain the existing features of ourrural roads that tend to slow traffic.These features, including narrowtraffic lanes and curves, are thesame features that give rural roads

their charm and rural character. Webelieve the trade-off for preservingrural character, presently unac-knowledged in the Clallam CountyComprehensive Plan, is reducedspeed for motorized vehicles.

Recommendations: The com-mittee recommends the countycommissioners adopt the more flexi-ble Vermont design standards 11 foruse on rural collectors and local

roads, and consider its use on arteri-al reconstruction projects passingthrough defined rural neighbor-hoods. The Vermont design stan-dards are recognized nationally fortheir flexibility and ability to pre-serve rural character, while provid-ing for safe multi-modal travel.These standards also have beenadopted in rural Massachusetts.

Vermont, a largely rural state, devel-oped its standards specifically togive road designers greater flexibilityto preserve valuable historic, cultur-al, and scenic resources as they plantransportation improvements.Because of their more flexibleapproach to design controls and

cross-sectional elements, theVermont standards can accomplishthe following goals: Reduce motorized vehicle speed. Retain rural character. Improve multi-modal safety. Preserve part of the right-of-way

for a separate pedestrian path.These goals are consistent withcomprehensive plan policies.

Further recommendations:In rural neighborhoods or whereotherwise appropriate we furtherrecommend the county: Make transportation planning

subordinate to community plan-ning.

Abandon the use of the 85thpercentile design speed.

Abandon the use of remotedesign years.

Design roads with safe, comfort-

able multi-modal access as theprimary goal, focusing on theneeds of the most vulnerableusers of the facility (children,pedestrians, and bicyclists) first.(This is the new federal multi-modal transportation policy.)

Rewrite the Clallam CountyComprehensive Plan to changethe performance standardswithin the policies and goals ofthe comprehensive plan, allow-ing a level of service of D whereappropriate to protect ruralneighborhood safety and integri-ty. The Vermont State DesignStandards allow level of serviceD or even E to be judged on acase-by-case basis.

10 Clallam County Countywide Comprehensive Plan, Sections 31.04.230, 31.04.225, 31.04.11511 State of Vermont Design Standards, http://www.aot.state.vt.us/projdev/standards/statabta.htm

Documents

Road Work-Design Standards