Chapter 1 - Design Philisophy - GDGCR

T!!
~
Transportation Association of Canada
Geometric Design Guide

for Canadian Roads
CHAPTER 1 - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

II II
---
---
--
-
-·,
II l I - -
'
June 2017
T!!~
Geometric Design Guide

for Canadian Roads
CHAPTER 1 - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
June 2017
PTM·GEODES1-E-MAN
DISCLAIMER
This Guide is not intended to be used as a basis for establishing civil liability.
The material presented in this text was carefully researched and presented. However, no
warranty expressed or implied is made on the accuracy of the contents or their extraction
from reference to publications; nor shall the fact of distribution constitute responsibility by
TAC or any researchers or contributors for omissions, errors or possible misrepresentations
that may result from use of interpretation of the material contained herein.
Designers should confirm that the selected design elements are consistent with local
legislation, regulation and by-laws before implementing them.
Copyright 2017 by
2323 St. Laurent Blvd.
Ottawa, ON KlG 4J8
Tel. (613) 736-1350 - Fax (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 978-1-55187-614-6
TAC REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORM
Title and Subtitle
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
Report Date Coordinating Agency and Address ITRD No.
June 2017 Transportation Association of Canada

401-1111 Prince of Wales Dr.
Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2
Author(s) Corporate Affiliation(s) and Address(es)

Michael Chiu, WSP I MMM Group (Project Manager) WSP I MMM Group Limited
Carl Clayton, Stantec Consulting (Co-Project Manager) 100 Commerce Valley Drive West
Geoff Millen, WSPI MMM Group Thornhill, ON L3T OAl
Jim Dowell, WSPIMMM Group
Jeff Ward, WSP I MMM Group Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Dr. John Robinson, Flood Murray 10160 - 112 Street
Dean Cooper, Stantec Consulting Edmonton, AB TSK 2L6
Dr. Alison Smiley, Human Factors North
Tom Smahel, Human Factors North
Gavin Davidson, Alta Planning
Jeff Olson, Alta Planning
Isabelle Groulx (Editor), Stantec Consulting
Senior Review Panel

Dr. John Morrall, Canadian Highways Institute
Gerry Smith, GCS Technology
Dr. R.J. Porter, VHB
Abstract Keywords
The Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads contains the current design and
Planning of Transport
human factors research and practices for roadway geometric design. It replaces the
Infrastructure
1999 edition of the Guide and subsequent revisions. The Guide provides guidance to
Canada
planners and designers in developing design solutions that meet the needs of a range of
Cost Benefit Analysis
users while addressing the context of local conditions and environments. Design
guidelines for freeways, arterials 1 collectors, and local roads, in both urban and rural Design (overall design)
Highway
locations are included as well as guidance for integrated bicycle and pedestrian design.
Layout
The Guide is organized into ten chapters to cover the entire design process from design Policy
philosophy and roadway classification to design parameters and specific guidelines for Risk Assessment
the safe accommodation of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on linear road elements Specifications
and at intersections. The chapters are: Design Philosophy; Design Controls, Textbook
Classification and Consistency; Alignment and Lane Configuration; Cross Section
Elements; Bicycle Integrated Design; Pedestrian Integrated Design; Roadside Design;
Access; Intersections; and Interchanges.
Chapter 1-Design Philosophy provides an introduction to the design objectives, its

evolving approach and the design domain concept utilized throughout the Guide.
Guidance on benefit cost analysis, value engineering and design exceptions is also
provided.
Supplementary Information
Index is available at www.tac-atc.ca
Recommended citation: Chiu, M., Clayton, C., Millen, G. et al. 2017. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads:
Chapter 1-Design Philosophy. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
Geometric Design Guide For Canadian Roads
Chapter 1 Design Philosophy
Acknowledgements
The Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads was developed under supervision of a Project Steering
Committee (PSC) of volunteer members. Their participation and commitment throughout the project is
gratefully acknowledged. The preparation of the Guide was carried out by a consulting team of
practitioners from the WSP IMMM Group and Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) and the consulting team wish to acknowledge the TAC
Geometric Design Standing Committee for initiating and supporting the development of the Guide. A
thank you is also extended to the TAC members who funded this project and who participated on the
PSC. Their efforts in reviewing the document and providing guidance throughout the duration of the
project are greatly appreciated.
TAC gratefully acknowledges the dedication and leadership of the Project Co-Chairs, Mr. Eric
Christiansen and Mr. John Hammer as well as the consulting team. The efforts of TAC staff are also
appreciated.
A substantial portion of this Guide includes the contents adapted from the 1999 Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roods, which was an update to the 1986 Manual of Geometric Design Standards for
Canadian Roads and the 1995 Urban Supplement to the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads.
The efforts of the authors involved in the previous editions of the Guide are acknowledged.
June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
Funding Partners
Transport Canada
Alberta Transportation
British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
Manitoba Infrastructure
New Brunswick Transportation and Infrastructure
Newfoundland and Labrador Transportation and Works
Government of the Northwest Territories
Nova Scotia Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal

Ministry of Transportation Ontario
Prince Edward Island Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy

Ministere des Transports, de la Mobilite durable et de I' Electrification des transports du Quebec
Saskatchewan Highways and Infrastructure
Yukon Department of Highways and Public Works
City of Calgary
City of Edmonton
Halifax Regional Municipality
City of Moncton
Ville de Montreal
City of Ottawa
Region of Peel
City of Saskatoon
City of Toronto
Regional Municipality of Waterloo
City of Winnipeg
Translink
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
ii June 2017
Project Steering Committee

Eric Christiansen, Manitoba Infrastructure (Co-Chair)
John Hammer, Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Co-Chair)
Keith Boddy, Nova Scotia Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal
John Bolger and Olaf Homann, City of Calgary
Robin Casavant and Alexandra Turcza, City of Edmonton
Brian Crist and Terry Bidniak, Yukon Department of Highways and Public Works
David Currie and Larry Purcka, Government of Northwest Territories
Olha Do bush and Gayle Bursey, Region of Peel
Said Easa, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering
Darrell Evans, Prince Edward Island Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy
Sylvain Felton, Ville de Montreal

Margaret Gibbs, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
Rachel Jamieson, Translink
Bill Kenny, Alberta Transportation
Sukhy Kent, Saskatchewan Highways and Infrastructure
Steven Kodama and Stephen Buckley, City of Toronto
David LeBoutillier, City of Saskatoon
Bruno Marquis, Ministere des Transports, de la Mobilite durable et de l'Electrification des

transports du Quebec
Jo-Anne Moore and Anna Valliant, City of Ottawa
John Morrissey, Newfoundland and Labrador Transportation and Works
Michael Pearsall and Joe Bucik (in memoriam), Ministry of Transportation Ontario
Stephanie Roller, Transport Canada
Brian Sorensen, New Brunswick Transportation and Infrastructure
Jeff Spares, Halifax Regional Municipality
Scott Suderman and Neil Myska (in memoriam), City of Winnipeg
Jemay Zheng and Darwin Tyacke, British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
Sandra Majkic, Transportation Association of Canada (Project Manager)
June 2017 iii

Consulting Team
Michael Chiu, WSP I MMM Group (Project Manager)
Carl Clayton, Stantec Consulting (Co-Project Manager)
Geoff Millen, WSP I MMM Group
Jim Dowell, WSP I MMM Group
Jeff Ward, WSPIMMM Group

Dr. John Robinson, Flood Murray
Dean Cooper, Stantec Consulting
Dr. Alison Smiley, Human Factors North
Tom Smahel, Human Factors North
Gavin Davidson, Alta Planning
Jeff Olson, Alta Planning
Isabelle Groulx (Editor), Stantec Consulting
Senior Review Panel:
Dr. John Morrall, Canadian Highways Institute
Gerry Smith, GCS Technology

Dr. R.J. Porter, VHB
iv June 2017
Foreword
BACKGROUND TO THE GUIDE
In 1999 the Transportation Association of Canada released the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian
Roads, which was an update to the previous editions and it included contents from the 1995 Urban
Supplement to the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Since the publication of the 1999
Guide, a number of revisions have been made to the Guide to reflect evolving research findings and
practices.
This edition of the Geometric Design Guide/or Canadian Roads contains the current design and human
factors research and practices for roadway geometric design. It replaces the 1999 edition and
subsequent revisions made to that Guide.
PURPOSE OF THE GUIDE
The Guide provides guidance to planners and designers in developing design solutions that meet the
needs of a range of users while addressing the context of local conditions and environments. Design
guidelines for freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads, in both urban and rural locations are
included as well as for integrated bicyclist and pedestrian design. Contents from the 1999 Guide are
refreshed and reformatted with significant updates or additions made in the following areas:
Design Exceptions
Increasing constraints in urban areas, environmental factors, cost effectiveness concerns, and growing
community demands for context sensitive design solutions, are all putting pressure on road agencies
and design professionals to think differently and adaptively about the application of current design
practices. Practitioners must be able to recognize and explicitly evaluate differences in road safety
performance between design alternatives. Emerging road safety research and knowledge are beginning
to provide practical and reliable tools to address safety performance forecasting. Guidance on how to
evaluate and document design exceptions is included in the Guide.
Roadside Design
Research has shown that collisions with fixed objects account for approximately 30% of all fatal
collisions in North America and an additional 10% of road fatalities are attributable to non-collision
rollovers caused by roadside factors. Roadside design clearly has a key role to play in improving road
safety. Research in this area is very active and was adapted for the Canadian context and included in this
Guide.
Human Factors
In formulating early geometric design standards, highway designers relied on a common-sense
understanding of drivers and used estimates of driver characteristics in mechanistic models to simulate
behaviour and calculate design requirements. While this approach worked well for many years, roads
have become more crowded and the roadway network has grown more complex. Human error is a
contributing factor in crashes, and forgiving geometric design may reduce the severity or prevent many
of these crashes. Human factors design principles are incorporated into each section of this Guide.
June 2017 v
Intersections and Modern Roundabouts

The geometric design of intersections directly affects both traffic operations and road safety outcomes.
As travel demand continues to increase with the increasing urbanization of our population base across
the country, intersection designs are also evolving. Current practices are included in this Guide.
Active Transportation
Accommodating pedestrians, cyclists and disabled persons more appropriately within the road
environment is becoming a high and widely supported priority. However, the safety implications of such
designs are not always well understood. This edition of the Guide addresses the accommodation of
active transportation modes on Canada's road system with the sections on pedestrians and cyclists
completely updated and developed to reflect the current practice.
CONTENT OF THE GUIDE
The organization of this Guide has been revised from previous editions with the contents arranged into
ten chapters as follows:
1- Design Philosophy
2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
4 - Cross Section Elements
5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
7 - Roadside Design
8 - Access
9 - Intersections
10- Interchanges
CHAPTER 1
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy provides an introduction to the objective of design, its evolving approach
and the design domain concept utilized throughout the Guide. Guidance on benefit cost analysis, value
engineering and design exceptions is also provided in this chapter.
vi June 2017
CONTENTS
1.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 What Is Design? ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.2 The Use Of Standards And Guidelines ................................................................................... 1
1.1.2.1 Standards ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1.2.2 Guidelines ................................................................................................................ 2
1.1.3 The Goal Of Design ................................................................................................................. 3

1.1.4 The Concept Of Safety............................................................................................................ 3
1.1.5 Managing Design Risk ............................................................................................................ 4
1.1.6 The Evolving Approach ........................................................................................................... 5
1.1. 7 Rehabilitation Design ............................................................................................................. 6
1.1.8 Value Engineering .................................................................................................................. 6
1.2 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................8
1.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 8

1.2.2 Policy Decisions and Trade-Offs ............................................................................................. 8
1.2.3 Design Decisions ..................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 BENEFITS AND COSTS ............................................................................................................10
1.3.1 Mobility ................................................................................................................................ 10
1.3.1.1 The Need to Accommodate All Modes ................................................................. 10
1.3 .1.2 Mobility and Motorized Traffic ............................................................................. 10
1.3.1.3 Mobility and Active Transportation Modes .......................................................... 11
1.3 .2 Safety .................................................................................................................................... 11
1.3 .2.1 Safety Perform anee Measures .............................................................................. 11
1.3.2.2 Collision Modification Factors ............................................................................... 14
1.3 .2.3 Collision Types and Geometric Design .................................................................. 14
1. 3.2 .4 The Cost Of Co II is ions ............................................................................................ 15
1.3.2.5 Design Choices ....................................................................................................... 15
1.3. 2 .6 Road Safety Aud its ................................................................................................ 16
1.3. 3 Environ me nta I Im pacts And Aesthetics ............................................................................... 16

1.3.4 Financial Costs ...................................................................................................................... 17
1.3 .4.1 Ca pita I Costs .......................................................................................................... 17
1. 3 .4.2 Maintenance Costs ................................................................................................ 17
1. 3.4 .3 Vehicle 0 perati ng Costs ...................................................................................................... 17
June 2017 vii

1.4 THE DESIGN DOMAIN CONCEPT .............................................................................................18
1.4.1 What is the Design Domain Concept? .................................................................................. 18
1.4.2 Applying the Design Domain Concept.. ................................................................................ 20
1.4.3 Extending the Design Domain .............................................................................................. 21
1.5 DESIGN EXCEPTIONS ..............................................................................................................21
1.5.1 Definition .............................................................................................................................. 21
1.5.2 Suggested Key Criteria for Design Exceptions ...................................................................... 21

1.5.3 Design Exception Process ..................................................................................................... 22
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................34
viii June 2017

TABLES
Table 1.5.1: Key Design Element Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 24
Table 1.5.2: Design Exception Documentation ........................................................................................ 27
FIGURES
Figure 1.1.1: The Risk Management Space ................................................................................................. 5
Figure 1.1.2: Value Engineering Process ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 1.3.1: Variation of Collision Frequency with Traffic Volume ......................................................... 11
Figure 1.3.2: Variation of Collision Rate with Traffic Volume ................................................................... 13
Figure 1.3.3: Safety Performance Functions for Selected Roadway Types (Ontario data) ....................... 14
Figure 1.4.1: The Design Domain Concept ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 1.4.2: Design Domain Example - Shoulder Width ......................................................................... 19
Figure 1.5.1: Design Exception Process ..................................................................................................... 22
Figure 1.5.2: Sample Design Exception Process and ReportSummary ..................................................... 28
June 2017 ix
1. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 WHAT IS DESIGN?
Design is the process of selecting the elements that, when combined, will make up an end product. In
engineering, these elements are primarily features, dimensions, and materials. The geometric design of
roads involves selecting a road's visible features and dimensions (e.g., lane or shoulder width).
Design is a process in which sound engineering judgement and experience play significant roles.
Designers choose the features of the road and dimensions of the primary design elements. Although
they may use judgement, technical references, and calculations to assist in selecting the appropriate
primary design elements, selecting elements in isolation from each other is not design. The final design
is the sum of all the decisions made during the design process.
Designers must also understand the effects of combining design elements under different
circumstances. Because of the nature of this process, the design that emerges from the process cannot
generally be called correct or incorrect, but rather more or less efficient, attractive (in terms of moving
people through a range of modes), safe (in terms of collision frequency, rate or severity), or costly (in
terms of construction costs, societal costs, crash costs, lifecycle costs including maintenance and
rehabilitation costs, and environmental impacts).
1.1.2 THE USE OF STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
1.1.2.1 Standards
Historically, road design "standards" usually based on laws of physics or empirical data have been
provided to designers. These "standards" were not intended to be rigid, or to be applied uniformly in all
cases. Different road authorities in Canada placed different emphasis on quality of service, cost,
environmental issues and road safety. Such differences were considered matters of policy, but it has
generally been assumed that design merely had to meet "standards" and the results would be
satisfactory. In most cases, that was a valid assumption, since traditional design "standards" based on
laws of physics offer substantial margins of safety under most operating conditions.
However, as road authorities encountered growing fiscal constraints, designers also came under
increasing pressure to minimize capital costs by designing to "minimum standards". In addition,
increased awareness of environmental issues and growing demands for the accommodation of active
transportation within roadway cross sections have further encouraged the use of minimum values for
geometric criteria.
Furthermore, until the 1999 edition of the Guide, designers were not usually required to examine road
safety issues related to geometric design, on the assumption that a road designed to meet "minimum
standards" would be "safe". About the mid-1990s, however, this situation began to change. Emerging
knowledge in the field of road safety raised awareness of the relationships between geometric design
criteria and collision occurrence. This knowledge was at odds with a design process based on use of
"minimum standards". This led to the introduction of the concept of the design domain in the 1999
edition of the Guide and the consequent necessary increased use of processes aimed at providing
checks and balances on design through the quantitative or other technical evaluation of the safety
June 2017 1
implications of geometric design decisions. The concept of design domain continues to be a central
tenet of the Guide, and the designer is asked to select design criteria from ranges of values, considering
the benefits and costs of the selected criteria for which data or information is available.
The 1999 edition of the Guide also began the introduction of structured and quantitative advice on the
road safety impacts of a limited number of design criteria where such information was available and
proven. Further research worldwide, the introduction of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 1 in the
United States, and emerging research on human factors have all significantly broadened the depth and
breadth of knowledge available on the effects of various design decisions on the safety performance of
roads and highways. With this edition of the Guide, the advice provided to designers has been increased
significantly, and the practice of applying "minimum standards" without developing a quantitative or
other rigorous technical assessment and understanding of the road safety implications of such a
decision, is not recommended.
1.1.2.2 Guidelines
The role of guidelines is to provide information and background to assist the designer in choosing the
appropriate combination of features, dimensions, and materials for a given design. However, it is
important to understand that guidelines themselves do not state the dimensions for any given design.
That is the designer's responsibility.
Road design guidelines are necessarily general, because they cannot cover all site-specific conditions.
Furthermore, this Guide has transitioned from a traditional design approach focused on the use of roads
and highways to accommodate motorized traffic to a more complete design approach in which road
designs are specifically oriented to accommodate both motorized and active transportation (pedestrians
and cyclists). No longer are the guidelines solely predicated only on vehicle dimensions and
performance, and driver capabilities and behaviour. Rather, in this Guide, road design guidelines are
now based on accommodating a range of travel modes and supporting the evolution of policy and
planning decisions for this purpose. Thus prevailing and predicted vehicle dimensions and performance
(including both motorized and non-motorized modes) as well as a range of motorized driver (trucks,
passenger vehicles and motorcyclists), cyclist, and pedestrian behaviour and performance must be
considered. The state of current and predicted future vehicular, infrastructure, and traffic control
technologies will also influence design. Because these will all vary with time and location, guidelines
must be revised and updated periodically, especially as the collective knowledge on roadway design and
its impacts evolve.
Designers must recognize that how road design guidelines are applied to particular situations depends
on agency policies, transportation characteristics (such as the modes of transportation and
characteristics of the population to be accommodated), as well as such site-specific features as rural
versus urban conditions, terrain, climate and adjacent development. The selection of values for different
design dimensions or criteria, often in combination with other criteria, can thus be a complex process.
The wish to simplify this process has led, in the past, to the development and use of standard values for
design criteria to be used in specifically defined, but usually generalized sets of circumstances.
Adaptation of these generalized guidelines to the needs of specific situations is a critical component of
the geometric design process.
2 June 2017
1.1.3 THE GOAL OF DESIGN
A well-designed road is the goal of design. A well-designed road provides an acceptable balance
between level of service, cost, environmental impact, and level of safety to all of its users. That
acceptable balance reflects local values and policy, as well as the use of the road by drivers,
motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians. This balance will vary from location to location, and even from
time to time.
Designers need to recognize initially the relevant planning and design philosophy for the situation. For
example, the design of a rural road/highway may have many common elements with the design of an
urban street as both have to be safe, but the range of users may be different. In terms of a rural
road/highway, the main focus is likely on motorized vehicles that travel longer distances. In the case of
an urban street there are typically multiple modes of transportation to address with an increasing focus
on active transportation modes and transit.
Within any design process, there will be competing alternatives that must be thoughtfully considered to
arrive at the best solution; this is the design challenge. For example, where the desire is to provide a
four-lane roadway, a divided roadway will provide a better level of safety than an undivided roadway;
however, the divided roadway may be more costly (in both monetary and environmental terms) than
the undivided roadway. Accordingly, the choice between improved safety and higher cost, or reduced
safety and lower cost, is not only technical, but also requires policy decisions, particularly at the macro
level.
1.1.4 THE CONCEPT OF SAFETY
There is no such thing as "absolute safety", notwithstanding efforts to maintain, improve and operate
road facilities to the highest level that funding allows. There is risk in all road transportation, regardless
of the mode or combination of modes considered. That risk is inherent due to the variability of user
behaviours, environmental conditions, and other factors over which no one has absolute control. Most
designs can be modified to produce a "more safe" or "less safe" facility, resulting in a different societal
cost. Whether that cost is appropriate and acceptable is a matter of judgement, balancing cost against
risk (in terms of fatalities, injuries and damage to property), rather than simply a matter of evaluating
which of two designs is "correct'' or "incorrect". A universal objective is thus to reduce the number and
severity of crashes within the limits of available resources, science, technology, and legislatively
mandated priorities. Because these considerations are constantly changing, it is unlikely, if not
impossible, that any roadway facility can be completely "safe".
In many instances, the more generous a road's design dimensions are, the safer the road will be.
However, that is not always true. For example, in urban areas it may be desirable to use geometric
design to reduce speeds so that conflicts with pedestrian and cyclists are not as severe. Regardless, it is
impossible to make a road completely safe, if, by safe, we mean a road on which we can guarantee that
there will never be a collision. Design should thus be viewed as a process that can result in roads being
"more safe" or "less safe" for the specific conditions.
A reasonable level of safety, when we take into account the cost required to build it, is a matter of
experience and judgement, and knowledge of the safety impact of the design and operational elements
selected for the future road. While this Guide offers some levels of information intended to assist
roadway agencies in their effort to integrate safety into their decision making process, it is not intended
to be a substitute for the exercise of sound engineering judgement.
June 2017 3
There are two distinct concepts of safety- nominal and substantive:

• Nominal safety is judged by compliance with standards, warrants, policies and sanctioned
procedures. It ensures that most road users can behave legally, that design does not make road
use difficult for significant minorities and provides protection from moral, professional and legal
liability.
• Substantive safety is measured by expected crash frequency and severity. This is a newer
concept to be introduced into highway design process.
The introduction of substantive safety into highway design requires three action elements:
• That what is known about the relationship between safety and design decisions be
authoritatively summarized and periodically reissued.
• That those who sign design documents be certified to have mastered the currently available
knowledge.
• That political guidance be provided to designers on what level of safety to design into roads.
This Guide promotes the concept of substantive safety and suggests that measurement of road safety
should be based on recording or predicting collision frequency and, where possible, severity.
The term "accident" is not used in this Guide, since it implies an event over which no one had control.
Collisions on a road are seldom such events. Rather, their occurrence is controlled in some combination
by vehicle manufacturers, drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, and those responsible for the
planning, design, construction, operations, and maintenance of roads. As a result, the design challenge
involves the evaluation of competing alternatives to arrive at the most appropriate product. How
appropriateness is defined will vary from one project to another, and often depends on a series of
benefit-cost or other quantitative analyses, ranging from the macro level to the micro level. This Guide
attempts to provide some assistance to designers in making these analyses, where sufficient data or
information (such as collision modification factors on the www.cmfclearinghouse.org or HSM) is
available. In many cases, particularly related to safety, data or information is inadequate, non-existent,
or not applicable to the situation at hand. Jn such situations, designers must exercise particular diligence
and prudence to protect public safety and achieve defensible final design decisions.
1.1.5 MANAGING DESIGN RISK
Managing risk requires that the decision maker take action to change the magnitude or chance of a Joss
taking place. Implementing risk management actions implies active behaviour involving attempts to
adjust the components of the risky situation. With respect to road design, the actions may involve
design choices, operational rules (speed limits, stopping conditions etc.), or other measures.
What is important to recognize is that the actions themselves are risky, and although our understanding
oftheir potential impacts may be based on the best available information, there is no absolute certainty
as to the outcome that will occur. The concept of managing risk in this type of environment can be best
shown in graphical form as illustrated below.
4 June 2017
Contingency Significant
Risks Risks
Low likelihood High likelihood

High impact High impact
1:l
~ Minor High Incidence
.5 Risks Risks
Cl
"
'iii Low likelihood High likelihood
eu
Low impact Low impact
.5
Increasing likelihood
-
Figure 1.1.1: The Risk Management Space
Risk has two dimensions: some likelihood from low to high that an event will occur - as represented by
the horizontal axis in Figure 1.1.1, and some impact that will result from the event - the vertical axis
ranging from low to high. It is impossible to completely erase all risk in all road situations. However,
facilities can be designed so they operate in the lower left square noted above. Where some potential
for a high impact situation such as a crash between a vehicle and another object cannot be avoided (the
upper left or upper right risk areas in the illustration), the likelihood of this occurring should be reduced
to as low a level as possible. To do so, choices must be made among alternative actions on a rational and
factual technical basis, and that even then, the likelihood of the event actually occurring cannot be
eliminated except by completely changing the risk paradigm: For instance, in the case of intersections,
moving from an at-grade crossing design to a completely separated crossing environment like an
underpass or overpass. Even in this case, although the possibility of a vehicle/vehicle collision is
substantially reduced, collisions will occur.
1.1.6 THE EVOLVING APPROACH
The guidelines and design domains provided in this Guide are based on prevailing and predicted vehicle
performance and dimensions (trucks, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, etc.), road user (drivers, pedestrians,
and cyclists) behaviour and performance, and current technologies. As has always been the case, as
knowledge in these fields evolves and societal demands for mobility opportunities shift between modes,
it is expected that the resulting guidelines will be revised and updated periodically. Changes in the
design domains over time, or differences between these and previous guidelines do not imply that roads
designed on the basis of former guidelines are necessarily inadequate. Rather, the new design
framework and approach can be expected to generate designs for new facilities and rehabilitation and
June 2017 5
reconstruction of existing facilities that more appropriately reflect evolving knowledge and the changing
needs of the communities they serve.
It should be noted that gradual adoption of design dimensions that are based on, for example, collision
experience, may not have the same theoretical margins of safety under most operating conditions as
traditional guidelines that are based on laws of physics. However, they will be more realistic and may
result in road designs that are less costly to construct.
In keeping with the previous edition of this document, this Guide continues to increase the emphasis on
the role of the designer in the design process. It requires more explicit analysis of alternatives and,
where possible, suggests a basis on which to carry out such analyses. It places greater demands on the
designer in terms of exercising skills, knowledge, and professional judgement. It emphasizes the
responsibility of the designer to properly and fully inform those responsible for policies, which affect all
aspects of cost effective road design, of the potential consequences of their decisions.
1.1.7 REHABILITATION DESIGN
Today, much of the engineering of roads is in improvement of existing roads, by methods such as
widening and resurfacing. Work of this nature falls under the category of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation
and improvement of roads usually refers to one or more of the following:
• Increasing capacity by adding lanes
• Improving the ride by resurfacing or reconstruction
• Improving service and/or safety by geometric design improvements and traffic control devices.
Projects of this type are often referred to as 3R/4R, where the first three "Rs" are resurfacing,
restoration, and rehabilitation. 2 The fourth "R", if the other three do not achieve enough, is
reconstruction. Rehabilitation work is often necessarily carried out under severe environmental or
economic constraints that limit the opportunity to upgrade design elements.
Increasing numbers of government agencies have in place specific guidelines and approaches for
carrying out rehabilitation projects. Many of these processes involve a thorough and comprehensive
analysis of the collision experience of the specific road under question and attempt to analyze the costs
and benefits of applying geometric improvements to the specific road section. In such circumstances, it
is important that designers evaluate the impacts of following new practices on road safety by reviewing
available data or information. This is the best way to evaluate and properly understand the
consequences of rehabilitation design decisions.
1.1.8 VALUE ENGINEERING
Road designs are growing in complexity. Road designers need to consider many factors and in
collaboration with others make value judgements involving safety, active transportation, construction
cost, life-cycle cost, environmental impacts, operational consequences and other considerations. There
are often many possible road design alternatives, and rarely an easily agreed upon reasonable value
solution. Projects often will benefit from a structured intervention in the form of a workshop that
encourages shared knowledge, innovation and working together.
One method of evaluating a project design is value engineering. Value engineering (VE), also known as
value analysis, is a systematic and function-based approach to improving the value of products, projects,
or processes. 3 A VE workshop involves an independent multi-disciplinary team that uses creative and
analytical techniques to reach a common understanding of the project needs and agreement on a cost
6 June 2017
effective solution. It is a facilitated process that provides a deliberative method to better balance project
objectives and performance with costs, leading to quicker decision-making and a reduction of
unnecessary expenditure. Figure 1.1.2 illustrates the VE process. 4
Information Presentation
Phase Phase
Function
Analysis Development
Phase Phase
Creative Evaluation
Phase Phase
Figure 1.1.2: Value Engineering Process
In a road design context, this means that a value engineering exercise should be more than a means of
identifying ways to reduce construction costs. Equal and explicit attention should be given to the
important attributes of safety, performance/operation, reliability, and quality. In fact, value engineering
can result in increased capital costs to reduce life-cycle costs and better accommodate active
transportation modes.
Value engineering is a tool that many agencies apply in their quest for more cost effective designs.
Properly applied, this technique can be a valuable adjunct to the design process. The application of value
engineering requires that functional balances be evaluated explicitly and quantitatively for the full range
of life-cycle costs and benefits-including road safety performance-and be re-evaluated in response to
proposed changes in the design. Only in this way can the true "value" of the outcomes of a value
engineering process be determined. Data collected by the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA)
indicates that the return on investment can approach or exceed 100:1.
The popularity of the value engineering process, using independent teams, has increased in times when
there is a shortage of resources, such as raw materials or funding. However, the principles of value
engineering are applicable at all times, to all projects. To do a complete job, a design team should
embody value considerations in the design process. If this is well done, the independent value
engineering process will become less necessary and increasingly the process is being used to balance
competing stakeholder demands with available resources.
VE brings a multi-disciplinary team together to interact with each other over an extended period of
time. The sporadic design meetings common to standard design processes do not allow enough time to
draw the best creative ideas from the design team. Just the exposure of design professionals to VE will
help them to be on the lookout for better value in all their designs.
Transportation agencies that have active VE programs have realized additional benefits beyond design
improvements and avoidance of unnecessary expenditure including:
• Alignment of project budgets with scope
• An opportunity for stakeholders to collaborate in a structured manner
June 2017 7
• Improvement of standards and policies

• Responsiveness to stakeholder priorities and improved communication amongst stakeholders
participating in studies
• Accelerated incorporation of new materials and construction techniques
• Employee satisfaction from participation in agency decisions
• Increased skills obtained from team participation
• Improved Constructability
• Quicker decision-making
The best results are achieved when using a trained VE team leader following the FHWA or SAVE
International VE job plan, with a multi-disciplined team with the willingness to investigate new ideas.
1.2 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS
1.2.1 INTRODUCTION
Roads are essential for mobility of people and goods. Mobility is one of the primary benefits of a road.
This benefit is attained at a cost. Roads cost money to build and maintain; they consume space and
affect the environment. Road travel consumes time, some modes of travel may create noise and
pollution, and all modes bring about collisions. These are some of the key costs of mobility.
By spending more money building or improving a road, other costs such as travel time, collisions or
maintenance costs may be reduced. However, the expenditure of additional funds must be optimised to
assure increases in benefits or reductions in other costs. Evaluating trade-offs between costs and
benefits of design proposals can be carried out by benefit cost analyses.
The benefit cost analysis applied to a road project can be highly complex, depending on the scope of the
individual project. Many formal or informal benefit cost analyses may have been carried out, and
decisions made, before the geometric designer gets involved. It is fundamental for the designer to
understand not only the various costs and benefits that can be affected by geometric design in general,
but also which of those costs and benefits may be influenced by the design criteria of a specific project.
In extreme cases, the geometric designer may be so constrained by decisions already made, that there is
little or no opportunity to make value judgements about many of the potential costs and benefits of a
project. It is, however, the designer's duty to incorporate those value judgements into planning and
design wherever the freedom exists to do so. It is also the designer's duty to identify situations where
policy decisions may unreasonably inhibit the designer's flexibility to produce a satisfactory design.
When presented effectively, arguments made by designers may affect the timing and scope of projects
and also influence changes to existing policy.
1.2.2 POLICY DECISIONS AND TRADE-OFFS
Policy decisions are not and should not be made by designers. Rather, they are made by elected and
administrative officials, and are influenced by public opinion, special interest groups, budgetary
constraints, economic development goals, environmental impacts, and many other factors. Policy
makers will carry out benefit cost analyses, applying judgements regarding the value of numerous non-
monetary costs and benefits. Some factors defy monetary quantification; in this case, qualitative
weightings are applied. It is beyond the scope and intent of this document to discuss in detail the trade-
off process involved in policy-making. Society's view of the relative importance of the components
(costs, services, and impacts) varies over time and between geographic regions in Canada. However, it
8 June 2017
must be recognized that reduced spending on construction, operations, and maintenance is likely to
adversely affect mobility and access as well as collision rates and severities. It is the task of government
to provide guidance about what trade-offs are consistent with the public interest. In addition, attention
to road safety should be explicit, as is the case, for example, with explicit environmental assessments.
1.2.3 DESIGN DECISIONS
The geometric designer of a road determines the horizontal and vertical alignments and cross section
configurations at every point on the road. In addition, special consideration is required at every location
where roadways intersect, to accommodate diverging, converging, and conflicting traffic movements of
all modes, including pedestrians, cyclists, and motor vehicles (including motorcycles). In selecting design
dimensions and configurations, the designer can directly affect some of the benefits, costs, and impacts
of the road, and provide flexibility for future expansion. The hallmark of professionalism in road design
is the ability of designers to optimise and foresee the repercussions of their design decisions.
For most, if not all, road projects, the designer will have some scope for value judgements, although this
scope will vary from place to place and from project to project. It will also be governed by any policy
decisions already made. In general, some factors that the designer may be able to influence could
include but may not necessarily be limited to:
• The quality of mobility provided
• The viability of various active transportation modes
• Environmental impacts
• The level of safety inherent in the design performance and costs
• Capital costs
• Aesthetics
• Maintenance costs
• Vehicle operating costs
In influencing these factors, the designer will be guided by jurisdictional policy decisions, such as the
relative importance of maintenance cost versus capital cost, of fuel consumption and air pollution
against capital cost, of accommodation of active transportation modes or of other factors that may be of
concern to the authority responsible for the road.
In carrying out benefit cost analyses, costs are given dollar values, for ease of comparison, wherever
possible. In some cases, such as capital cost estimating, this can be done with objectivity and
confidence, since costs are well known. They will of course vary significantly from one location or
jurisdiction to another. In the case of other "softer" costs, such as the cost of user time or the societal
costs of fatal, personal injury, or property damage collisions, dollar valuations tend to be subjective in
some cases and may vary widely. Many jurisdictions will have established policies that specify the values
to be used in such analyses. Where this is not the case, policy decisions will be required to provide the
designer with the information needed to carry out the analysis.
Because of these considerations, it is not appropriate for this Guide to attempt to establish dollar values
for any benefits or costs used in a benefit cost analysis. Individual agencies using this Guide will need to
establish their own dollar cost valuations based on local conditions. In some cases, agencies may decide,
for whatever reason, not to attempt to assign actual costs to some of these factors. It is, nevertheless,
desirable for a designer to evaluate the design trade-offs as objectively as possible, following generally
accepted benefit cost analysis procedures, be they quantitative or qualitatively based.
June 2017 9
1.3 BENEFITS AND COSTS
1.3.1 MOBILITY
1.3.1.1 The Need to Accommodate All Modes
The prime benefit of a roadway is the mobility it provides to its users. Traditionally, this benefit has been
measured by the capacity of a roadway, related to the traffic volumes using it, which results in various
levels of service and average speeds, with commensurate costs of travel time. When active
transportation facilities are present (for pedestrians, cyclists, or both), additional measures exist that
can help define the quality of mobility service provided by sidewalks, cycling facilities, pedestrian
crossings at intersections, or other facilities of a similar nature (see Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated
Design and Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design).
Many of the fundamental decisions that affect the quality of mobility service may have been made
before the geometric design phase or process commences. Transportation studies will have been carried
out to determine the capacity of a roadway needed to satisfy present and future demands for both
motorized and active transportation modes. Items such as numbers of motorized traffic lanes, grade
separation of intersecting roadways, degree of access control, cycling facilities, and the accommodation
of pedestrian traffic may have been established. However, the designer will need to use traffic demand
forecasts and level of service requirements to establish appropriate mobility benefits for motorized
traffic, and similar forecasts and measures to correctly design for active transportation needs.
1.3.1.2 Mobility and Motorized Traffic
Traditionally, the need to accommodate motorized traffic has been the primary driver of the geometric
design process. The quality of service measure of choice in the design for motorized traffic is level of
service (LOS)'. This concept defines the operating conditions on a transportation facility using qualitative
measures. The operating characteristics generally included in the LOS calculations are: speed, travel
time, delay, traffic interruptions, and convenience. Each LOS is given a letter, A through F, to describe a
range of operating conditions on a facility; LOS A being the highest and LOS F being the lowest level of
service. LOSE represents the capacity or the maximum flow rate of that facility. LOS F represents
unstable flow conditions where the traffic demand exceeds the capacity of the facility.
Acceptable operating conditions and LOS are normally defined by municipal or provincial agencies. In
urban situations, where higher traffic volumes and higher levels of congestion are normal, a lower LOS is
deemed acceptable. In rural or small urban centres, where there is generally less traffic, a higher LOS is
often expected, although it may be harder to justify.
The desired level of service and the projected traffic volumes are used to determine the future lane
requirements of roadways and intersections. Normally, transportation facilities are designed with a 20-
year life expectancy, which corresponds to the normal design life of the first pavement. It may be
appropriate to use shorter design periods, especially in instances where spot improvements are made or
where the entire roadway requires reassessing in less than 20 years.
For further information regarding how to calculate the capacity of existing and proposed roadways and
intersections, the designer should consult the Canadian Capacity Guide for Signalized Intersections' and
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) 7 .
10 June 2017
1.3.1.3 Mobility and Active Transportation Modes
The science of quality of service measures for both cycling and pedestrian traffic are still evolving, and
few Canadian jurisdictions have put in place policies that set out desired quality of service measures for
these modes. Nonetheless, the importance of such modes is broadly recognized and many Canadian
municipalities place the accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists at the top of their priority lists for
road design purposes.It is thus the duty of the designer to recognize this need and to ensure that their
facility designs for pedestrians and cyclists are both technically rigorous and recognize the current state
of knowledge and practice for such purposes - particularly in urban and suburban areas where such
needs may be required throughout the road system. Technical guidance is integrated throughout the
Guide as required to recognize this reality in all aspects of geometric design. Two specific chapters
(Chapter 5 and Chapter 6) are intended to give designers the technical foundation of knowledge to
allow them to correctly integrate cyclist and pedestrian traffic respectively into their overall road design
process when required.
1.3.2 SAFETY
1.3.2.1 Safety Performance Measures
The safety of a road can be defined as its mean collision frequency and severity. For a section of road,
safety is measured by the number of collisions, classified by severity, expected to occur on a 1 km
stretch in a year. For an intersection, it is measured by the number of collisions, classified by severity,
expected to occur at that location in a year.The collision frequency of a road is a function of the traffic it
serves, as shown on Figure 1.3.1 Thus, using this example, at an annual average daily traffic (AADT)
volume of 10,000 vehicles, Figure 1.3.1predicts1.48 total collisions (point P) and 0.53 fatal or non-fatal
injury collisions per year on a 1 km section of road, while at an AADT of 10,000 vehicles (point Q), 2.45
total collisions and 0.91 injury collisions are predicted, on the same 1 km section of road per year. It can
be seen that the number of collisions increases as traffic increases on the section of road under
consideration. The risk to a particular user, however, decreases as traffic increases (as represented by
the slope of the curves at given points). 8
June 2017 11
4 total
,.,-;::- 3
"c:: "''i"'
Q)
Q)
5- E
Q) -"
~:::::;' 2
c::"'
0 c::
injury
·- 0
~:~
o=
"8 1 ..
--
collisions _
0 r-~--T~~-r.~--J------1
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

annual average daily traffic
Example for illustrative purposes, based on equations from research
Figure 1.3.1: Variation of Collision Frequency with Traffic Volume
Collision rates are traditionally used as a safety performance measure. A simple collision rate is "collision
frequency per unit of use". It is usually measured in collisions per million vehicle kilometres of travel for
a road segment, and collisions per million entering vehicles for intersections. While collision frequency
serves to measure the safety of a road or an intersection, collision rate measures the risk faced by the
road user. The collision rate at Pis proportional to the slope of the line joining P to the origin. Since an
AADT of 10,000 vehicles per day is the same as 10,000 x 365 = 3,650,000 vehicles/year, the collision rate
at Pis 2.45 [collisions I (km x year)]/3,650,000 [vehicles/ year]= 0.67 [collisions /million vehicle
kilometres]. At point Q, where AADT = 5,000, the collision rate is 0.81 collisions/million vehicle
kilometres. The variation of collision rate with traffic volume is shown on Figure 1.3.2. 9
12 June 2017
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Example for illustrative purposes, based on equations from research
Figure 1.3.2: Variation of Collision Rate with Traffic Volume
From Figure 1.3.2, it can be seen that the same road will have different collision rates for different
traffic flows. Therefore, collision rate is not constant for any particular type of road, and cannot be used
to compare the safety of two roads when they serve different traffic flows.
This kind of function describes the safety of a certain road when serving different traffic levels and is
called a "safety performance function" (SPF) for this road. The SPF can be used to estimate the
expected average crash frequency (by severity and type) for a given long-term average traffic volume. It
is calculated by combining historical data records from homogeneous sites (e.g. urban four-leg signalized
intersections, rural two-lane two-way roads, or rural multilane divided highways). By grouping sites with
similar attributes and using statistical analysis, a best fit SPF model or equation can be determined. 10 It
should be noted that the continuous nature of an SPF allows it to be represented by an equation, rather
than tabulated values.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 11
uses SPFs (crash frequency) as its fundamental indicator of safety in the evaluation and estimation
methods it presents. To illustrate, the SPFs for selected roadway types are shown on Figure 1.3.3. This
example shows how SPFs are of great value to the designer. For an existing facility, the SPF provides an
(initial) estimate of the prevailing collision frequency, which may be changed by some improvement. For
a planned facility, the SPF provides an estimate of what the collision frequency might be ifthe SPF exists
for the kind of planned facility. The SPFs for different types of roadway allow the designer to estimate,
for a given AADT, what the effect might be on safety by adding a lane or a median.
It must be cautioned that SPFs change over time due to a variety of factors such as collision reporting
practice, the accuracy and quality of the collision data, vehicle fleet, road user characteristics, etc. Using
outdated SPFs will result in erroneous assumptions by the designer. 12
June 2017 13
30
freeway
25 - four+ lanes _, -'
__ ,, ... ....
20 -
, flll"'
, ..,--
••• • • • • •
•••••
freeway
15 .,,;-
; • •• • • ····· •• ••• •• four lanes
10 -
, ·····
~••• • •
' four-lane, rural
undivided
5 four-lane,
---- 20,000
rural divided
0-1-"":....:__~;--~---;-~~-+-~~-+-~~-+-~~-r-~--->~~--;
0 40,000 60,000 80,000

Figure 1.3.3: Safety Performance Functions for Selected Roadway Types (Ontario data)
At the highest level, safety of one section of road or intersection versus another can be compared using
their respective SPFs. To the designer, this is of limited value unless the characteristics of each section of
road or intersection are known. Depending on the availability of collision and road data, SPFs can be
developed" for different sections of roadway, between which only one characteristic changes, for
example lane width. These functions enable the designer to evaluate the potential collision reduction
benefit of an investment in lane widening. Data can also be combined 9 to produce multivariate SPFs, to
compare, for example, changes in both lane and shoulder widths. The potential value of SPFs to the
designer highlights the need for consistent and high quality data relating collision occurrence and road
characteristics.
1.3.2.2 Collision Modification Factors
Collision Modification Factors (CMFs) measure the effectiveness of safety improvements. They are
multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected number of collisions after implementing a given
improvement at a specific site. The lower the CMF the more effective it is as a safety improvement. A
CMF greater than one indicates the improvement is detrimental to improving safety.
It should be noted 14 that a minor modification to a road might not affect the overall collision frequency.
For example, addition of lighting may reduce nighttime collisions significantly, but may marginally
increase daytime collisions. In this case, different collision frequency data and CMFs will be needed for
the daytime and nighttime cases.
1.3.2.3 Collision Types and Geometric Design
It is important for designers to assess the types of collisions that have occurred or may occur on a
particular section of road. Changes in different geometric design elements may greatly influence the
occurrence of some types of collisions, while having little effect on others. For example, run-off-the-
14 June 2017
Chapter 1 - Design Philosophy
roadway collision frequency and severity could be reduced through side slope improvements and
installation of shoulder rumble strips. Larger curve radii, wider lanes, and the introduction of a median
may influence head on collision occurrence. Drivers may avoid run-off-road and animal collisions with
improved visibility, through wider cleared rights of way, and gentler alignments.
1.3.2.4 The Cost Of Collisions
Costs of collisions are significant, and can include many factors in addition to property damage, personal
injury, emergency services, and travel delay. Where injury or death occurs as the result of a collision,
costs to be considered include lost earnings, lost household production, medical costs, workplace and
rehabilitation costs, and administrative and legal costs. Also included, but much more subjectively, is the
cost of pain and reduced quality of life. Guidance on these costs can be obtained from the collision cost
estimates developed by many agencies and the crash cost developed from a National Cooperative
Highway Research Program project. 15
1.3.2.5 Design Choices
Collisions can potentially occur on any road and therefore no road is absolutely safe, i.e. completely
collision free. It follows that a road designed to some set of prevailing "standards" should not be called
"safe". Roads can be designed with a higher or lower level of safety. What level of safety is built into a
road depends on its design.
Most design choices affect the safety performance function (SPF) of a roadway. Some design choices are
from a continuum of values (e.g. median width, grade, or sight distance). The change in safety
corresponding to change in these values is also continuously variable. For example: the narrower the
median, the steeper the grade; or the shorter the sight distance, the increased likelihood the expected
collision frequency will increase. Some safety improvements are not gradual. For example, the decision
to illuminate a road will cause an immediate, significant drop in nighttime collisions and possibly an
insignificant increase in daytime collisions because of the introduction of light poles.
Design choices leading to safety improvements usually cost money. Conversely, cost savings can
increase collision frequency, severity or both. When choosing the value for a design element from a
range of values, a balance must be found, between increased cost and diminishing safety improvements,
as the value of the design criteria changes. There comes a point at which the safety benefits are so small
that money can be spent to better effect elsewhere. In both circumstances, rational design involves the
determination of the potential safety gains, the determination of the attendant costs, and the balancing
of cost and safety gain.
Some people may object to the judgement that a point exists beyond which further improvement in
safety is not justified, claiming that any improvement in safety is worthy. This position is not tenable.
Expenditure of public money can always improve facilities to reduce the probability of collisions.
However, unlimited funds are never available, and spending should be allocated in areas where the
greatest safety improvements can be realized at justifiable costs, noting that costs may be in the form
of, for example, environmental impact, not only money.
To make an appropriate design choice affecting the future safety of a road, the designer has to use the
best available information about how the choice might affect future safety. In the past 20 years
knowledge has greatly developed relating collision frequency to design criteria and resources such as
the Highway Safety Manua/ 16 and its companion Interactive Highway Safety Design Model have
emerged. Designers of the past, without benefit of this knowledge, often relied on geometric design
June 2017 15
"standards", based on laws of physics, without the data needed to assess the safety consequences. We
know now that reliance on minimum "standards." will not necessarily ensure that an appropriate level of
safety has been built into a road. As factual knowledge about the relationship between safety and
design continues to accumulate, use of explicit analysis has become both possible and imperative.
1.3.2.6 Road Safety Audits
First developed in the United Kingdom in the 1980's, this process has a proven potential to improve the
safety of road transportation facilities. A road safety audit is defined 17 as "a formal and independent
safety performance review of a road transportation project by an experienced team of safety specialists,
addressing the safety of all road users."
The objectives of a road safety audit 18 are to:
• minimize the frequency and severity of preventable collisions;
• consider the safety of all road users, including vulnerable road users;
• ensure that collision mitigation measures aimed to eliminate or reduce the identified safety
problems are considered fully; and,
• minimize potential negative safety impacts beyond the project limits (i.e., to avoid inadvertently
increasing the collision risk elsewhere on the network).
It can work by removing design elements with high collision potential in the planning or design stage
and/or by introducing features to mitigate safety issues.
A road safety audit is typically applied to a road planning or design project for both new and
reconstruction projects. A road safety audit conducted at the planning and design stage is proactive,
preventive, more cost effective and results in positive changes to a design. In keeping with the multi-
modal nature of this Guide, a road safety audit is an excellent tool to address the safety of all road users
as the audit examines the safety of all road users of a project.
For new designs, road safety audit procedures can be applied throughout the design process and
become an integral part of the development of the road design, while the road safety audit remains an
independent and formal process. Safety specialists identify safety issues and suggest mitigating
measures to designers in the form of a report at various stages of the project development process,
from the planning stage to the formal opening of the facility. By explicitly providing road safety
considerations with the design process, cost effective opportunities to improve the safety of a design
can be identified early in the design process and can more easily be incorporated into the work. For
details regarding road safety audits, refer to the TAC Canadian Road Safety Audit Guide.
1.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND AESTHETICS
Environmental awareness in Canada has steadily increased over the past two or three decades.
Environmental impact is now considered one of the most fundamental issues affecting a road project.
There are numerous examples of road projects being modified significantly to address environmental
concerns, or, in some cases, being cancelled entirely. Often, additional capital cost is incurred for the
construction of measures aimed at mitigating environmental impact. Examples of such measures include
barriers to reduce the impact of traffic noise on nearby residents, new wildlife habitats to replace those
adversely affected by road construction, treatment of run-off water to prevent contamination of fish-
bearing streams, or other considerations to address climate change concerns.
16 June 2017
So important are these concerns that they are usually addressed from the feasibility stages of a project,
right through to construction and operations. Many jurisdictions have a comprehensive environmental
impact assessment process, usually including a thorough process of consultation with stakeholders and
the public. As a result, many environmental issues will have been addressed and related decisions made
before the geometric design commences. It then becomes the duty of the designer to be aware of
relevant legislation and regulations and to design within the constraints given, such as avoiding a
particular watercourse, or to accommodate prescribed mitigation measures, such as screening berms or
sound fences or wildlife passages. Thus, environmental issues will likely affect geometric design criteria.
The geometric designer can dramatically affect the aesthetics of many road projects. Straight, flat
roadways offer little flexibility, but providing better coordination between the horizontal and vertical
curvature can enhance roadways with horizontal and vertical curves. Designers must be concerned
about the visual characteristics of the road, both from the road user's viewpoint and from the
perspective of observers at other locations. Often aesthetic improvements can be achieved without
incurring other costs and can add a sense of place to a streetscape if desired.
1.3.4 FINANCIAL COSTS
1.3.4.1 Capital Costs
Capital costs are generally considered to include the front-end, cash costs of a road project. These costs
include construction labour and materials, property acquisition, and the costs of management and
design related to the construction. Techniques for estimating these costs are well documented and
understood, and are not addressed in this Guide. The geometric designer is capable of influencing the
capital costs of a project to a great extent, most significantly in alignment design. Narrower cross
sections, steeper side slopes, steeper grades, and tighter curves all lead to reductions in capital cost.
However, such changes can adversely affect user and maintenance costs, collision rates, and levels of
service. For the designer to optimize the balance between various costs and benefits, it is necessary to
weigh each of the factors to be considered. Increasing pressures on capital budgets often mean that
reduction in capital costs is weighted heavily in the balancing of costs and benefits.
1.3.4.2 Maintenance Costs
Maintenance costs cover the day-to-day operations needed to maintain the quality of the road and its
operating condition. Pavement resurfacing, grass cutting, culvert cleaning and snow clearing are some of
the most common maintenance operations. Generally, the weighting given to these costs in a benefit
cost analysis is low, primarily because they are future costs with relatively low present value.
Furthermore, the geometric design of a road typically does not significantly affect most of these costs.
Exceptions include the continual repair of sloughing if side slopes are built too steep and increased costs
of dealing with snow and ice if the design encourages the retention of snow or run-off water. Repair or
replacement of damaged curbs and traffic barriers can also be a significant cost. In general, however,
maintenance costs are often less heavily weighted in the geometric design trade-off between costs and
benefits, but can be significant in specific locations and should be considered.
1.3.4.3 Vehicle Operating Costs
Users of roadways are not only the owners and drivers of motor vehicles but also those agencies and
businesses that use those vehicles to expedite movement of people and goods. Vehicle operating costs"
include fuel, oil and lubricants, tire wear, maintenance parts and labour, insurance, and some
June 2017 17
components of vehicle depreciation. Cargo damage and depreciation can also occur as a result of vehicle
delays or travel over rough surfaces. These costs are often the most fundamental consideration in
justifying capital expenditures on new road or improvement projects. These costs can also be a factor in
route selection and selection of roadway classification, for example in choosing a shorter route or
selecting a roadway class which minimizes vehicle delay at intersections. These decisions are usually
made before geometric design commences, although preliminary geometric design may be needed to
aid the decision-making. In detailed design, the geometric designer does not typically consider direct
vehicle user costs, as the ability to influence them is minor in relation to other factors, such as capital
cost.
1.4 THE DESIGN DOMAIN CONCEPT
1.4.1 WHAT IS THE DESIGN DOMAIN CONCEPT?
Design domain can be thought of as a range of values that a design element might take, which has a
relationship with the fitness-for-purpose of the design element, as shown in Figure 1.4.1. Forthis
example, in the lower regions of the domain for a single design element, resulting designs are generally
considered to be less efficient or less safe although perhaps less costly to construct. In the upper regions
of the domain, resulting designs are generally considered to be safer and more efficient in operation,
but may cost more. For some design elements, lower regions of the design domain may correspond to
increases in fitness-for-purpose of the resulting design.
absolute
upper limit
fitness for
purpose
practical
lower limit
absolute
lower limit design domain
range of values
Figure 1.4.1: The Design Domain Concept
Wherever possible, data or information that provides estimates of changes in the quality of mobility,
cost, or safety, with changes in the design, should be used to evaluate the impact of these changes. In
keeping with the increasingly multi-modal nature of this Guide, such evaluations should be carried out
on all modes that the facility is designed to accommodate: motor vehicles including motorcycles,
18 June 2017
pedestrians, and/or cyclists. Where no such data or information is available, guidance is generally given
to the designer with respect to the sensitivity of safety to changes in the criteria under consideration
within the design domain. These evaluations of safety sensitivity are new compared to evaluations of
operational adequacy or construction cost, for which meaningful data have Jong been available.
The design domain concept provides a number of benefits to the designer:
• It is more directly related to the true nature of the roadway design function and process, since it
places a greater emphasis on developing appropriate and cost effective designs rather than
those that simply meet guidelines.
• It directly reflects the continuous nature of the relationship between service, cost, and safety
and changes in the values of design dimensions. It reinforces the need to consider the impacts of
trade-offs throughout the domain and not just when the guideline threshold is crossed.
• It provides an implied link to the concept of factor of safety by not accepting absolute lower
limit values; a concept that is commonly used in other civil engineering design processes where
risk and safety are important.
Figure 1.4.2shows an example of how different costs and benefits may vary within the design domain
for a single design element. Selecting a criterion value for a design element (in this case the width of the
shoulder) within the design domain will depend on a trade-off between the various benefits and costs.
For many design features, values for each of a number of design elements must be selected, working
together to optimise the design.
mobility capital
cost
0 1.0 2.0 3.0

- - - - - > width (m)
maintenance environmental
cost impact
user cost collision

rate
design domain
Figure 1.4.2: Design Domain Example - Shoulder Width
June 2017 19
1.4.2 APPLYING THE DESIGN DOMAIN CONCEPT
Applying the concept of a design domain in practice presents challenges. In some cases, the concept of a
design domain with an upper and lower bound, and a continuous range of values in between, may not
be practical or desirable. Lane widths, which typically are varied in increments of 0.1 m, provide a good
example of such a case. In these instances, it may only be relevant to consider a series of discrete values
for the dimension in question. In other instances, there may be no upper limit to a design domain other
than practicality or economics. In these cases, the upper boundary of the design domain generally
reflects typical upper level values found in practice, or the general threshold of cost-effective design.
The designer must respect controls and constraints to a greater or lesser degree depending on their
nature and significance. Often, the designer is faced with the dilemma of being unable to choose design
dimensions or criteria that will satisfy all controls and constraints; a compromise is then required. These
are engineering decisions that call for experience, insight, and a good appreciation of community values.
This dilemma is a common challenge for any project and in particular when dealing with multi-modal
facilities in constrained situations.
Some design criteria are inviolate, such as vertical clearance at structures. Others are less rigid and some
are little more than suggestions. Some are chosen based primarily on considerations of safety, some on
service or capacity, while others are based on comfort or aesthetic values. The judicious choice of design
criteria is very important in the design process and, in this respect, it is essential that the designer has a
good understanding of their origin and background. A design carefully prepared by a designer who has a
good understanding, not only of the criteria but also of their background and basis, and has judiciously
applied them with regard for community values, will probably generate the desired level of service and
safety with acceptable economy.
For many elements, a range of dimensions is given and the designer has the responsibility of choosing
the appropriate value for a particular application. A designer with economy uppermost in mind may be
tempted to apply the minimum value, using the reasoning that the design is satisfactory. This may or
may not be the case. As noted in Section 1.1.2 of this chapter, it is no longer recommended to simply
apply "minimum standards" without developing a quantitative or other rigorous technical assessment
and understanding of the road safety implications of such a decision.
The designer might conclude that it is appropriate to reduce values of design criteria for a given project
and this may not necessarily be a poor decision. However, if this course of action is followed, the
consequences need to be thoroughly understood, particularly with regard to safety performance and
impacts, but also in terms of other costs and benefits. Compensating measures, which could include a
broad range of potential actions, need to be considered along with the geometric design. If a design
involves compromise, it may be more appropriate to compromise several elements a small amount than
to compromise one element excessively. It is important that a design be balanced.
To help designers apply the design domain concept, the Guide generally provides up to four levels of
guidance for any given design element, as appropriate and where possible, given the developing state of
knowledge:
• Numerical guidance, in the form of tables or graphs, showing upper and lower bounds of the
design domain.
• A commentary on the nature of the design domain, detailing the underlying basis for the
domain, key factors which affect it, and the sensitivity of road safety performance across the
20 June 2017
range of values within the design domain. Heuristics, providing qualitative guidance related to
circumstances, may also be given.
• Where available, data or information for the quantitative evaluation of safety performance at
different points within the design domain, using various safety evaluation techniques as
measures of safety performance. In some cases, this may be combined with advice from road
safety specialists on the effects of alternative design criteria changes on the various road users
(i.e., driver, pedestrian, cyclist, and motorcyclist).
• Where available, worked examples of the application of the design domain to the design
criterion under consideration.
1.4.3 EXTENDING THE DESIGN DOMAIN
In some cases, it may be necessary for the designer to choose values that fall outside the normal
boundaries of the design domain for a given design element. Such cases are extraordinary and can have
substantive impacts on various aspects of facility performance, including the safety of road users. As
such, they must be carefully considered and evaluated as design exceptions. A process for evaluating
such design exceptions is discussed in Section 1.5.
1.5 DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
1.5.1 DEFINITION
A design exception is a case where one or more design elements for one or more modes of
transportation falls outside normal boundaries of the design domin forthat design element. It is an
extraordinary situation and one where the design needs to be tailored to its context through sound
professional judgment. Design exceptions can be initiated at any stage of a project; how they are
addressed needs to reflect the range of relevant legal, policy, and organizational practices.'0
Deviations from the range of design criteria outlined in this Guide may be the premise for claims that
the geometric design of the roadway is not safe. One of the best strategies for defending against these
claims includes compliance with any policy related to flexible design, use of appropriate engineering
judgment supported by quantitative analysis where appropriate, and good, consistent documentation of
the reason for the decision. 21 Documentation should include a summary of mitigating strategies
considered and implemented.
1.5.2 SUGGESTED KEY CRITERIA FOR DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
Requiring a design exception evaluation for every design element is impractical. As a result, 12 criteria,
commonly referred to as controlling criteria, have been identified as having substantial importance to
the operational and safety performance of any highway such that special attention should be paid to
them in design decisions. The following geometric design criteria are considered key and it is
recommended that they be considered as part of any formal design exception process adopted:"
1. Design speed
2. Horizontal alignment
3. Superelevation
4. Vertical alignment
s. Grade
G. Stopping sight distance
June 2017 21
7. Vertical clearance
a. Cross slope
9. Lane width
10. Shoulder width
11. Bridge width
12. Lateral offset to obstruction
1.5.3 DESIGN EXCEPTION PROCESS
A design exception process should be thorough, repeatable and well documented. Figure 1.5.1
23
illustrates a good design exception process.
¢
determine costs
develop and
and impacts of
evaluate evaluate risk
meeting design
alternatives
parameters
~
document,
monitor and
evaluate
in-service
performance
¢ review
and decide
(approve
or reject)
evaluate
mitigation
measures
Figure 1.5.1: Design Exception Process
Step 1: Determine the Costs and Impacts of Meeting Design Criteria

The design process should start with the assumption that the design will meet the design domain
criteria. Understanding the costs and impacts of that assumption is a critical first step. While it is not
always possible to quantify all impacts, the following should be considered and documented:
• Road safety impacts
• Natural environment impacts
• Social or right-of-way impacts
• Preservation of historical or cultural resources
• Sensitivity to context
• Sensitivity to community values
• Construction and right-of-way costs
Step 2: Develop and Evaluate Alternatives
Developing and evaluating a range of alternatives will assist in understanding the trade-offs required, if
the desired design criteria cannot be met without unacceptable impacts and/or costs. It also provides
for future reference that good faith efforts were made in making what is typically a complex decision
22 June 2017
and mitigating risks. Where costs can be quantified, the use of benefit cost analysis as discussed in
Section 1.2 can provide guidance on the extent of the quantifiable trade-offs.
Step 3: Evaluate Risk
Designers should acknowledge that the inability to meet the design domain criteria may increase safety
and operational risks. Understanding what the risks are, and the likelihood and severity of those risks,
should be evaluated before moving forward with a design exception. Other sections of this Guide offer
details on the importance of road safety and human factors considerations and their impacts on the
physical design of the roadway. These considerations include, but are not limited to the following:
• Traffic volumes - Is this a lower volume road?
• Traffic composition - Is there a high percentage of trucks, special vehicles, and/or vulnerable
users?
• Traffic speed - Is this a lower speed roadway?
• Severity of the design exception - Is the deviation small or extensive?
• Length of the design exception - Is the design exception at a point, over a short section, or is it
several kilometres in length?
• Multiple design exceptions-Are there two or more design exceptions grouped together?
• Duration of the design exception- ls this a short-term situation?
• Other risk factors - Are there other roadway elements that may interact with the design
exception to pose a greater safety risk?
• Existing safety-Are there existing safety problems at this location?
• Predicted safety-What is expected collision frequency and severity in future for each
alternative?
Because each design situation is unique, it is the designer's responsibility to ensure all of the appropriate
risk elements are considered in their analysis. However, research has suggested that in general, only a
few of the 12 key design criteria are critical in the design of lower speed (design speed of 70 km/h or
less) urban roadways. Intersection design and access management are important criteria for lower
speed urban roadways. 24 Further, for all roadway classifications some of the key design criteria are less
critical than others and while they still need to be addressed they can be given lesser emphasis in the
design exception process. 24 These are:
• Vertical grade is a less critical criterion on urban roadways.
• Vertical curves and in particular sag curves are a less critical criterion.
• Lateral offset to obstruction is typically addressed adequately by shoulder width on rural
highways and high speed urban roadways.
Step 4: Identify and Evaluate Mitigation Measures
Where design elements do not meet the design criteria, mitigation measures may be developed and
implemented to deal with the risks identified. These may include one or more of the following:
• Advance warning features.
• Improvements to other geometric features to compensate for possible results of an adverse
action.
• Addition offeatures to reduce the severity of an adverse result.
• Some combination of the above, and/or other unique measures as appropriate to the design
exception situation.
June 2017 23
Table 1.5.1 summarizes some potential mitigation measures for each of the 12 key controlling criteria.
These are examples only and this table should not be considered comprehensive. Other appropriate
mitigating measures may exist.
Table 1.5.1: Key Design Element Mitigation Measures 2s
Design Element · Objective . Potential Mitigation Strategies

Design Speed Reduce operating speeds to the • Cross sectional elements to manage
(Criterion 1) design speed. speed.
Horizontal Provide advance warning. • Signing .
Alignment and • Pavement marking messages .
Superelevation • Dynamic curve warning systems .
(Criteria 2 and 3) Provide delineation. • Chevrons .
• Post-mounted delineators .
• Reflectors on barrier.
Improve ability to stay within the • Widen the roadway .
lane. • Skid-resistant pavement .
• Enhanced pavement markings .
• Lighting .
• Centerline rumble strips .
• Shoulder rumble strips .
• Painted edgeline rumble strips .
Improve ability to recover if driver • Paved or partially paved shoulders .
leaves the lane. • Safety edge .
Reduce crash severity if driver leaves • Remove or relocate fixed objects .
the roadway. • Traversable slopes .
• Breakaway safety hardware .
• Shield fixed objects and steep slopes .
Vertical Alignment Provide advance warning. • Signing .

and Grade Improve safety and operations for • Climbing lanes .
(Criteria 4 and 5) vehicles ascending or descending • Downgrade lanes .
steep grades.
Capture out-of-control vehicles • Escape ramps (with and without
descending steep grades. dragnets).
Vertical Alignment Improve ability to stay within the • Enhanced pavement markings.
and Stopping Sight lane. • Delineators .
Distance • Centerline rumble strips .
(Criteria 4 and 6) • Shoulder rumble strips .
• Painted edgeline rumble strips .
Improve ability to recover if driver • Paved or partially-paved shoulders

leaves the lane. • Safety edge
Reduce crash severity if driver leaves • Remove or relocate fixed objects

the roadway. • Traversable slopes
• Breakaway safety hardware
• Shield fixed objects and steep slopes
24 June 2017
Design Element Objective .·. ·..·.·... .. Potential Mitigation Strategies .... ..

.· .. ·· · ··
Address drainage on flat grades. • Adjusting gutter profile on curbed cross

sections
• Continuous drains
Mitigate sight distance restrictions. • Signing and speed advisory plaques (crest
vertical curves)
• lighting (sag vertical curves)
• Adjust placement of lane within the
roadway cross section (horizontal)
• Cross sectional elements to manage
speed
Improve ability to avoid crashes. • Wide shoulders
• Wider clear recovery area
Improve driver awareness on • Advanced warning signs
approach to intersections. • Dynamic warning signs
• Larger or additional STOP/YIELD signs
• Intersection lighting
Vertical Clearance Advance warning. • Signing
(Criterion 7) Prevent impacts with low structures. • Alternate routes
• large vehicle restrictions
Cross Slope Provide warning of slick pavement. • Signing
(Criterion 8)
Improve surface friction. • Pavement grooving (PCC pavement) .
• Open-graded friction courses (HMA
pavement)
Improve drainage. • Transverse pavement grooving (PCC

pavement)
• Open-graded friction courses (HMA
pavement)
• Pavement edge drains
Mitigate cross-slope break on the • Modified shoulder cross slope
high side of superelevated curves.
lane Width and Optimize safety and operations by • Select optimal combination of lane and
Shoulder Width distributing available cross sectional shoulder width based on site
(Criteria 9 and 10) width. characteristics
Provide advance warning of lane • Signing
width reduction.
Improve ability to stay within the • Wide pavement markings
lane. • Recessed pavement markings
• Raised pavement markings
• Delineators
• Centerline rumble strips
• Painted edgeline rumble strips
Improve ability to recover if driver • Paved or partially-paved shoulders
leaves lane. • Safety edge
June 2017 25
. . .
.· .· .
..· ..·. ·.
Design Element Objective. ···•• ... Potential Mitigation Strategies .·
Reduce crash severity if driver leaves • Remove or relocate fixed objects

the roadway. • Traversable slopes
• Breakaway safety hardware
• Shield fixed objects and steep slopes
Provide space for enforcement and • Pull-off areas
disabled vehicles.
Bridge Width Provide advance warning and • Signing
(Criterion 11) delineation of narrow bridge. • Reflectors on approach guardrail and
Improve visibility of narrow bridge, bridge rail
bridge rail, and lane lines. • Post-mounted delineators
• Object markers
• High-Visibility bridge rail
• Bridge lighting
• Enhanced pavement markings
Maintain pavement on bridge that • Skid-resistant pavement
will provide safe driving conditions. • Anti-icing systems
Reduce crash severity if driver leaves • Crashworthy bridge rail and approach
the roadway. guardrail
Lateral Offset to Improve visibility of objects near the • Delineate objects
Obstruction roadway. • Lighting
(Criterion 12)
Optimize operations by distributing • Provide full outside lane width and/or
available cross sectional width. additional offset
Improve visibility of the lane lines. • Enhanced pavement markings
Step 5: Document, Review, and Decide (Approve or Reject)

Documentation should demonstrate the designer's clear understanding of the design criteria and their
functional relationships, the unique context, careful consideration of alternative solutions, and a
reasonable weighing of impacts and effects in support of a recommendation to deviate from the
adopted criteria. Critical to this documentation and the ultimate recommendation is a record of the
consideration and application of strategies and features to mitigate the potential risk of the design
26
exception.
Use of a standardized documentation protocol and decision process (approval or rejection) is important
as it promotes consistency and repeatability in decisions. Table 1.5.2 summarizes the typical items and
issues that should be considered at a minimum. Other items and issues may need to be considered
depending on the characteristics of the design situation.
26 June 2017
27
Table 1.5.2: Design Exception Documentation
Items Issues . . . .
Basic Information Identify the location of the design exception, including the length or beginning and
ending points, if applicable. A map or graphic may be appropriate.
State the design speed.
State the traffic volumes and the composition of traffic.
Design Element(s) and State the design element(s) to which the design exception applies.
Criteria
State the minimum value or range.
State the resource that was used to obtain the design value and its year of publication
(e.g., the 1999 edition of Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads).
State the value being proposed.
Explanation Describe the reasons for the design exception.
Describe the site constraints.
Describe and, if possible, quantify the costs and impacts involved with fully meeting
design criteria. Use tables, charts, and drawings as appropriate to illustrate and clarify
the impacts.
Describe the other alternatives that were considered.
Discuss the potential impacts to safety and traffic operations.
Mitigation Describe the mitigation measures that were considered.
Describe the mitigation measures that will be implemented and possible additional
maintenance and operational costs. Include drawings if appropriate.
Describe the extent to which the mitigation measures are expected to mitigate the
risks associated with the design exception.
Supporting Information For locations where an existing feature that does not meet criteria is being maintained
and current crash data are available, quantify the substantive safety of the location
and how it compares to similar facilities.
If any research or other technical resources were consulted as part of the evaluation
process, identify them.
To promote objectivity, review of any design exception should be done by an individual or small group
independent of the group proposing the design exception. A hierarchy of internal review requirements
and decision-making levels can be considered to reflect the number, range, and severity of design
exceptions that can occur. Figure 1.5.2 provides an example of an Alberta Transportation design
exception request form that contains many of the elements described in Table 1.5.2, their approval
process and a design standards/practice exception request summary. 28
June 2017 27
Figure 1.5.2: Sample Design Exception Process and Report Summary
Government
1
of Alberta• DESIGN STANDARDS/ PRACTICE EXCEPTION
REQUEST FORM
Date:
Project:
Region:
Project Sponsor:
Consultant:
NOTE: complete, modify and/or provide additional information as required.

Proiect Staae
( ) Functional Planning () Preliminary Design ( ) Delailed Design
()Construction ( ) Traffic Impact Assessment (development)
( ) Access Management ( ) Other Please specify
Project Type
( ) Functional Planning () New Construction ( ) Reconstruction
( ) Paving/Surfacing () Bridge ( ) Operations { ) Geotechnical () Environmental
() Other Please specify
Proiect Data ft"""icall" renuired for all nroiects\

Proiect Descriotion
Hiahwav No. Control Section I
Km Posts From: To:
Lennth of Protect
ChalnaQe {if annlicable} From: To:
Chain Direction • South to North • West to East
Desian Desianation
Service Classification
Basic or Existing
Riaht-of-Wav
Exlstinn Traffic Vol. MDT I ASDT
Projected Traffic Vol. MDT ASDT
t vears) I
Design Vehicles Vehicle
Distribution
Desian Soeed Posted Sneed
Example of information reauired for aeometric desion:

Cross-Section: Existing Width Width after
Overlav
3R/4R Current
(Suggested Min. Standards
Width\
Backslooe Sideslooe
Ditch Width
Level of Service: Exislinn Protected
Horz. Alignment Min. Radii Proposed Radii
Vert. Alignment Min. K Crest Curve Proposed K Crest Curve
Min. K Sag Curve Proposed K Sag Curve
Max Grade: Proposed Grade:
Existing Passing/Climbing Lanes
Version: August 3, 2010 Page 1 of 2
28 June 2017
Governmen~
bf Alberta 1111 DESIGN STANDARDS/ PRACTICE EXCEPTION
REQUEST FORM
Collision History (If applicable}: <Period Year to Year>

( ) Segment ( ) Interchange ()Intersection ( ) Bridge ()Other _ _ _ _ Please specify
Collision Data Non Animal Animal Total

Collison Rate
Collision Freauencv
Collislon Severity #Fatal #Injury #PDQ
Breakdown
Other (Type):
Please soecifv
Other Criteria - Please Specify
Details and Supporting Documentation of Design Exception
Provide drawings, analysis, evaluations, cost eslimates, rationale, jUstification, etc. and
supporting documentation as required.
Recommended: Recommended:
Project Sponsor/Date Regional Director/Date
Recommended; Recommended {if applicable):
Technical Standards Branch/Date Executive Director of Planning/Date
Approved;
Executive Director of Technical Standards Branch/Date
Version: August 3, 201 O Page 2 of 2
June 2017 29
_At~ DESIGN STANDARDS/PRACTICE

Government EXCEPTION REQUEST SUMMARY
Memorandum (or Approval) Date: July 5, 2013

Design Exception Request Date: June 5, 2013
Region: North Central
Approval Status: Approved
Pfo
Afkm
<J ''
' PrOTect' Ti n'e:lM3.rk:a1tthaf;3-n,..1v,:with:ciri)(Y>
1 0 -- -- --' <------- ':::-·- ->><- --<,--,'--'>-.
Functional New
Plannino: Construction:
Reconstruction: Paving/Surfacing: x
Brldae: Ooerations: Geotechnical: Environmental:
Other: Detailed DesiQn x
Current intersection sight distance (ISO) and stopping sight distance (SOD} are not adequate for
a design speed of 11 Okm/h. However, reconstruction of the road profile to meet a 110km/h
design speed would be difficult due to existing site constraints. Thus, it is recommended to
maintain the road profile and its 1 OOkm/h posted speed.
• Due to the topography and site constraints in the area, the consultant estimated that
improving the ISO and SOD would cost 5 million dollars. Thus, improving the vertical
alignment is not considered as cost effective.
• The collision history from 2006 to 2010 for this intersection is considered good. There were
9 reported collisions. Within that, 2 were non~animal collisions, and both were PDO.
• The existing Type 3a intersection treatment exceeds the warranted Type 1 a intersection
treatment.
Concealed intersection sign (WA~13) will be installed in advance of the intersection along
Hi hwa 47.
Ke Words
Vertical curve. minimum K value, sa curve, intersection, intersection si
PhotoQraph/Dia9ram
Page 1 of 3
30 June 2017
_At~ DESIGN STANDARDS/PRACTICE

Government EXCEPTION REQUEST SUMMARY
~•
'
Page 2 of 3
June 2017 31
At~ Government
DESIGN STANDARDS/PRACTICE
EXCEPTION REQUEST SUMMARY
··-----------------,
r-..--·-· · ---,·.
r-··--·-·-1
1 - · -··-·-·-:
I H .:
I i:' ·'~-----
1 '
ml
.L...
Page 3 of 3
32 June 2017
Step 6: Monitor and Evaluate In-Service Performance
Performance of design exception locations should be monitored to allow for design changes or
mitigation measures to be implemented, if necessary, and to add to the knowledge about the safety and
operational effects of design exceptions and mitigation measures. The monitoring can be done as part of
safety assessment programs.
June 2017 33
REFERENCES
1 AASHTO. 2010. Highway Safety Manual 1" edition, Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
2 Clayton, C. and Ibrahim, A. 2001. Canadian Guide to 3R/4R: Identifying Cost Effective Geometric
Improvements for Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehobilitotion and Reconstruction Projects. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
3 Ontario Ministry of Transportation [Viewed November 1, 2016]

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/transtek/ve
4 Redrawn from Value Analysis Canada. [Viewed November 1, 2016] http://www.scav-

csva .o rg/ a bo utva. ph p
5 TRB. 2010. Highway Capacity Monuol {HCM 2010}. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies.
6 Teply, S., Allingham, D.I., Richardson, D.B. and Stephenson, B.W. 1995. Canadian Capacity Guide for
Signalized Intersections. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
7 TRB. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies.
8 Persaud, B.N. 1992. Road Safety: A Review of the Ontario Experience and Relevant Work Elsewhere.
Toronto: Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
9 Ibid.
10 NAVIGATS, Inc., Hauer, E. January 2014. User's Guide to Develop Highway Safety Monuol Safety
Performance Function Calibration Factors. NCH RP Project 20-07 I Task 332. Washington DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
12 Hauer, E. and Persaud, B. 1996. Safety Analysis of Roadway Geometry and Ancillary Features. Ottawa:
Transportation Association of Canada.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 NAVIGATS, Inc. 2011. Estimating the Costs to State Governments Due to Highway-Related Debilitating
Injury and Fatal Crashes [online]. NCH RP Project 20-24(068). National Cooperative Research Program.
[Not active on November 2, 2016] http://www.usroadwaysafety.org/
17 TAC. 2001. Canadian Road Safety Audit Guide, Ottawa: Transportation Association of Canada.
18 Ibid.
34 June 2017
19 See, for example, NCH RP. 2012. "Tort Liability Defense Practices for Design Flexibility," Legal Research
Digest 57, Washington DC; Williams Lea. 2008. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, United Kingdom
Highway Agency; Road Planning and Design Manual, Queensland Department of Main Roads; Alberta
Transportation. 2010. "Design Standards/Practice Exception Request Process", Design Bulletin
372/2010.
20 Ibid.
21 Parker, T.L .. 2012. "Tort Liability Defense Practices for Design Flexibility", NCHRP Legal Research Digest
57, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
22 Stein, W.J., Neuman, T.R. 2007. Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions. Report FHWA-SA-07-011.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
23 Ibid.
24 Harwood, D.W., Hutton, J.M., Fees, C., Bauer, K.M., Glen A., Ouren, H. 2014. NCH RP Report 783,
Evaluation of the 13 Contra/ling Criteria for Geometric Design. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies.
25 Stein, W.J., Neuman, T.R. 2007. Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions. Report FHWA-SA-07-011.
Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration.
26 Adapted from: Stein, W.J., Neuman, T.R. 2007. Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions. Report
FHWA-SA-07-011. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
27 Ibid.
28 Province of Alberta. August 2010. Design Bulletin #72/2010: Design Standards/Practice Exception
Request Process. Edmonton: Alberta Transportation.
June 2017 35
Glossary
GLOSSARY
Acceleration Lane An auxiliary lane to enable a vehicle to increase speed to merge with
through traffic.
Access Control See Controlled Access.
Access Management The management of the location and basic dimensions of access to
property, from a roadway.
Ancillary Space The part of the roadway, between the travel lanes and the curb or
pavement edge.
Accident Not used. (See "Collision")
Adverse Crown Negative superelevation on a curve, due to the normal cross section
of non-superelevated sections.
Approach Nose The end of a median or island that faces approaching traffic.
Approach Taper The taper required in advance of an intersection to shift the through
lanes laterally to the right to provide the width for a left-turn auxiliary
lane.
Area of Contents An object or roadside condition that may warrant safety treatment.
Arterial Road A road primarily for through traffic.
Auxiliary Lane A lane in addition to, and placed adjacent to, a through lane intended
for a specific manoeuvre such as turning, merging, diverging,
weaving and for slow vehicles.
Average Annual Daily Traffic The total volume of traffic passing a point or segment of a roadway,
{AADT) in both directions for one year, divided by the number of days in the
year.
Barrier Transition A method by which a change in longitudinal barrier type provides

continuous protection to adjacent traffic.
Barrier Warrant A criterion that identifies a potential need for a traffic barrier.
Bike Lane A lane intended for the exclusive use of bicycles, within a roadway
used by motorized vehicles.
Bike Path A bicycle facility, physically separated from roadways, where motor
vehicle traffic, except maintenance vehicles, is excluded.
June 2017 G-1

Glossary
Bike Route Any roadway signed specifically to encourage bicycle use.
Bikeway A roadway, or part of a roadway, intended for the use of bicycles,

either exclusively or shared with other vehicular traffic or
pedestrians.
Border The area adjoining the outer edge of the sidewalk.
Boulevard The strip of land paralleling the roadway between the curb and the
sidewalk, often planted with trees, grass, shubbery.
Braking Distance The distance travelled from the time that braking begins to the time
the vehicle comes to a stop.
Break Point The outer extremity of the shoulder where the side slope begins.
Breakaway A design feature that allows a device such as a sign, luminaire or

traffic signal support to yield or separate upon impact.
Bridge Railing A longitudinal barrier whose primary function is to prevent an errant

vehicle from going over the side of the bridge structure.
Broken Back Curve An arrangement of curves in which a short tangent separates two
curves in the same direction. (
Building Line A line prescribing the nearest limits for the erection of buildings in
relation to a roadway.
Bulbing A widened portion of the median or outer separation, usually at an

intersection.
Channelization The separation and direction of traffic movements and pedestrians

into defined paths at an at-grade intersection through the use of
geometric features, pavement markings and traffic control devices.
Choker (curb bulb) A narrowing of a roadway, either at an intersection or mid-block, in

order to reduce the width of the roadway surface.
Clear Zone The roadside area immediately adjacent to the outer travelled lane,
clear of hazards, which may be used safely by errant vehicles.
Climbing Lane A lane added on the right side of a roadway on an upgrade intended
for use by trucks and other slow vehicles to discourage these vehicle
types from using the through lanes.
Collector Lanes Lanes on a freeway used for entering and exiting traffic, physically
separated from the through or express lanes except at specific
weaving locations.
G-2 June 2017

Glossary
Collector Road A road on which traffic movement and access have similar
importance.
Collision An event in which travel by a vehicle results in the vehicle being in

an inappropriate location, or in an appropriate location at an
inappropriate time, culminating in unwanted contact with a fixed
object, vehicle, other roadway user or other obstacle.
Collision-Free Circumstances under which a collision will never occur, i.e.

"absolute" safety.
Continuous Right-Turn Auxiliary A right-turn lane that is continuous for a significant distance serving
Lane a number of driveways.
Controlled Access The condition where the opportunity for access to a roadway is
controlled by public authority.
Corner Clearance The distance between the near curb of a street intersection and the
near edge of a driveway throat or public lane.
Crash Not used. (See "Collision")
Crash Cushion A device that prevents an errant vehicle from impacting fixed object
hazards by gradually decelerating the vehicle to a safe stop or by
redirecting the vehicle away from the hazard.
Crest Vertical Curve A vertical curve having a convex shape in profile when viewed from
above.
Criterion A value, determined either by mathematical relationships or by

experience, that represents the degree of excellence required for a
particular application, acknowledged as appropriate for that
application where prevailing conditions are normal and typical,
recognizing that in atypical circumstances some variation may be
appropriate. It may be regarded as a basis for assessing existing
designs and formulating opinion on their quality, but is not treated
as a rigid value to which there is any obligation for designs to
conform.
Cross Section The transverse profile of a roadway.
Cross Street A street of lower classification that crosses a roadway of higher

classification, either at grade or passing over or beneath.
Cross-Slope The average grade between edges of a cross section element.
June 2017 G-3

Glossary
Crosswalk Any part of a roadway specifically intended for pedestrian crossing,

which may be so indicated by signs, lines, markings or other
devices.
Crown The highest break point of the surface of a roadway in cross section.
Cul-de-sac A roadway open at one end only.
Curb A structure with a vertical or sloping face along the edge of a lane or
shoulder strengthening or protecting the edge or clearly defining
the edge.
Curb Drop The transition length required to decrease the curb height to
accommodate a driveway or sidewalk ramp.
Curb Return The curved section of curb used at intersections or driveways in

joining straight sections of curb.
Curve to Spiral (CS) The point of alignment change from circular curve to spiral curve, in
the direction of stationing.
Curvilinear Alignment An alignment predominantly made up of circular and spiral curves.
Deceleration Lane An auxiliary lane to enable a vehicle that is to make an exit from a
roadway to reduce speed after it has left the through traffic lanes.
Decision Sight Distance The distance required for a driver to detect an information source
or hazard, recognize the hazard or its potential threat, select
appropriate action, and complete the manoeuvre safely and
efficiently.
Deflection Angle The angle between a line and the projection of the preceding line.
Departure Taper The taper required beyond a flared intersection to laterally shift the
through lanes to the left, back to a normal alignment or cross
section.
Design Consistency An indication of the quality of design offered by a roadway.
Design Hour Volume (DHV) An hourly traffic volume selected for use in geometric design.
Design Speed A speed selected for purposes of design and correlation of the
geometric features of a road.
Desired Speed The operating speed that drivers will adopt on the less constrained
G-4 June 2017

Glossary
alignment elements of a reasonably uniform section of road (e.g.,

the longer straights and large radius horizontal curves) when other
vehicles or users do not affect their speed choice
Development Roadway A roadway whose primary purpose is to provide access to

undeveloped areas.
Double Left-Turn Lanes A pair of adjacent lanes intended for the exclusive use of vehicles
about to turn left. Interchangeable with dual left-turn lane.
Drainage Channel A channel intended to control and conduct storm water runoff.
Earth Roadway A roadway that has a driving surface consisting of subgrade

material.
Easement A right acquired by public authority to use or control property for a

designated purpose.
Effective Wheelbase (EWB) The distance from the centroid of the front axle group to the
centroid of the rearmost axle group, which significantly influences
the turning envelope. For two-axle vehicles, total and effective
wheelbase is the same.
End Treatment The method by which the end of a barrier facing on-coming traffic is
treated to minimize its hazard.
Energy Attenuator See Crash Cushion.
Entrance The general area where turning roadway traffic enters the main
roadway.
Entrance Terminal The part of an entrance comprised of auxiliary or speed change

lanes including the ramp proper up to the ramp-controlling curve.
Exit The general area where turning roadway traffic departs from the
main roadway.
Exit Terminal That part of an exit comprised of auxiliary lanes or speed change
lanes, including the ramp-controlling curve.
Express Lanes Lanes on a freeway used for through traffic, physically separated
from the collector lanes, except at specific weaving locations.
Express-Collector System A freeway in which the through or express lanes are physically
separated from the collector Janes.
June 2017 G-5

Glossary
Expressway A divided arterial roadway for through traffic with full or partial
control of access and with some interchanges.
False Grading The practice of distorting the profile of a roadway, relative to the
top of curb, so as to avoid flat grades in order to affect drainage.
Flare The variable offset distance of a barrier to place it further from the
travelled way.
Flexible Barrier A form of longitudinal barrier that is intended to redirect an errant

vehicle by rail tension, usually through a system of cables installed
in tension.
Frangible Readily or easily broken upon impact.
Freeway A road limited to through traffic, with access only through

interchanges.
Friction Factor The coefficient of friction between the tire and roadway, measured
either longitudinally or laterally.
Front Overhang (FOH) The distance from the front bumper of a vehicle to the centroid of
its front axle group.
Frontage Roadway A roadway contiguous to a through roadway so designed as to

intercept, collect and distribute traffic desiring to cross, enter or
leave the through roadway and to furnish access to property.
Geometric Design The selection of the visible dimensions of the elements of a

roadway.
Gore Area An area of pavement, usually delineated by paint lines, between the
edge of the through lane and an entry or exit roadway or ramp.
Grade Separation Vertical separation of two intersecting roadways or a roadway and a

railway.
Gradient The rate of rise or fall with respect to the horizontal distance.
Gravel Roadway A roadway that has a driving surface consisting of granular material.
Guardrail I Guidera ii See Barrier.
Guidelines Outlines of acceptable practice.
G-6 June 2017

Glossary
Gutter A paved shallow waterway provided for carrying surface drainage.
Gutter Line The bottom of the curb face where it meets the concrete gutter,or
the paved surface where a gutter is not employed.
Gutter Lip The edge of a concrete gutter opposite the curb where it meets the
paved roadway.
Hazard Any obstacle or other feature such as an embankment, or a body of

water of depth greater than 1 m which, without protection, may
cause significant injury to the occupants of a vehicle encountering
it.
Heuristic An aid to design based on experience - a "rule of thumb".
High-Occupancy-Vehicle (HOV) A lane designated for the exclusive use of high-occupancy vehicles.
Lane
Highway Synonymous with roadway but generally limited to higher-speed

roadways in rural areas.
Horizontal Alignment The configuration of a road or roadway as seen in plan.
Horizontal Curve A curve in plan to provide for change of direction.
Independent Alignment A divided roadway in which each direction of travel is designed

independently, both in horizontal and vertical alignments, to take
advantage of topographical features.
Inside Jane The left lane in one direction of a roadway with two or more lanes
in that direction, also referred to as an inner lane.
Interchange A grade-separated intersection with one or more turning roadways

for travel between the through roadways.
Intersection The general area where two or more roads join or cross, within
which are included the roadway and roadside facilities for traffic
movements.
Intersection Approach That part of an intersection leg used by traffic approaching the
intersection.
Intersection Sight Distance (!SD) The sight distance to left and right available to a driver intending to
execute a maneuver onto a through roadway from an intersecting
roadway.
June 2017 G-7

Glossary
Island A defined area between traffic lanes for control of vehicle

movements or for pedestrian refuge.
Lane A part of the travelled way intended for the movement of a single
file of vehicles.
Left-Turn Lane A lane added on the approach to an intersection for the exclusive
use of left-turning vehicles.
Length of Need Total length of a longitudinal barrier needed to shield an area of

concern.
Local Roadway A roadway with the primary function of providing land access.
Long Combination Vehicle (LCV) A combination of a tractor and trailer(s) used for special purposes,
with an overall length greater than 25 m. Examples are 'triples' and
'turnpike doubles'.
Longitudinal Barrier A barrier whose primary function is to prevent penetration and to

safely redirect an errant vehicle away from a roadside or median
hazard.
Low-Volume Roadway A roadway with average daily traffic of 1000 veh/d or less, and
whose service functions are oriented toward rural roadway
systems, roadways to or within isolated communities, recreation
roadways and resource development.
LRT Light rail transit.
Mainline The principal route.
Median A reserve, including shoulders, between lanes carrying traffic in

opposite directions.
Median Barrier A longitudinal barrier used to prevent an errant vehicle from

crossing the median.
Merging-End The physical end of an entrance terminal between the outer travel
lane and the ramp, beyond which traffic merges. Also known as the
painted wedge.
Minimum Passing Sight Distance The least sight distance required to make a passing maneuver
safely, based on a given set of circumstances.
G-8 June 2017

Glossary
Minimum Stopping Sight Distance The least sight distance required to come to a stop under a given
set of prevailing vehicle, pavement and climatic conditions.
Minimum Turning Radius (TR) The radius of the path of the outside of the outer front wheel for
the minimum radius turning condition. In previous TAC design
guides, this dimension was used to denote the minimum design
turning radius.
Multi-Use Path (MUP) A path with multiple users of different types (e.g., pedestrians,
bicycles, and similar user types); a MUP may be shared (all users
share the same pathway space, with or without a marked centre
line) or may be separated (i.e., the pathway is separated into
parallel travelled ways, e.g. one exclusively for pedestrians and one
exclusively for bicycles).
Multi-Use Trail (MUT) See Multi-Use Path.
Noise Berm A physical barrier, consisting of compacted earth in a trapezoidal

shape, used as a means of minimizing the transmission of traffic
sounds.
Normal Crown A cross section in which adjacent surfaces slope in opposite

directions from the centre line or a lane edge to affect drainage to
the sides.
Obstacle Any object impeding the path of a vehicle.
Offset Mid-Block Crossing A pedestrian crossing on a divided roadway in which the alignment
of the crossing is staggered at the median.
One-Lane One-Way-Roadway A roadway with one lane that carries one-directional traffic.
One-Lane Two-Way-Roadway A roadway with one lane that provides sufficient roadway width for
the safe passing of opposing vehicles.
Operating Speed The 85th percentile speed of vehicles at a time when traffic
volumes are low and drivers are free to choose the speed at which
they travel.
Outer Separation The area between the edge of the travelled lanes of a roadway and
the edge of the travelled lanes of an adjacent, parallel roadway.
Outside Lane The right lane in one direction on a roadway with two or more lanes
in that direction (also referred to as an outer lane).
June 2017 G-9

Glossary
Overall Length The distance between the front bumper of the power vehicle and
the rear bumper on the rear unit of a vehicle or trailer combination.
It equals the sum of its effective wheelbases, front overhand and
rear overhang.
Overpass (vehicle) A grade separation in which the subject roadway passes over an
intersecting roadway or railway.
Painted Wedge See Merging-End.
Parameter A quantity that is a variable in the general case and is constant in

the specific case under consideration. (Radius of circular curve is an
example in which radius varies from one curve to another but for
one particular circular curve is the same at any point on the curve.)
Parclo An abbreviation for the PARtial CLOverleaf interchange, a grade

separation having loop ramps in fewer than all four quadrants.
Parking Lane A supplementary lane intended for parking.
Passing Lane A supplementary lane intended for passing.
Passing Opportunity The distance ahead required to be visible to a driver to initiate a

passing maneuver safely.
Passing Sight Distance The distance ahead visible to the driver available to complete a
passing maneuver.
Platform Intersection An intersection in which the area common to the two roadways is
at the same elevation as the top of curb or sidewalk.
Policy Principle, course of action, or strategy adopted by government,

government agency or technical organization that reflects prevailing
community values, intended to provide direction and guidance in
the selection of technical and non-technical criteria for general
application, and specific dimensions in the planning and design
process. Policy necessarily incorporates some element of political or
other non-technical community viewpoints.
Posted Speed A speed limitation introduced for reason of safety, economy, traffic
control and government regulatory policy aimed at encouraging
drivers to travel at an appropriate speed for surrounding conditions.
G-10 June 2017

Glossary
Public Lane (Alley) A narrow minor street, usually without sidewalks, located at the
rear of lots for vehicle access to garages or other parking spaces and
which also serves as a utility right of way.
Raised Crosswalk A crosswalk on a curbed street whose elevation is the same as the
top of curb or sidewalk.
Ramp A turning roadway to permit the movement of traffic from one

through roadway to another.
Reaction Time The time that elapses from the instant a visual stimulus is perceived
by a driver to the instant the driver takes remedial action.
Rear Overhang (ROH) The distance from the rear bumper of a vehicle to the centroid of its
rearmost axle group.
Recovery Area Generally synonymous with clear zone.
Retrofit The reconstruction of an existing roadway with geometric

improvements.
Reverse Crown A typical surface cross section in which adjacent surfaces slope in
the same direction at the normal crown.
Reverse Curve Two curves, curving in opposite directions from a common point.
Right of Way The area of land acquired for or devoted to the provision of a road.
Right-Turn Lane A lane added on the approach to an intersection for the exclusive
use of right-turning vehicles.
Right-Turn Taper The taper from the edge of the through lane to the beginning of a
right- turning roadway at an intersection, where an auxiliary lane is
not used.
Rigid Barrier A form of longitudinal barrier that is intended to redirect an errant

vehicle with minimum deflection in the barrier system. It usually
consists of a continuous concrete mass.
Road The entire right-of-way comprising a common or public

thoroughfare, including a highway, street, lane, alley, bridge and
any other structure incidental thereto.
Roadside The area adjoining the outer edge of the roadway.
June 2017 G -11

Glossary
Roadside Barrier A longitudinal barrier used to shield roadside obstacles or non-

traversable terrain features. It may occasionally be used to protect
pedestrians from vehicle traffic.
Roadway That portion of a road which is improved, designed or ordinarily

intended for vehicular use, inclusive of the shoulder.
Roadway Hump A speed control device in which the roadway surface is raised over a
length of about 3.5 to 4.0 m to a maximum height of 80 mm.
Roundabout A channelized intersection in which traffic moves counterclockwise

around a centre island of sufficient size to induce weaving
movements in place of direct crossings. It is sometimes referred to
as a rotary or traffic circle.
Rounding The introduction of a vertical curve between two transverse slopes

to minimize the abrupt slope changes.
Rumble Strips Indentations in the surface of a paved shoulder that provide an

audible or tactile warning to a driver that the vehicle has left the
travelled lane.
Rural Area An area characterized by low density development on large parcels.
Safety Zone A protected area within a roadway for the exclusive use of
pedestrians.
Sag Vertical Curve A vertical curve having a concave shape in profile viewed from
above.
Semi-Rigid Barrier A form of longitudinal barrier that is intended to redirect an errant

vehicle by rail tension and bending, by means of a system of posts
and rails or by a longitudinal bin.
Service Roadway Same as frontage roadway but not necessarily contiguous with the
through roadway.
Sha red Street A street designed to be shared by pedestrians, cyclists, and slow-
moving motorists, with no physical separation of modes and
typically an emphasis on use as a livable public space.
Shielding The introduction of a barrier or crash cushion between a vehicle

and an obstacle or area of concern to reduce the severity of impacts
of errant vehicles.
G -12 June 2017

Glossary
Shoulder That part of a roadway contiguous with the travelled way intended
for emergency stopping, and/or lateral support of the roadway
structure. It may also be configured to be accessible for bicycle
travel.
Shy-Line Offset A distance beyond which a roadside object will not be perceived by
a driver to be a threat, to the extent of changing lane position or
speed.
Sidewalk A travelled way intended for pedestrian use, following an alignment

generally parallel to that of the adjacent roadway.
Sight Distance From any given point, the unobstructed distance a driver can see,
usually along the roadway ahead.
Sight Triangle The triangle formed by the line of sight and the two sight distances
of drivers, cyclists or pedestrians approaching an intersection on
two intersecting streets.
Slot Left-Turn Lane On a divided roadway, a left-turn lane which is angled and situated
entirely within a wide median to accommodate a divisional island
between the left-turn lane and the adjacent through lane.
Speed Hump See Roadway Hump
Speed-Change Lane A deceleration or acceleration lane.
Spiral Parameter (A) A measure of the flatness of a spiral. It is the square root of the
product of radius and distance from the beginning of a spiral, where
the radius is infinity. It has the units of length.
Spiral to Curve (SC) The point of change from spiral curve to circular curve, in the
direction of stationing.
Spiral to Tangent (ST) The point of change from spiral curve to tangent, in the direction of
stationing.
Spline A flexible drafting tool used to draw curved lines of varying radii.
Standard A value for a specific design feature, which practice or theory has
shown to be appropriate for a specific set of circumstances, where
no unusual constraints influence the design.
June 2017 G-13

Glossary
Steering Angle The angle between the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and the
direction of the steering wheels, limited by the dimensions of parts
of the steering mechanism.
Stopping Distance The distance travelled by a vehicle from the instant the driver
decides to stop, to coming to a stop.
Stopping Sight Distance The required distance between a vehicle and an object, for which
the driver decides to stop, at the instant the object begins to come
into view.
Street Synonymous with road, but generally limited to lower speed roads
in urban areas.
Street Furniture Practical and decorative features introduced into the streetscaping,
intended to enhance the comfort, convenience and aesthetic
quality of the roadway environment.
Streetscaping The practice of applying aesthetic treatments to the street and its
facilities, intended to enhance the quality of the roadway
environment.
Suburban Area An area characterized by larger scale developments. Building

coverage and development density can vary, but typically are less
than in urban areas.
Superelevation The gradient measured at right angles to the centre line across the
roadway from the inside to the outside edge of a curve.
Superelevation Runoff The transition between a typical section of normal crown and a fully
superelevated section. (See also Tangent Runout.)
Surfaced Roadway A roadway in which the travelled lanes have been hard surfaced,
usually by some form of bituminous or concrete surface.
Swale A shallow drainage channel.
Tangent Runout The length of roadway needed to accomplish the change in cross-
slope from a normal crown to a location with the adverse crown
removed. See also Superelevation Runoff.
Tangent to Spiral (TS) The point of alignment change from tangent to spiral curve, in the
direction of stationing.
G - 14 June 2017
Glossary
Taper Where an auxiliary lane is being developed or terminated, the

straight-line transition from the edge of the through lane to the
beginning of the full width auxiliary left-turn or right-turn lane.
Target Speed The speed at which the designer intends for traffic to operate.
Throat Length The provision of sufficient unobstructed on-site driveway length to

prevent stopped vehicles from blocking the path of entering
vehicles or vehicles travelling along the circulation roadways on
site.
Through Lane A lane intended for through traffic movement.
Toll Road A road open to traffic only upon payment of a direct toll or fee;
sometimes called tollway, throughway, turnpike or autoroute.
Total Wheelbase (TWB) The centre to centre distance from the front axle to the rearmost
axle of a tractor-trailer combination. (The nomenclature used for
design vehicles is based on total wheelbase, for example "WB-19"
refers to a tractor-semitrailer having a total wheelbase of
approximately 19 m.).
Trail A beaten or maintained path or track often for a specified type of

traffic (e.g. ski trail).
Transit Lane A lane intended primarily for public transit vehicles.
Transition A method by which a change in longitudinal barrier type provides

continuous protection to errant vehicles.
Transition Curve A curve whose radius continuously changes (e.g. spiral).
Travelled Way That part of a roadway intended for vehicular travel. This includes
through lanes, turn lanes, and other auxiliary lanes. This does not
include shoulders or ancillary space.
Truck Escape Ramp (TER) A ramp provided on the right side of a long downhill section of
roadway to allow vehicles (usually trucks) to escape in the event of
brake failure.
Turning Roadway A separate roadway to accommodate turning traffic at the

intersection or interchange of two roads.
June 2017 G -15

Glossary
Turnout A widened section of roadway provided for passing of vehicles

travelling in opposite directions on a one-lane roadway, or in the
same direction on a two-lane roadway.
Two-Lane Roadway A roadway that provides for two lanes of traffic, one in each
direction.
Two-Way Left-Turn Lane (TWLTL) The middle lane on a two-way undivided street intended for the
exclusive use of vehicles about to turn left from either direction into
property accesses.
Underpass A grade separation in which the subject roadway passes under a

roadway or railway.
Urban Area An area characterized by extensive development and building

coverage.
Vertical Alignment The configuration of a road or roadway as seen in longitudinal

section.
Vertical Curvature The horizontal distance along a parabolic curve required to effect a
one percent change in gradient.
Vertical Curve A curve on the longitudinal profile of a roadway to provide for

change of gradient.
Warrant A criterion that identifies a potential need for a physical feature,

such as a traffic barrier, extra lane, or other item.
Weaving The condition in which vehicles move obliquely from one lane to
another, and cross the paths of other vehicles moving in the same
direction.
Weaving Lane A lane added to provide additional capacity and operational

improvement in sections of roadway experiencing weaving.
Weaving Section A section of roadway between an entrance and an exit, such that
the frequency of lane changing exceeds that for open highway
conditions.
G -16 June 2017

Chapter 1 - Design Philisophy - GDGCR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1 - Design Philisophy - GDGCR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T!!

Geometric Design Guide

CHAPTER 1 - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Geometric Design Guide

CHAPTER 1 - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Title and Subtitle

Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 1- Design Philosophy

Report Date Coordinating Agency and Address ITRD No.

June 2017 Transportation Association of Canada

Author(s) Corporate Affiliation(s) and Address(es)

Senior Review Panel

Chapter 1-Design Philosophy provides an introduction to the design objectives, its

Nova Scotia Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal

Prince Edward Island Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy

Project Steering Committee

John Hammer, Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Co-Chair)

Keith Boddy, Nova Scotia Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal

John Bolger and Olaf Homann, City of Calgary

Robin Casavant and Alexandra Turcza, City of Edmonton

David Currie and Larry Purcka, Government of Northwest Territories

Olha Do bush and Gayle Bursey, Region of Peel

Said Easa, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering

Darrell Evans, Prince Edward Island Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy

Sylvain Felton, Ville de Montreal

Rachel Jamieson, Translink

Bill Kenny, Alberta Transportation

Sukhy Kent, Saskatchewan Highways and Infrastructure

Steven Kodama and Stephen Buckley, City of Toronto

David LeBoutillier, City of Saskatoon

Bruno Marquis, Ministere des Transports, de la Mobilite durable et de l'Electrification des

Jo-Anne Moore and Anna Valliant, City of Ottawa

John Morrissey, Newfoundland and Labrador Transportation and Works

Stephanie Roller, Transport Canada

Brian Sorensen, New Brunswick Transportation and Infrastructure

Jeff Spares, Halifax Regional Municipality

Scott Suderman and Neil Myska (in memoriam), City of Winnipeg

Sandra Majkic, Transportation Association of Canada (Project Manager)

June 2017 iii

Michael Chiu, WSP I MMM Group (Project Manager)

Carl Clayton, Stantec Consulting (Co-Project Manager)

Geoff Millen, WSP I MMM Group

Jim Dowell, WSP I MMM Group

Jeff Ward, WSPIMMM Group

Dean Cooper, Stantec Consulting

Dr. Alison Smiley, Human Factors North

Tom Smahel, Human Factors North

Gavin Davidson, Alta Planning

Jeff Olson, Alta Planning

Isabelle Groulx (Editor), Stantec Consulting

Senior Review Panel:

Dr. John Morrall, Canadian Highways Institute

Gerry Smith, GCS Technology

BACKGROUND TO THE GUIDE

PURPOSE OF THE GUIDE

Intersections and Modern Roundabouts

CONTENT OF THE GUIDE

1.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1

1.1.1 What Is Design? ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.3 The Goal Of Design ................................................................................................................. 3

1.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 8

1.3. 3 Environ me nta I Im pacts And Aesthetics ............................................................................... 16

1. 3.4 .3 Vehicle 0 perati ng Costs ...................................................................................................... 17

June 2017 vii

1.4 THE DESIGN DOMAIN CONCEPT .............................................................................................18